DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office action is in response to communications dated 7/6/2026.
Claims 1-12 are amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the claims to cure the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) noted in the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) raised in the non-final Office action dated 4/3/2026 and therefore respectfully withdraws the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) raised therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2019/0332611 (“Kilroy) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,422,710 (“Ehrlich”) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,934,295 (“Sarferaz”).
As per claim 1, Kilroy substantially teaches a system (Kilroy, Figure 1) comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 1, reference numerals 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, and 116; and paragraphs 0018-0036, where the system of Kilroy includes multiple servers and databases that may be implemented using, for example, desktop computers. As evidenced by the previously-attached non-patent literature “What is a desktop computer?”, which is not relied upon by the Examiner for any rejection but is merely and only provided as evidence, a desktop computer includes a Central Processing Unit (CPU), which is a processor, and Random Access Memory (RAM), which is a memory that stores instructions for execution by the CPU. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the system to);
generate results of an algorithm executed based on receipt of a command; save the generated results generated by the execution of the algorithm to a random access memory (RAM) in-memory cache or a temporary on-disk cache of a data server, wherein the generated results are subject to regular removal for memory conservation; serialize the generated results to generate serialized results: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 4; Figure 5; and paragraphs 0074-0078 and 0088-0093, where a processor of Kilroy may execute instructions to perform an algorithm for aggregate records modeling. As a result of the algorithm for aggregate records modeling, composite keys (i.e., results) may be generated that are stored to a memory of a server (i.e., a data server). When retrieving a selected record, the system of Kilroy may use deserialization circuitry to deserialize the selected record and provide the deserialized selected record. The Examiner notes that requiring deserialization of the selected record when retrieving the selected record means that the selected record must have been serialized for storage. This means that the system of Kilroy must serialize composite keys (i.e., the results) for storage and thus must include serializing the composite keys (i.e., the records). Serialized composite keys may be stored to storage devices, such as magnetic disks. The Examiner notes that results of Kilroy that are generated due to executing the algorithm for aggregate records modeling (i.e., results generated by execution of the aggregate records modeling algorithm) may be stored to a cache. The cache of Kilroy may be a block within memory (i.e., RAM) and is thus an in-memory RAM cache. As noted in the non-patent literature document “In-Memory Cache” submitted by Applicant on 7/6/2026, which is not relied upon by the Examiner for any rejection but is used merely and only as evidence, an in-memory cache, which may be a cache that resides in RAM, uses a time-to-live (TTL) setting or another explicit eviction policy to control eviction from the in-memory cache; this means that an in-memory cache is, by definition, subject to regular eviction (i.e., removal) of cached data to ensure efficient use of the in-memory cache (i.e., for memory conservation). The Examiner notes that the system of Kilroy may derialize results retrieved from disk (i.e., an archival cache), which means that generated results that are stored to disk must be serialized prior to storage to the disk. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches generate results of an algorithm executed based on receipt of a command; save the generated results generated by the execution of the algorithm to a random access memory (RAM) in-memory cache or a temporary on-disk cache of a data server, wherein the generated results are subject to regular removal for memory conservation; serialize the generated results to generate serialized results).
Kilroy does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Ehrlich teaches handling of verification data in disk drive cache.
As per claim 1, Ehrlich particularly teaches:
a cache stored on a disk: (Ehrlich, FIG. 8; and column 11, line 51, to column 12, line 58, where the system of Ehrlich stores a validated copy of data in media cache of an HDD (i.e., in a cache stored on a disk). Ehrlich therefore particularly teaches a cache stored on a disk).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ehrlich and Kilroy before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Kilroy to includes the principles of Ehrlich of using a media cache to store validated data.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance by implementing a disk cache that uses management operations to free media cache space in order to increase the amount of available media cache (Ehrlich, column 11, lines 27-43).
Neither Kilroy nor Ehrlich appears to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Sarferaz teaches in-memory data warehouse planning and broadcasting.
As per claim 1, Sarferaz particularly teaches:
store the serialized results onto an archival cache stored on the disk, wherein the serialized results are archived for reuse and not subject to removal for memory conservation: (Sarferaz, Abstract; and column 14, lines 52-62, where data that is no longer needed to be stored in memory is stored to an archival store (e.g., disk or other storage media) for long-term, archival storage. The Examiner notes that archiving data to long-term, archival storage means that the data stored to the long-term, archival storage is not subject to removal for memory conservation. Sarferaz therefore particularly teaches store the serialized results onto an archival cache stored on the disk, wherein the serialized results are archived for reuse and not subject to removal for memory conservation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sarferaz, Ehrlich, and Kilroy before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the combination of Ehrlich with Kilroy to include the principles of Sarferaz of archiving data to an in memory warehouse.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance and flexibility by implementing techniques to share system resources across several analytics servers (Sarferaz, column 12, lines 11-32).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kilroy further substantially teaches:
wherein the command indicates which generated results to serialize and save on the archival on-disk cache: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 4; Figure 5; and paragraphs 0077-0078 and 0088-0093, where a processor of Kilroy may execute instructions to perform an algorithm for aggregate records modeling. As a result of the algorithm for aggregate records modeling, composite keys (i.e., results) may be generated that are stored to a memory of a server (i.e., a data server). When retrieving a selected record, the system of Kilroy may use deserialization circuitry to deserialize the selected record and provide the deserialized selected record. The Examiner notes that requiring deserialization of the selected record when retrieving the selected record means that the selected record must have been serialized for storage. This means that the system of Kilroy must serialize composite keys (i.e., the results) for storage and thus must include serializing the composite keys (i.e., the records). Serialized composite keys may be stored to storage devices, such as magnetic disks. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches wherein the command indicates which generated results to serialize and save on the archival on-disk cache).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kilroy further substantially teaches:
wherein the generated results are keyed by a plurality of keys: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 4; Figure 5; and paragraphs 0077-0078 and 0088-0093, where a processor of Kilroy may execute instructions to perform an algorithm for aggregate records modeling. As a result of the algorithm for aggregate records modeling, composite keys (i.e., results) may be generated that are stored to a memory of a server (i.e., a data server). When retrieving a selected record, the system of Kilroy may use deserialization circuitry to deserialize the selected record and provide the deserialized selected record. The Examiner notes that requiring deserialization of the selected record when retrieving the selected record means that the selected record must have been serialized for storage. This means that the system of Kilroy must serialize composite keys (i.e., the results) for storage and thus must include serializing the composite keys (i.e., the records). Serialized composite keys may be stored to storage devices, such as magnetic disks. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches wherein the generated results are keyed by a plurality of keys).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kilroy further substantially teaches wherein the instructions further configured the system to:
deserialize the serialized results; and retrieve the deserialized results from the disk: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 4; Figure 5; and paragraphs 0077-0078 and 0088-0093, where a processor of Kilroy may execute instructions to perform an algorithm for aggregate records modeling. As a result of the algorithm for aggregate records modeling, composite keys (i.e., results) may be generated that are stored to a memory of a server (i.e., a data server). When retrieving a selected record, the system of Kilroy may use deserialization circuitry to deserialize the selected record and provide the deserialized selected record. The Examiner notes that requiring deserialization of the selected record when retrieving the selected record means that the selected record must have been serialized for storage. This means that the system of Kilroy must serialize composite keys (i.e., the results) for storage and thus must include serializing the composite keys (i.e., the records). Serialized composite keys may be stored to storage devices, such as magnetic disks. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches deserialize the serialized results; and retrieve the deserialized results from the disk).
As per claim 5, Kilroy substantially teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to (Kilroy, Figure 1; and paragraph 0088):
generate results of an algorithm executed based on receipt of a command; save the generated results generated by the execution of the algorithm to a random access memory (RAM) in-memory cache or a temporary on-disk cache of a dataserver, wherein the results are subject to regular removal for memory conservation; serialize the results to generate serialized results; and store the serialized results onto a disk: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 4; Figure 5; and paragraphs 0074-0078 and 0088-0093, where a processor of Kilroy may execute instructions to perform an algorithm for aggregate records modeling. As a result of the algorithm for aggregate records modeling, composite keys (i.e., results) may be generated that are stored to a memory of a server (i.e., a data server). When retrieving a selected record, the system of Kilroy may use deserialization circuitry to deserialize the selected record and provide the deserialized selected record. The Examiner notes that requiring deserialization of the selected record when retrieving the selected record means that the selected record must have been serialized for storage. This means that the system of Kilroy must serialize composite keys (i.e., the results) for storage and thus must include serializing the composite keys (i.e., the records). Serialized composite keys may be stored to storage devices, such as magnetic disks. The Examiner notes that results of Kilroy that are generated due to executing the algorithm for aggregate records modeling (i.e., results generated by execution of the aggregate records modeling algorithm) may be stored to a cache. The cache of Kilroy may be a block within memory (i.e., RAM) and is thus an in-memory RAM cache. As noted in the non-patent literature document “In-Memory Cache” submitted by Applicant on 7/6/2026, which is not relied upon by the Examiner for any rejection but is used merely and only as evidence, an in-memory cache, which may be a cache that resides in RAM, uses a time-to-live (TTL) setting or another explicit eviction policy to control eviction from the in-memory cache; this means that an in-memory cache is, by definition, subject to regular eviction (i.e., removal) of cached data to ensure efficient use of the in-memory cache (i.e., for memory conservation). The Examiner notes that the system of Kilroy may derialize results retrieved from disk (i.e., an archival cache), which means that generated results that are stored to disk must be serialized prior to storage to the disk. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches generate results of an algorithm executed based on receipt of a command; save the generated results generated by the execution of the algorithm to a random access memory (RAM) in-memory cache or a temporary on-disk cache of a dataserver, wherein the results are subject to regular removal for memory conservation; serialize the results to generate serialized results; and store the serialized results onto a disk).
Kilroy does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Ehrlich teaches handling of verification data in disk drive cache.
As per claim 5, Ehrlich particularly teaches:
a cache stored on a disk: (Ehrlich, FIG. 8; and column 11, line 51, to column 12, line 58, where the system of Ehrlich stores a validated copy of data in media cache of an HDD (i.e., in a cache stored on a disk). Ehrlich therefore particularly teaches a cache stored on a disk).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ehrlich and Kilroy before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Kilroy to includes the principles of Ehrlich of using a media cache to store validated data.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance by implementing a disk cache that uses management operations to free media cache space in order to increase the amount of available media cache (Ehrlich, column 11, lines 27-43).
Neither Kilroy nor Ehrlich appears to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Sarferaz teaches in-memory data warehouse planning and broadcasting.
As per claim 5, Sarferaz particularly teaches:
store the serialized results onto an archival cache stored on the disk, wherein the serialized results are archived for reuse and not subject to removal for memory conservation: (Sarferaz, Abstract; and column 14, lines 52-62, where data that is no longer needed to be stored in memory is stored to an archival store (e.g., disk or other storage media) for long-term, archival storage. The Examiner notes that archiving data to long-term, archival storage means that the data stored to the long-term, archival storage is not subject to removal for memory conservation. Sarferaz therefore particularly teaches store the serialized results onto an archival cache stored on the disk, wherein the serialized results are archived for reuse and not subject to removal for memory conservation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sarferaz, Ehrlich, and Kilroy before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the combination of Ehrlich with Kilroy to include the principles of Sarferaz of archiving data to an in memory warehouse.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance and flexibility by implementing techniques to share system resources across several analytics servers (Sarferaz, column 12, lines 11-32).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 6 is substantially similar to the language of claim 2. Claim 6 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 7 is substantially similar to the language of claim 3. Claim 7 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 8 is substantially similar to the language of claim 4. Claim 8 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 9, Kilroy substantially teaches a computer-implemented method (Kilroy, Figure 1; Figure 4; and Figure 5) comprising:
generating, by a processor, results of an algorithm executed based on a command; saving, by the processor, the generated results generated by the execution of the algorithm to a random access memory (RAM) in-memory cache or a temporary on-disk cache of a dataserver, wherein the results are subject to regular removal for memory conservation; serializing, by the processor, the results to generate serialized results; and storing, by the processor, the serialized results onto a disk: (Kilroy, Abstract; Figure 4; Figure 5; and paragraphs 0074-0078 and 0088-0093, where a processor of Kilroy may execute instructions to perform an algorithm for aggregate records modeling. As a result of the algorithm for aggregate records modeling, composite keys (i.e., results) may be generated that are stored to a memory of a server (i.e., a data server). When retrieving a selected record, the system of Kilroy may use deserialization circuitry to deserialize the selected record and provide the deserialized selected record. The Examiner notes that requiring deserialization of the selected record when retrieving the selected record means that the selected record must have been serialized for storage. This means that the system of Kilroy must serialize composite keys (i.e., the results) for storage and thus must include serializing the composite keys (i.e., the records). Serialized composite keys may be stored to storage devices, such as magnetic disks. The Examiner notes that results of Kilroy that are generated due to executing the algorithm for aggregate records modeling (i.e., results generated by execution of the aggregate records modeling algorithm) may be stored to a cache. The cache of Kilroy may be a block within memory (i.e., RAM) and is thus an in-memory RAM cache. As noted in the non-patent literature document “In-Memory Cache” submitted by Applicant on 7/6/2026, which is not relied upon by the Examiner for any rejection but is used merely and only as evidence, an in-memory cache, which may be a cache that resides in RAM, uses a time-to-live (TTL) setting or another explicit eviction policy to control eviction from the in-memory cache; this means that an in-memory cache is, by definition, subject to regular eviction (i.e., removal) of cached data to ensure efficient use of the in-memory cache (i.e., for memory conservation). The Examiner notes that the system of Kilroy may derialize results retrieved from disk (i.e., an archival cache), which means that generated results that are stored to disk must be serialized prior to storage to the disk. Kilroy therefore substantially teaches generating, by a processor, results of an algorithm executed based on a command; saving, by the processor, the generated results generated by the execution of the algorithm to a random access memory (RAM) in-memory cache or a temporary on-disk cache of a dataserver, wherein the results are subject to regular removal for memory conservation; serializing, by the processor, the results to generate serialized results; and storing, by the processor, the serialized results onto a disk).
Kilroy does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Ehrlich teaches handling of verification data in disk drive cache.
As per claim 9, Ehrlich particularly teaches:
a cache stored on a disk: (Ehrlich, FIG. 8; and column 11, line 51, to column 12, line 58, where the system of Ehrlich stores a validated copy of data in media cache of an HDD (i.e., in a cache stored on a disk). Ehrlich therefore particularly teaches a cache stored on a disk).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ehrlich and Kilroy before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Kilroy to includes the principles of Ehrlich of using a media cache to store validated data.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance by implementing a disk cache that uses management operations to free media cache space in order to increase the amount of available media cache (Ehrlich, column 11, lines 27-43).
Neither Kilroy nor Ehrlich appears to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art, Sarferaz teaches in-memory data warehouse planning and broadcasting.
As per claim 9, Sarferaz particularly teaches:
storing, by the processor, the serialized results to an archival cache, wherein the serialized results are archived for reuse and not subject to removal for memory conservation: (Sarferaz, Abstract; and column 14, lines 52-62, where data that is no longer needed to be stored in memory is stored to an archival store (e.g., disk or other storage media) for long-term, archival storage. The Examiner notes that archiving data to long-term, archival storage means that the data stored to the long-term, archival storage is not subject to removal for memory conservation. Sarferaz therefore particularly teaches storing, by the processor, the serialized results to an archival cache, wherein the serialized results are archived for reuse and not subject to removal for memory conservation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sarferaz, Ehrlich, and Kilroy before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the combination of Ehrlich with Kilroy to include the principles of Sarferaz of archiving data to an in memory warehouse.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system performance and flexibility by implementing techniques to share system resources across several analytics servers (Sarferaz, column 12, lines 11-32).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 10 is substantially similar to the language of claim 2. Claim 10 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 11 is substantially similar to the language of claim 3. Claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, and the Examiner notes that the language of claim 12 is substantially similar to the language of claim 4. Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same references and reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as used in the above rejection of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks dated 7/6/2026, Applicant substantially argues:
Neither Kilroy nor Ehrlich teaches or suggests the claimed combination of features of the amended claims. Ehrlich is not concerned with memory usage or memory conservation and thus fails to teach the limitations added via amendment; Kilroy is concerned with caching and reuse of aggregate-data records and composite keys and thus fails to teach the limitations added via amendment.
Response: Applicant’s arguments dated 7/6/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The Examiner notes that the new Sarferaz reference in combination with Kilroy and Ehrlich clearly teach the limitations added via amendment. The Examiner further notes that the new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The Examiner’s motivation to combine Ehrlich with Kilroy is merely conclusory because Kilroy has nothing to do with validating data on hard disks and already discloses a temporary media cache.
Response: Applicant’s arguments dated 7/6/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The Examiner is uncertain if this argument is directed toward alleged impermissible hindsight reasoning or to an allegation that there is a lack of suggestion to combine Ehrlich with Kilroy and will therefore address each in turn.
Regarding alleged impermissible hindsight reasoning, the Examiner notes that MPEP 2145(X)(A) states "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." The Examiner notes that the motivation to combine Ehrlich with Kilroy was taken directly from the Ehrlich reference and thus “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art” and “does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure,” so “such a reconstruction is proper.” Regarding Applicant’s allegation that Ehrlich and Kilroy cannot be combined, the Examiner points to MPEP 2145(III), which states "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements"; rather, the allegation that Ehrlich and Kilroy cannot be physically combined is “basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole." Applicant’s arguments on this front are therefore not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is a lack of suggestion to combine Ehrlich with Kilroy, the Examiner again references MPEP 2145(III), which states "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In addition, MPEP 2145(III) notes that “it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review." Finally, MPEP 2145(III) states "Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures." The Examiner notes that combining principles (i.e., teachings) of Ehrlich with Kilroy yields a combination that, as a whole, clearly teaches the combination of features explained in the above rejections. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel C. Chappell whose telephone number is (571)272-5003. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800, Eastern.
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, Jared I. Rutz can be reached at (571)272-5535. 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.
Daniel C. Chappell
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2135
/Daniel C. Chappell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights