DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. However, FIG. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 11 in the file wrapper do not meet this requirement — see, for example, the array of white dots that causes the lines, text, and numbers to appear fuzzy and blurry. As three examples (note that this is not a comprehensive list of examples), see the bottom half of the “y” in “Memory” in block 108; “200” in FIG. 2; and the lead lines associated with 1100 to 1104 in FIG. 11) This may be caused by dithering being applied when a conversion from greyscale to black has taken place; if so, Examiner recommends ensuring that any drawings to be filed do not contain any grey elements.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “… pattern-based predictor structure…” in claims 1 and 13.
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. In particular, the aforementioned pattern-based predictor structure is being interpreted to cover pattern history table(s) (see paragraph [0056]).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a pass” in line 5. However, it is indefinite as to whether this pass is the same as, or different from, “a pass” as recited in claim 2, lines 2-3.
Claim 3 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the system” in line 1. However, the antecedent basis for this limitation is indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the computer system”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “A computer system … the computer system configured to: generate a first output of a pattern-based predictor structure and a second output of the pattern-based predictor structure by generating a new line index of the pattern-based predictor structure and an intraline index of the pattern-based predictor structure using a line entry instruction address, a global path vector (GPV) leading up to the line entry instruction address, and an intraline counter of predicted taken branches” in lines 1-9. However, there is no indication about how the recited function (i.e., generating) is performed, as the recited function does not appear to follow from the structure recited in the claim, e.g. the memory, the processor, or the pattern-based predictor structure. As such, it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the machine in a certain manner. Specifying a particular structure that performs the recited function, provided such an amendment is supported by the original disclosure, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claims 14-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 13 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the computer system is further configured to: … select one of the first output and the second output based on a result of the prediction pipeline; and predict a direction of a branch using the selected one of the first output and the second output” in lines 1-8. However, there is no indication about how the recited functions (i.e., selecting and predicting) are performed, as the recited functions do not appear to follow from the structures recited in the claim, e.g. the memory, the processor, or the pattern-based predictor structure. As such, it is unclear whether the functions require some other structure or are simply a result of operating the machine in a certain manner. Specifying a particular structure that performs the recited functions, provided such an amendment is supported by the original disclosure, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “it is known whether the first output or the second output will be used in a prediction pipeline” in lines 3-4. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, at least in part in view of the passive language, this limitation is unclear as to what entity is knowing or not knowing. For example, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite in that whether the claim is infringed might appear to depend on what an outside person knows, which may not be able to be determined.
Claims 15-19 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 14 above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the computer system of claim 15, wherein the computer system is further configured to dynamically determine the region of code by selecting the anchor point based on an event” in lines 1-2. However, there is no indication about how the recited function (i.e., determining by selecting) is performed, as the recited function does not appear to follow from the structure recited in the claim, e.g. the memory, the processor, or the pattern-based predictor structure. As such, it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the machine in a certain manner. Specifying a particular structure that performs the recited function, provided such an amendment is supported by the original disclosure, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claim 18 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “The computer system of claim 13, wherein the computer system is further configured to reduce a size of the GPV in response to a value of the intraline counter increasing” in lines 1-2. However, there is no indication about how the recited function (i.e., reducing) is performed, as the recited function does not appear to follow from the structure recited in the claim, e.g. the memory, the processor, or the pattern-based predictor structure. As such, it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the machine in a certain manner. Specifying a particular structure that performs the recited function, provided such an amendment is supported by the original disclosure, would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levitan et al. (Levitan) (US 20150331691 A1).
Consider claim 1, Levitan discloses a method of branch prediction ([0014], lines 1-2, branch prediction) in a processor ([0014], line 2, computer processors), the method comprising: generating a new line index ([0024], lines 6-8, index (generation) units 206, 208, 210, 212 can generate indexes for different history lengths of the GHV; [0024], line 6, branch address) and an intraline index ([0024], lines 6-8, index (generation) units 206, 208, 210, 212 can generate indexes for different history lengths of the GHV; [0024], line 6, branch address); generating a first output of a pattern-based predictor structure using the new line index ([0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path); generating a second output of the pattern-based predictor structure using the intraline index ([0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path); selecting one of the first output and the second output based on a result of a prediction pipeline ([0027], lines 16-19, if the result of the hash function matches the tag value, then the corresponding prediction can be selected using selection (e.g., multiplexing) units 230, 232, 234, 236; [0028], lines 1-11, as depicted, the selection process can be configured to preferentially select a matched prediction from a longer history vector over a matched prediction with a shorter history vector. Moreover, if none of the prediction paths in the TAGE unit 204 result in a match, the prediction from the base predictor 202 can be used. Consistent with various embodiments, variations in the selection logic can be used. For instance, the prediction selection can be based upon a consensus of predictions in the different paths (e.g., by giving each path with a match a vote and selecting the branch prediction with the most votes)); and predicting a direction of a branch using the selected one of the first output and the second output ([0002], lines 11-13, branch prediction techniques can be used to guess whether or not the conditional branch will be taken, before it is known for certain; [0016], lines 11-13, the predictor table can be continually updated based upon whether or not conditional branches have been taken).
Consider claim 2, Levitan discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), wherein: the generating the new line index and the intraline index is triggered at a first cycle of a pass of the prediction pipeline ([0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path); and the result of the prediction pipeline is a result of a second cycle of the pass of the prediction pipeline after the first cycle of a pass of the prediction pipeline ([0027], lines 16-19, if the result of the hash function matches the tag value, then the corresponding prediction can be selected using selection (e.g., multiplexing) units 230, 232, 234, 236; [0028], lines 1-11, as depicted, the selection process can be configured to preferentially select a matched prediction from a longer history vector over a matched prediction with a shorter history vector. Moreover, if none of the prediction paths in the TAGE unit 204 result in a match, the prediction from the base predictor 202 can be used. Consistent with various embodiments, variations in the selection logic can be used. For instance, the prediction selection can be based upon a consensus of predictions in the different paths (e.g., by giving each path with a match a vote and selecting the branch prediction with the most votes)).
Consider claim 3, Levitan discloses the method of claim 2 (see above), wherein the predicting the direction of the branch using the selected one of the first output and the second output is performed in another pass of the prediction pipeline ([0016], lines 11-13, the predictor table can be continually updated based upon whether or not conditional branches have been taken).
Consider claim 4, Levitan discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the pattern-based predictor structure has a first read port associated with the new line index (FIG. 2, input to block 214, for example) and a second read port associated with the intraline index (FIG. 2, input to block 216, for example).
Consider claim 5, Levitan discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising storing the selected one of the first output and the second output in a buffer based on the prediction pipeline being delayed ([0027], lines 16-19, if the result of the hash function matches the tag value, then the corresponding prediction can be selected using selection (e.g., multiplexing) units 230, 232, 234, 236; [0028], lines 1-11, as depicted, the selection process can be configured to preferentially select a matched prediction from a longer history vector over a matched prediction with a shorter history vector. Moreover, if none of the prediction paths in the TAGE unit 204 result in a match, the prediction from the base predictor 202 can be used. Consistent with various embodiments, variations in the selection logic can be used. For instance, the prediction selection can be based upon a consensus of predictions in the different paths (e.g., by giving each path with a match a vote and selecting the branch prediction with the most votes)).
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitan (in the case of claims 6-9, as applied to claim 1 above), and further in view of Bonanno et al. (Bonanno) (US 20150363204 A1).
Consider claim 6, Levitan discloses the method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the new line index and the intraline index are each generated using a line entry instruction address ([0024], lines 6-8, index (generation) units 206, 208, 210, 212 can generate indexes for different history lengths of the GHV; [0024], line 6, branch address), a global path vector (GPV) leading up to the line entry instruction address ([0024], line 5, GHV; [0015], line 5, global history vector (GHV); [0016], lines 1-5, global branch prediction can be used to make a branch prediction based upon a history of past branch decisions. Particular embodiments can use a vector that stores values representing past branch decisions. A particular example is a GHV).
However, Levitan does not disclose an intraline counter of predicted taken branches.
On the other hand, Bonanno discloses an intraline counter of predicted taken branches ([0063], lines 5-8, ordinal number relating to the number of branches between the correlating value or anchor and the branch for which prediction is being performed; [0032], lines 16-21, a value (e.g., an ordinal value) that represents a number of selected branch instructions (e.g., the total number of branch instructions, or a subset thereof, such as taken branches, conditionally taken branches, or other selected branches) between the anchor point and the branch to predict the direction of the branch).
Bonanno’s teaching enhances the prediction of whether the branch is taken or not taken (Bonanno, [0032], lines 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bonanno with the invention of Levitan in order to enhance the prediction of whether the branch is taken or not taken.
Consider claim 7, the overall combination entails the method of claim 6 (see above), wherein the GPV is a vector that defines a history of branches taken leading into an anchor point in a region of code that includes the branch (Levitan, [0024], line 5, GHV; [0015], line 5, global history vector (GHV); [0016], lines 1-5, global branch prediction can be used to make a branch prediction based upon a history of past branch decisions. Particular embodiments can use a vector that stores values representing past branch decisions. A particular example is a GHV; Bonanno, [0060], lines 4-9, the branch history (i.e., the outcome of the immediately preceding branches). The branch history is represented by a binary number of a fixed number of digits, where a binary digit 1 signifies a branch taken and a binary digit 0 signifies a branch not taken).
Consider claim 8, the overall combination entails the method of claim 7 (see above), wherein the intraline counter is a count of predicted taken branches within the region of code after the anchor point (Bonanno, [0063], lines 5-8, ordinal number relating to the number of branches between the correlating value or anchor and the branch for which prediction is being performed; [0032], lines 16-21, a value (e.g., an ordinal value) that represents a number of selected branch instructions (e.g., the total number of branch instructions, or a subset thereof, such as taken branches, conditionally taken branches, or other selected branches) between the anchor point and the branch to predict the direction of the branch).
Consider claim 9, the overall combination entails the method of claim 7 (see above), further comprising dynamically determining the region of code by selecting the anchor point based on an event (Bonanno, [0064], lines 14-16, an index is formed using an anchor point 510 (e.g., an address of the caller of the branch; also referred to as a correlating value)).
Consider claim 13, Levitan discloses a computer system for branch prediction ([0014], lines 1-2, branch prediction) in a processing pipeline ([0002], lines 1-2, instruction pipelines), the system comprising: a memory ([0018], line 7, memory); and a processor operatively coupled to the memory ([0014], line 2, computer processors), the computer system configured to: generate a first output of a pattern-based predictor structure ([0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path) and a second output of the pattern-based predictor structure ([0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path) by generating a new line index of the pattern-based predictor structure and an intraline index of the pattern-based predictor structure ([0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path; [0024], lines 6-8, index (generation) units 206, 208, 210, 212 can generate indexes for different history lengths of the GHV; [0024], line 6, branch address) using a line entry instruction address ([0024], lines 6-8, index (generation) units 206, 208, 210, 212 can generate indexes for different history lengths of the GHV; [0024], line 6, branch address), a global path vector (GPV) leading up to the line entry instruction address ([0024], line 5, GHV; [0015], line 5, global history vector (GHV); [0016], lines 1-5, global branch prediction can be used to make a branch prediction based upon a history of past branch decisions. Particular embodiments can use a vector that stores values representing past branch decisions. A particular example is a GHV), wherein the pattern-based predictor structure has a first read port associated with the new line index (FIG. 2, input to block 214, for example) and a second read port associated with the intraline index (FIG. 2, input to block 216, for example).
However, Levitan does not disclose an intraline counter of predicted taken branches.
On the other hand, Bonanno discloses an intraline counter of predicted taken branches ([0063], lines 5-8, ordinal number relating to the number of branches between the correlating value or anchor and the branch for which prediction is being performed; [0032], lines 16-21, a value (e.g., an ordinal value) that represents a number of selected branch instructions (e.g., the total number of branch instructions, or a subset thereof, such as taken branches, conditionally taken branches, or other selected branches) between the anchor point and the branch to predict the direction of the branch).
Bonanno’s teaching enhances the prediction of whether the branch is taken or not taken (Bonanno, [0032], lines 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bonanno with the invention of Levitan in order to enhance the prediction of whether the branch is taken or not taken.
Consider claim 14, the overall combination entails the computer system of claim 13 (see above), wherein the computer system is further configured to: speculatively generate the first output and the second output before it is known whether the first output or the second output will be used in a prediction pipeline (Levitan, [0026], lines 7-8, based upon a corresponding index, an entry can be retrieved from a predictor table for each path); select one of the first output and the second output based on a result of the prediction pipeline ([0027], lines 16-19, if the result of the hash function matches the tag value, then the corresponding prediction can be selected using selection (e.g., multiplexing) units 230, 232, 234, 236; [0028], lines 1-11, as depicted, the selection process can be configured to preferentially select a matched prediction from a longer history vector over a matched prediction with a shorter history vector. Moreover, if none of the prediction paths in the TAGE unit 204 result in a match, the prediction from the base predictor 202 can be used. Consistent with various embodiments, variations in the selection logic can be used. For instance, the prediction selection can be based upon a consensus of predictions in the different paths (e.g., by giving each path with a match a vote and selecting the branch prediction with the most votes)); and predict a direction of a branch using the selected one of the first output and the second output ([0002], lines 11-13, branch prediction techniques can be used to guess whether or not the conditional branch will be taken, before it is known for certain; [0016], lines 11-13, the predictor table can be continually updated based upon whether or not conditional branches have been taken).
Consider claim 15, the overall combination entails the computer system of claim 14 (see above), wherein the GPV is a vector that defines a history of branches taken leading into an anchor point in a region of code that includes the branch (Levitan, [0024], line 5, GHV; [0015], line 5, global history vector (GHV); [0016], lines 1-5, global branch prediction can be used to make a branch prediction based upon a history of past branch decisions. Particular embodiments can use a vector that stores values representing past branch decisions. A particular example is a GHV; Bonanno, [0060], lines 4-9, the branch history (i.e., the outcome of the immediately preceding branches). The branch history is represented by a binary number of a fixed number of digits, where a binary digit 1 signifies a branch taken and a binary digit 0 signifies a branch not taken).
Consider claim 16, the overall combination entails the computer system of claim 15 (see above), wherein the intraline counter is a count of predicted taken branches within the region of code after the anchor point (Bonanno, [0063], lines 5-8, ordinal number relating to the number of branches between the correlating value or anchor and the branch for which prediction is being performed; [0032], lines 16-21, a value (e.g., an ordinal value) that represents a number of selected branch instructions (e.g., the total number of branch instructions, or a subset thereof, such as taken branches, conditionally taken branches, or other selected branches) between the anchor point and the branch to predict the direction of the branch).
Consider claim 17, the overall combination entails the computer system of claim 15 (see above), wherein the computer system is further configured to dynamically determine the region of code by selecting the anchor point based on an event (Bonanno, [0064], lines 14-16, an index is formed using an anchor point 510 (e.g., an address of the caller of the branch; also referred to as a correlating value)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manoukian (US 20160026470 A1) discloses generating first and second indices to obtain respective prediction information (see FIG. 10) and PHT banks (see FIG. 2), which is relevant to the claimed index generation and generating outputs of a pattern-based predictor structure to predict a direction of a branch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571)270-3995. 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.
/KEITH E VICARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights