Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
memory controller in claim 1, support for which was taken as FIG 1: 106 and [0070] of the Specification.
memory controller in claim 11, support for which was taken as FIG 1: 106 and [0070] of the Specification.
host controller in claim 11, support for which was taken as FIG 1: 108 and [0052] of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2,4-6,8-13,15-19,21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bert (US PG PUB No. 2023/0266897) in view of Bensity (US PG PUB No. 2020/0104056) and Frolikov (US PG PUB No. 2020/0341870).
As per claim 1 a memory system (see Bert FIG 1: 110), comprising:
a memory (see Bert FIG 1: 130); and
a memory controller coupled with the memory (see Bert FIG 1: 115), the memory controller comprising a first interface coupled with a host (see FIG 1: 120 and Bert [0032]) and configured to:
control the memory to perform zoned storage by zone, wherein a storage space of a single zone is configured to support sequential write (see Bert [0017]: “For example, the host system can initiate a data operation (e.g., write, read, erase, etc.) on a memory sub-system.”);
[Supporting writes is taken as configured to support sequential write.]
However Bert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Bensity discloses
receive a first command from the host through the first interface comprising mode return information indicating whether memory mode information of a zone is to be returned to the host (see Bensity [0077]: “an example namespace advertisement message format is shown for a resource advertisement message 602 that may be transmitted from a memory device to a host in response to an initial namespace query from the host , for example in response to a namespace identification ( namespace ID ) command from the host”); and
send report zones parameter data to the host through the first interface responsive to the first command, wherein the report zones parameter data includes data specified according to the first command (see Bensity FIG 6: 602 and [0079]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further comprise a query command returning configuration information as taught by Bensity.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more detailed management operations (see Bensity [0077]: “Once this exchange of information between the host and the memory device has taken place , the host can subsequently select the QoS treatment of each command it issues by associating its commands with the namespace ID having the performance attributes it has selected .”).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further implement a query command as taught by Bensity for the benefit of more detailed management operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Bert in view of Bensity does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Frolikov discloses
wherein the memory mode information indicates a memory mode of the zone (see Frolikov [0044]: “Different namespaces (131, . . . , 133) can have different SLC mode settings (e.g., 163). For example, the namespace A (131) can be configured to operate in SLC mode; and the namespace B (133) can be configured to operate in a non-SLC mode (e.g., in MLC/TLC/QLC mode).”), the memory mode being:
a first memory mode responsive to each of memory cells corresponding to storage space of the zone being capable of being written with N-bit data (see Frolikov [0044]: “SLC”); and
a second memory mode responsive each of the memory cells corresponding to the storage space of the zone being capable of being written with M-bit data, wherein M and N are integers not less than 1, and wherein M is greater than N (see Frolikov [0044]: “MLC/TLC/QLC”).
[Bensity discloses advertising and defining parameters but does not expressly disclose the parameters comprise SLC and MLC (see Bensity [0024]: “The host may then define namespaces and different performance parameters for those namespaces based on the advertised capabilities.”).]
It would have been obvious to modify Bert to further acquire a memory mode information as taught by Frolikov.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving storage management (See Frolikov [0035]: “Alternatively, or in combination, the error recovery manager (113) can configure a namespace such that the memory units in the namespace store data in a mode that has a desired level of reliability in data retrieval. “).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further configure mode as taught by Frolikov for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 2, the memory system of claim 1,
wherein the memory controller is configured to: responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is to be returned, generate the report zones parameter data comprising the memory mode information according to the first command (see Bensity FIG 6: 602 and [0077]).
As per claim 4, the memory system of claim 1,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a zone descriptor in the report zones parameter data (see Bensity FIG 6: 602 and [0077]).
As per claim 5, the memory system of claim 4,
wherein the report zone parameter data comprises a zone descriptor list and a public descriptor (see Bensity FIG 6: 606,608 and [0077]-[0078]); the zone descriptor list comprises at least one zone descriptor indicating an own attribute of a corresponding zone (see Bensith FIG 6: 608 and [0078]); and the public descriptor is configured to indicate a public attribute of a plurality of the zones (see Bensity FIG 6: 606 and [0077]).
As per claim 6, The memory system of claim 5,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a four bit field in the zone descriptor (see Bensity FIG 6: 606 and [0079]: “The advertisement and configuration messaging may be accomplished using spare bits or unallocated fields in any of a number of existing administrative commands.”).
As per claim 8, the memory system of claim 5,
wherein the public descriptor comprises a zone list length field, a same field, and a maximum LBA field (see Bensity FIG 6: 606 and [0078]).
As per claim 9, the memory system of claim 1,
wherein the first command comprises a report zones command (see Bensity FIG 6: 606 and [0077]).
As per claim 10, The memory system of claim 1,
wherein the zone is in a zone name space (ZNS) (see Bert [0018]: “zoned namespace”).
As per claim 11, a system (see Bert FIG 1: 100), comprising:
a memory system (see Bert FIG 1; 110) and a host (see Bert FIG 1: 120), wherein:
the memory system comprises:
a memory (see Bert FIG 1: 130); and
a memory controller (see Bert FIG 1: 115) coupled with the memory and comprising a first interface coupled to the host (see Bert [0032]), the memory controller configured to:
control the memory to perform zoned storage, wherein a storage space of a single zone is configured to support sequential write (see Bert [0017]: “For example, the host system can initiate a data operation (e.g., write, read, erase, etc.) on a memory sub-system.”);
[Supporting writes is taken as configured to support sequential write.]
However, Bert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Bensity discloses
receive a first command from the host through the first interface; and send report zones parameter data to the host through the first interface according to the first command, the report zones parameter data including data specified according to the first command (see Bensity [0077]: “an example namespace advertisement message format is shown for a resource advertise ment message 602 that may be transmitted from a memory device to a host in response to an initial namespace query from the host , for example in response to a namespace identification ( namespace ID ) command from the host”)
wherein the host comprises a host controller and a second interface coupled to the first interface, the host controller configured to:
generate the first command (see FIG 7: 704 and [0077]); and
send the first command to the memory controller through the second interface, the first command comprising mode return information indicating whether memory mode information of a zone needs to be returned (see Bensity FIG 7: 708 and [0079]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further comprise a query command returning configuration information as taught by Bensity.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more detailed management operations (see Bensity [0077]: “Once this exchange of information between the host and the memory device has taken place , the host can subsequently select the QoS treatment of each command it issues by associating its commands with the namespace ID having the performance attributes it has selected .”).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further implement a query command as taught by Bensity for the benefit of more detailed management operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Bert in view of Bensity does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Frolikov discloses
wherein the memory mode information indicates a memory mode of the zone (see Frolikov [0044]: “Different namespaces (131, . . . , 133) can have different SLC mode settings (e.g., 163). For example, the namespace A (131) can be configured to operate in SLC mode; and the namespace B (133) can be configured to operate in a non-SLC mode (e.g., in MLC/TLC/QLC mode).”), the memory mode being:
a first memory mode responsive to each of memory cells corresponding to storage space of the zone being capable of being written with N-bit data (see Frolikov [0044]: “SLC”); and
a second memory mode responsive each of the memory cells corresponding to the storage space of the zone being capable of being written with M-bit data, wherein M and N are integers not less than 1, and wherein M is greater than N (see Frolikov [0044]: “MLC/TLC/QLC”).
[Bensity discloses advertising and defining parameters but does not expressly disclose the parameters comprise SLC and MLC (see Bensity [0024]: “The host may then define namespaces and different performance parameters for those namespaces based on the advertised capabilities.”).]
It would have been obvious to modify Bert to further acquire a memory mode information as taught by Frolikov.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving storage management (See Frolikov [0035]: “Alternatively, or in combination, the error recovery manager (113) can configure a namespace such that the memory units in the namespace store data in a mode that has a desired level of reliability in data retrieval. “).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further configure mode as taught by Frolikov for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 12, the system of claim 11,
wherein the memory controller is configured to: responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone needs to be returned, generate the report zones parameter data comprising the memory mode information according to the first command (see Bensity FIG 7: 708 and [0079]).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 12,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a zone descriptor in the report zones parameter data (see Bensity FIG 6: 604 and [0079]).
As per claim 15, the system of claim 14,
wherein the host controller is configured to: generate a corresponding zone write request according to cold and hot attributes of write data (see Bert [0018]); and
send the write data and the zone write request to the memory controller through the second interface, wherein responsive to the write data being hot data, the zone write request is indicates to write the write data into a zone where the memory mode is the first memory mode, and responsive to the write data being non-hot data, the zone write request indicates to write the write data into a zone where the memory mode is the second memory mode, and the memory controller is configured to write the write data into a storage space of a corresponding zone according to the zone write request (see Bert [0018]: “The host system can transmit instructions to the memory sub-system controller to cause host data to be programmed 10 a specified zone based on particular criteria associated with the data (e.g., 10 workload type, file type, etc.).”)
[A write intensive workload type is taken as a hot data and a read intensive workload type is taken as non-hot data (see Bert [0018]: “For example, the host can cause data associated with write-intensive 10 workloads to be programmed to different erase units than data associated with read-intensive 10 workloads.”).]
As per claim 16, the system of claim 13,
wherein the report zone parameter data comprises a zone descriptor list and a public descriptor (see Bensity FIG 6: 606,608 and [0077]-[0078]); the zone descriptor list comprises at least one zone descriptor indicating an own attribute of a corresponding zone (see Bensity FIG 6: 608 and [0078]); and the public descriptor is configured to indicate a public attribute of a plurality of the zones (see Bensity FIG 6: 606 and [0077]).
As per claim 17, an operation method of a memory system (see Bert FIG 1: 110),
wherein the memory system comprises a memory (see Bert FIG 1: 130) and a memory controller (see Bert FIG 1: 115) coupled with the memory, the memory controller comprising a first interface coupled with a host (see Bert [0032]), the method comprising:
receiving a first command through the first interface (see Bert [0017]),
the zone corresponds to a storage space of the memory, and a storage space of a single zone is configured to support sequential write (see Bert [0017]: “For example, the host system can initiate a data operation (e.g., write, read, erase, etc.) on a memory sub-system.”); and
[Supporting writes is taken as configured to support sequential write.]
However, Bert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Bensity discloses
wherein the first command comprises mode return information indicating whether memory mode information of a zone needs to be returned (see Bensity [0077]: “an example namespace advertisement message format is shown for a resource advertise ment message 602 that may be transmitted from a memory device to a host in response to an initial namespace query from the host , for example in response to a namespace identification ( namespace ID ) command from the host”),
sending report zones parameter data through the first interface according to the first command, wherein the report zones parameter data includes data specified according to the first command (See Bensity FIG 7: 704 and [0077]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further comprise a query command returning configuration information as taught by Bensity.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more detailed management operations (see Bensity [0077]: “Once this exchange of information between the host and the memory device has taken place , the host can subsequently select the QoS treatment of each command it issues by associating its commands with the namespace ID having the performance attributes it has selected .”).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further implement a query command as taught by Bensity for the benefit of more detailed management operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Bert in view of Bensity does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Frolikov discloses
wherein the memory mode information indicates a memory mode of the zone (see Frolikov [0044]: “Different namespaces (131, . . . , 133) can have different SLC mode settings (e.g., 163). For example, the namespace A (131) can be configured to operate in SLC mode; and the namespace B (133) can be configured to operate in a non-SLC mode (e.g., in MLC/TLC/QLC mode).”), the memory mode being:
a first memory mode responsive to each of memory cells corresponding to storage space of the zone being capable of being written with N-bit data (see Frolikov [0044]: “SLC”); and
a second memory mode responsive each of the memory cells corresponding to the storage space of the zone being capable of being written with M-bit data, wherein M and N are integers not less than 1, and wherein M is greater than N (see Frolikov [0044]: “MLC/TLC/QLC”).
[Bensity discloses advertising and defining parameters but does not expressly disclose the parameters comprise SLC and MLC (see Bensity [0024]: “The host may then define namespaces and different performance parameters for those namespaces based on the advertised capabilities.”).]
It would have been obvious to modify Bert to further acquire a memory mode information as taught by Frolikov.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving storage management (See Frolikov [0035]: “Alternatively, or in combination, the error recovery manager (113) can configure a namespace such that the memory units in the namespace store data in a mode that has a desired level of reliability in data retrieval. “).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further configure mode as taught by Frolikov for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 18, the operation method according to claim 17,
wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone needs to be returned, sending the report zones parameter data including data specified according to the first command comprises: generating the report zones parameter data comprising the memory mode information according to the first command (See Bensity FIG 7: 704 and [0077]).
As per claim 19, the operation method of claim 18,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a zone descriptor in the report zones parameter data (See Bensity FIG 7: 704 and [0077]).
As per claim 21, the operation method of claim 19,
wherein the report zone parameter data comprises a zone descriptor list and a public descriptor (see Bensity FIG 6: 606,608 and [0077]-[0078]); the zone descriptor list comprises at least one zone descriptor indicating an own attribute of a corresponding zone (see Bensity FIG 6: 608 and [0078]); and the public descriptor is configured to indicate a public attribute of a plurality of the zones (see Bensity FIG 6: 606 and [0077]).
As per claim 22, the operation method of claim 21,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a four-bit field in the zone descriptor (see [0079])
[Bensity discloses the command information may be implemented in any of the known fields and bits.]
Claim 7, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bert (US PG PUB No. 2023/0266897) in view of Bensity (US PG PUB No. 2020/0104056) and Frolikov (US PG PUB No. 2020/0341870) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Kim (US PG PUB No. 2023/0129727).
As per claim 7, the memory system of claim 5,
However, Bert in view of Bensity and Frolikov does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses
wherein the zone descriptor further comprises a zone type field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: ID), a zone state field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: ATTRIB), a zone length field (see Kim FIG 3: CAPA), a zone start logical address field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: ZSLBA), and a write pointer field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: WP)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Bert to comprise zone descriptor as taught by Kim.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of a more detailed zone configuration and management (see Kim [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert in view of Bensity to further comprise additional descriptor fields as taught by Kim for the benefit of more detailed zone configuration and management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 23, Bert in view of Bensity and Frolikov disclose the operation method of claim 21,
wherein the zone descriptor further comprises a zone type field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: ID), a zone state field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: ATTRIB), a zone length field (see Kim FIG 3: CAPA), a zone start logical address field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: ZSLBA), and a write pointer field (see e.g., Kim FIG 3: WP)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Bert to comprise zone descriptor as taught by Kim.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of a more detailed zone configuration and management (see Kim [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert in view of Bensity to further comprise additional descriptor fields as taught by Kim for the benefit of more detailed zone configuration and management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT
The provisional double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
1st ARGUMENT:
First, Applicant's claims recite a communication flow from the host to a memory controller in to provide the first command. To teach Applicant's claimed receiving a first command, the Office Action relies on Bensity's paragraph [0077]. Id. However, Bensity clearly states the resource advertisement message "may be transmitted from a memory device to a host in response to an initial namespace query from the host." Thus, Bensity describes transmitting the resource advertisement message from the memory device to the host in response to a query, or in other words, the memory device advertising its capabilities to the host. This is in direct contrast to Applicant's claimed receipt at the memory controller from the host of a first command through the first interface comprising mode return information indicating whether memory mode information of a zone is to be returned to the host. Indeed, Bensity appears wholly silent with respect to any consideration of a memory mode in connection with the resource advertisement message.
Examiner maintains the query from the host corresponds to the claimed first command, where the query necessarily specifies whether information about the zone is to be returned to the host. The memory device in Bensity, like the claimed invention, returns the information in response to a receipt of a query from the host. The query returns the memory mode information because the query returns the attributes of the zone.
2nd ARGUMENT:
Second, the claimed mode return information indicates whether memory mode
information is to be returned. Bensity simply advertises all available capabilities. Bensity has no mechanism for the host to selectively request whether specific information should be returned.
Bensity discloses returning specific memory information in response to a query command, and therefore Bensity discloses a host to selectively request whether specific information should be returned. The claimed invention does not require the subject matter Applicant is arguing because the claims do not specify, for example, only requesting the memory mode information. Claims 5 and 21 further specify memory mode information comprises a zone descriptor, suggesting memory mode information comprises an open ended range of information.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arpan Savla can be reached on 571-272-1077. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KALPIT PARIKH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
KALPIT . PARIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights