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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2175.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
4. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1, 6 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 and claim 6 are broader than claim 12 of Pat No. 12,204,489 (omits the "receiving expressions" and "resource constraints" limitations), and is an obvious variant that reads entirely on the patent's claim 12 scope. A broader claim in a later-filed application is never patentably distinct from a narrower claim in an earlier patent. See MPEP § 804.02.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 limitation is already expressly recited in the body of independent claim 12 in Pat No. 12,204,489.
7. Claim 3 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 22 combined in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 15 and 22 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 3 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the combination of claims 16 and 23 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 16 and 23 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 4 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
9. Claim 5 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 24 combined in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 17 and 24 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 5 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 7 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
11. Claim 8 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 8 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
12. Claim 9 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 9 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
13. Claim 10 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over combination of claims 20 and 25-27 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 20 and 25-27 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 10 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
14. Claim 11 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 in Patent No. 12,204,489. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the US Patent No. 12,204,489 are similar in scope to claim 11 of the present application with only an obvious variant.
15. Claims 12-20 are not patentably distinct from the method claims of Pat No. 12,204,489. The non-transitory machine-readable medium form of claims 12-20 is an obvious variant of the method claims of Pat No. 12,204,489, specifically claims 12–27. Encoding a known method onto a non-transitory medium is a purely formal, conventional, and obvious step that creates no patentable distinction.
Present Application
Pat No. 12,204,489
1. A method for partitioning executable operations for a reconfigurable computing system, the method comprising: generating a candidate partition of a plurality of operations having dependencies; seeding the candidate partition with an operation, recursively generating an additional candidate partition for each operation adjacent to the candidate partition whose dependent operations are already within the candidate partition or a previously selected partition, and selecting a best candidate partition based on resource cost.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the candidate partition, the additional candidate partitions, and the best candidate partition, each conform to resource constraints for the reconfigurable computing system.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining if the candidate partition is redundant; and terminating recursion on the candidate partition in response to determining the candidate partition is redundant.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining if the candidate partition is unlikely to produce a solution; and terminating recursion on the candidate partition in response to determining the candidate partition is unlikely to produce a solution.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining if the candidate partition has a lower resource cost than previous candidate partitions; and saving the candidate partition as the best candidate partition for the corresponding reconfigurable unit responsive to determining that the candidate partition has a lower resource cost than previous candidate partitions.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving expressions for the reconfigurable computing system, wherein the expressions comprise the plurality of operations and the dependencies for those operations, and the reconfigurable computing system comprises a plurality of reconfigurable units; partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions wherein each selected executable partition conforms to resource constraints for a reconfigurable unit of the plurality of reconfigurable units.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein partitioning is continued until each operation of the plurality of operations is assigned to a selected executable partition.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions comprises generating a tree of possible partitions.
9. The method of claim 6, further comprising determining if the best candidate partition fits within a reconfigurable unit of the plurality of reconfigurable units.
10. The method of claim 6, further comprising: allocating one or more corresponding reconfigurable units of the plurality of reconfigurable units for each of the selected executable partitions; configuring each of the one or more corresponding reconfigurable units using a corresponding executable partition of the selected executable partitions to produce a plurality of configured units; and processing data using the plurality of configured units; wherein configuring each corresponding reconfigurable unit comprises providing configuration instructions.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising adding the candidate partition to a set of visited partitions.
12. A method for partitioning executable operations for a reconfigurable computing system, the method comprising: receiving expressions for a reconfigurable computing system comprising a plurality of reconfigurable units, wherein the expressions comprise a plurality of operations and dependencies for those operations; partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions wherein each selected executable partition conforms to resource constraints for a reconfigurable unit of the plurality of reconfigurable units; and wherein partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions comprises: seeding a candidate partition with an operation, recursively generating an additional candidate partition for each operation adjacent to the candidate partition whose dependent operations are already within the candidate partition or a previously selected partition, and selecting a best candidate partition based on resource cost.
Claim 12 + implicit resource constraint (subsumed)
15. The method of claim 12, further comprising determining if the candidate partition is redundant.
22. The method of claim 15, further comprising terminating recursion on the candidate partition in response to determining the candidate partition is redundant.
16. The method of claim 12, further comprising determining if the candidate partition is unlikely to produce a solution.
23. The method of claim 16, further comprising terminating recursion on the candidate partition in response to determining the candidate partition is unlikely to produce a solution.
17. The method of claim 12, further comprising determining if the candidate partition has a lower resource cost than previous candidate partitions.
24. The method of claim 17, further comprising saving the candidate partition as the best candidate partition for a corresponding reconfigurable unit responsive to determining that the candidate partition has a lower resource cost than previous candidate partitions.
Claim 12 (subsumed)
13. The method of claim 12, wherein partitioning is continued until each of the plurality of operations is assigned to a selected executable partition.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions comprises generating a tree of possible partitions.
18. The method of claim 12, further comprising determining if the best candidate partition fits within a configurable unit.
20. The method of claim 12, further comprising allocating one or more corresponding reconfigurable units of the plurality of reconfigurable units for each of the selected executable partitions.
25. The method of claim 20, further comprising configuring each of the one or more corresponding reconfigurable units using a corresponding executable partition of the selected executable partitions to produce a plurality of configured units.
26. The method of claim 25, further comprising processing data using the plurality of configured units.
27. The method of claim 25, wherein configuring each corresponding reconfigurable unit comprises providing configuration instructions.
19. The method of claim 12, further comprising adding the candidate partition to a set of visited partitions.
In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 189 (ccPA 1963).
Claim Objections - 35 USC § 112
The term "adjacent to the candidate partition" in claim 1 is somewhat ambiguous, it could refer to graph-adjacency (operations directly connected by an edge to operations in the current partition) or spatial/temporal proximity. The Specification (see published application 20250156372A1, ¶ 115, 120, 123) provides adequate support that "adjacent" refers to operations directly connected by a dependency edge in the compute graph. Accordingly, no § 112(b) rejection is made, but Applicant is encouraged to clarify this term in any response to ensure compact prosecution.
The term "resource cost" in claims 1 and 12 is a functional recitation. The Specification provides examples of resource cost as including compute resources, memory resources, and address generation resources. No § 112(b) rejection is made, but Applicant may wish to clarify whether "resource cost" encompasses only hardware utilization or also includes metrics such as inter-partition communication cost.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
17. Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Owens et al. (“Owens”) (US No. 7,589,719).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Owens reference; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
In regard to claims 1, 12, Owens discloses a method for partitioning executable operations for a reconfigurable computing system: generating a candidate partition of a plurality of operations having dependencies (as shown in Fig. 2, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Owens discloses a method... for partitioning operations where a partitioning module 130 partitions a plurality of operations 110 into a plurality of smaller programs 120 for execution by a processor. The method explicitly partitions a plurality of operations for execution on hardware resources. Receiving a plurality of operations to be partitioned and constructing a DAG (directed acyclic graph) based on the operations, where the DAG reflects a relationship and dependency between the operations. Operations are placed into partitions (candidate partitions) iteratively. Dependencies are explicitly represented by the DAG edges. See Col. 3:19-47; Abstract);
PNG
media_image1.png
706
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
seeding the candidate partition with an operation (in Owens, initializing the partitioning by adding an initial child node to the ready list and subsequently scheduling operations into a partition starting with a first ready operation. "Initially, child nodes #1, #2, #8, and #9 are added to the ready list" and the algorithm begins placing them in a partition. The initial seeding of a partition with a first ready operation corresponds to "seeding the candidate partition with an operation." See FIG. 4, element 406. See Col. 5:49-65), recursively generating an additional candidate partition for each operation adjacent to the candidate partition whose dependent operations are already within the candidate partition or a previously selected partition (in Owens, "a node preferably is added to the ready list when all of its children have been added to the partition" (i.e., an operation becomes a candidate for inclusion only when its dependent (predecessor/child)) operations are already scheduled in the current or prior partitions. The method iterates through the ready list, evaluating adjacent operations whose dependencies are satisfied. FIG. 4 (element 424) adds new ready operations to the ready list after each scheduling step. See col. 5:60 thru col. 6:33), and selecting a best candidate partition based on resource cost (in Owens, selecting a partition that satisfies hardware resource constraints (hard and soft constraints). The method evaluates whether adding an operation violates hardware constraints (FIG. 4, element 421). The method includes a rollback mechanism to revert to a "best" state: "the partition is rolled back... to a time... which was the most recent time that all hard and soft constraints were met." Prioritization based on resource usage (Sethi-Ullman numbers) also minimizes resource cost. See col. 6:18-33). To the extent Owens' processor is not expressly described as a "reconfigurable" processor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply Owens' partition method to a reconfigurable processor, as CGRAs and FPGAs were well-known targets for such partitioning (see, e.g., Prabhakar et al., Plasticine, ISCA '17, cited by Applicant). The iterative consideration of operations adjacent to the growing partition which is conditioned on dependency satisfaction that maps to the "recursively generating an additional candidate partition" limitation. The distinction between iterative and recursive generation would have been obvious as a matter of design choice. Selecting a partition whose resource constraints are met and rolling back to a best partition state maps to "selecting a best candidate partition based on resource cost". A POSITA would recognize that optimizing resource cost is inherent in constraint-satisfaction-based partitioning. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the claimed invention before the effective filing date would have been motivated to apply Owens priority-based partitioning method to reconfigurable computing systems such as CGRAs. The prior art (including Applicant's own cited references: Prabhakar et al., Plasticine, ISCA '17; Zhang et al., SARA, ISCA 2021) establishes that partitioning dataflow graphs for CGRA hardware was a well-known problem. Owens provides an efficient, resource-aware partitioning method. Combining Owens partitioning algorithm with known CGRA systems would have been obvious as it applies a known solution (priority-based, resource-constrained partitioning) to a recognized problem (CGRA dataflow graph partitioning) with predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
In regard to claims 2 and 13, Owens recites that each candidate partition conforms to resource constraints for the reconfigurable computing system (in Owens, explicitly teaches that partitions must satisfy "hard" and "soft" hardware resource constraints. See Col. 5:66 thru col. 6:55 (A hard constraint is violated when the number of operations exceeds 8 at time 531). The limitation is anticipated by and/or obvious over Owens for the same reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claims 3, 13, Owens recites determining if the candidate partition is redundant; and terminating recursion on the candidate partition in response to determining the candidate partition is redundant (in Owens, teaches identifying when a node violates constraints and avoiding redundant scheduling of that node: If the node violates an input constraint (element 432) the node is removed from the ready list without scheduling it in this stage. See Col. 6:1-55. Additionally, Owens rollback mechanism effectively terminates exploration of a failed partition branch). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to extend Owens constraint-checking to explicitly detect and terminate exploration of redundant (duplicate) partitions as a routine optimization, particularly given that exploring identical partition states is wasteful computation.
In regard to claims 4, 14, Owens recites determining if the candidate partition is unlikely to produce a solution; and terminating recursion. Owens multi-pass method includes pruning mechanisms: when a hard constraint is violated, the ready list is cleared and the partition rolls back (element 434). This is effectively a determination that the current partition state is unlikely to produce a valid solution. The explicit identification and labeling of a partition as unlikely to produce a solution would have been an obvious extension of Owens rollback/pruning approach that would be a routine optimization within the skill of the art. See MPEP § 2143.
In regard to claim 5, 15 Owens recites comparing resource cost and saving the best candidate partition (in Owens, saves partition states via a rollback stack: a rollback stack in memory is also cleared at this time and rolls back to the most recent time that all hard and soft constraints were met (Col. 6:1-55). The act of retaining the best-cost-partition state corresponds directly to this element. It would have been obvious to explicitly track and compare resource costs across candidate partitions.
In regard to claims 6, 16, Owens further teaches: receiving expressions for the reconfigurable computing system, wherein the expressions comprise the plurality of operations and the dependencies for those operations, and the reconfigurable computing system comprises a plurality of reconfigurable units; partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions wherein each selected executable partition conforms to resource constraints for a reconfigurable unit of the plurality of reconfigurable units (in Owens, teaches receiving a plurality of operations to be partitioned (element 250) and constructing a dependency graph (DAG) from those operations (element 252). "Receiving" operations expressed with dependencies is explicitly disclosed. See col. 3:19-62 (figure 2, elements 250, 252).
In regard to claims 7, 17, Owens teaches wherein partitioning is continued until each operation of the plurality of operations is assigned to a selected executable partition (in Owens, continues iterating: the remainder of elements form a loop that is executed until all nodes are scheduled into a partition. This directly teaches continued partitioning until all operations are assigned. See col. 5:49 thru col. 6:33, figure 4 (loop elements 408-424).
In regard to claims 8, 18, Owens teaches wherein partitioning the plurality of operations into selected executable partitions comprises generating a tree of possible partitions (in Owens, multi-pass partitioning with rollback inherently generates a tree of explored partition states (the rollback stack records branches). See col. 5:49 thru col. 6:33, figure 4 (loop elements 408-424). It would have been obvious to represent the explored partitions as a tree data structure as a standard algorithmic approach for branch-and-bound or backtracking methods known to POSITAs.
In regard to claim 9, Owens further teaches determining if the best candidate partition fits within a reconfigurable unit of the plurality of reconfigurable units (in Owens, checks whether adding each operation violates hardware resource constraints (element 421), which is equivalent to determining whether the candidate partition fits within the resource bounds of the target processing unit. See Col. 6:1-14; Fig. 4 (element 421)
In regard to claims 10, 20, Owens further teaches: allocating one or more corresponding reconfigurable units of the plurality of reconfigurable units for each of the selected executable partitions; configuring each of the one or more corresponding reconfigurable units using a corresponding executable partition of the selected executable partitions to produce a plurality of configured units; and processing data using the plurality of configured units; wherein configuring each corresponding reconfigurable unit comprises providing configuration instructions (in Owens, operations added to the partition are provided to a processor for execution. Allocation of hardware units to run partitioned operations is the natural and obvious next step after partitioning, well within the skill of the art in CGRA compilation. See Abstract; Col. 3:19-47). It would have been obvious to allocate specific reconfigurable units to each partition.
In regard to claim 11, Owens further teaches: adding the candidate partition to a set of visited partitions (in Owens, maintaining a rollback stack that tracks visited partition states. Col. 5:66 thru col. 6:17 states "a rollback stack in memory is also cleared at this time." Maintaining a record of visited partition states to prevent redundant exploration is the functional equivalent of adding partitions to a visited set). This limitation would have been obvious as a straightforward extension of Owens’ rollback mechanism.
Claims 12-20 recite the same method limitations as claims 1-11, respectively, but are cast in non-transitory machine-readable medium form. The rejection of claims 1-11 applies with equal force to claims 12-20. The non-transitory medium limitation merely recites a physical medium encoded with instructions for performing the rejected methods, which does not lend patentability. See MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
19. All claims are rejected.
20. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eisen et al. (US No. 9,977,678) disclose the mode control signal is also used to partition clusters of the execution slices within the processor core according to whether single-threaded or multi-threaded operation is selected, and additionally according to a number of hardware threads that are active.
Kanstein et al. (US No. 8,261,042) disclose the device comprises a plurality of functional units capable of executing word- or subword-level operations on data. The device further comprises means for interconnecting the plurality of functional units, the means for interconnecting supporting a plurality of dynamically switchable interconnect arrangements, and at least one of the interconnect arrangements interconnects the plurality of functional units into at least two non-overlapping processing units each with a pre-determined topology.
Crosmer et al. (US No. 7,676,608) disclose the system includes a memory, a bus controller communicatively coupled to the memory via a memory bus, and a MILS controller communicatively coupled to the bus controller via a host-side bus, the MILS controller configured for monitoring and controlling system transactions. T
Van Lunteren (US Pub No. 2017/0139629) discloses a reconfigurable computing device having a plurality of reconfigurable partitions and that is adapted to perform parallel processing of operand data by the partitions is provided. The computing system includes a memory device that is adapted to store configuration data to configure the partitions of the computing device, to store operand data to be processed by the configured partitions and to store processing results of the operand data.
Kim et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0079498) disclose the method of dynamic resource allocation includes receiving information on a task to which resources are allocated and partitioning the task into one or more task parallel units; converting the task into a task block having a polygonal shape according to expected execution times of the task parallel units and dependency between the task parallel units; allocating resources to the task block by placing the task block on a resource allocation plane having a horizontal axis of time and a vertical axis of processing units.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see hop://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights