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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13,15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0116128), in view of Pavlin et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0397478), in view of Dutta et al. (US PGPUB 20200393971), further in view of Ferris et al. (US PGPUT 2011/0055378A1).
As for claim 1, Guo teaches a method for managing a cloud service provider (CSP) (paragraph 20, “cloud computing services…based on edge computing resources…”), the method comprising:
detecting, by a service instance monitoring agent [edge monitoring agent], usage of an infrastructure direct tracing (IDT) component [edge computing resource/virtual machine], wherein the CSP comprises the IDT component (paragraph 48, “…edge monitoring agent …configured to monitor workload status…and provide workload information…generate information reflecting workload of …a virtual machine… ….provide obtained workload information…” Here, Examiner note IDT is understood as including any software/hardware that includes the edge monitoring agent and any logical/physical components performing workload the edge monitoring agent monitors the usage for), wherein the IDT component comprises the service instance monitoring agent (paragraph 48-49, “…edge monitoring agent ….monitor workload status of the edge computing resources…provide….workload information….reflect…workload on respective edge computing resource…can distinguish between traffics associated with a PES or a SES…” teaches collecting the usage of IDT component by specific workload),
wherein the usage is performed by a user (paragraph 20 “…user requests…requests for data center services…” and paragraph 24, “…requested by the task scheduler 110…” Prior art teaches monitoring of resource utilization by edge devices to perform both user requests and requests from task scheduler, thus, either human user or computer user submitted requests/workload performed that causes the usage can be understood as “user that submitted the requests for which usage is performed.),
wherein detecting the usage comprises: detecting processes using a processor of the IDT component that result in performing a service for the client and detecting data sent to a plurality of IDT components using a network line card of the IDT component (paragraph 48, “…provide workload information….based on various usage workload information…network usage…amount of traffic along a network connection…server usage…reflecting workload of a server….may include …processor utilization rate, memory utilization rate…network performance…” Examiner note, the processor usage and network usage clearly corresponds to work performed by processor and network devices of the IDT component. Moreover, these usages are workload usages of the edge computing resources, thus, clearly corresponds to “processes”/workloads using the resources);
based on the usage, identifying a service instance [PESs] associated with the usage of the IDT component (paragraph 49, “…part of the workload information…can be PES specific and reflect PES workload…”, and paragraph 70, “…workloads of the two virtual machines assigned for the set of PESs have increased above a threshold…” teaches the identification of the virtual machine’s hardware utilization is associated with specific PES service instances, Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to recognize that the system can identify the workload/service instance associated with the specifically measured resource utilization because doing so allows for improved resource utilization monitoring and resource allocation corresponding to specific workloads. Examiner note in ),
wherein identifying the service instance is based on initiating an application programming interface (API) command that specifies obtaining the activity performed by the service instance (paragraph 48, “…edge monitoring agent…configured to monitor workload status of the edge computing resources, and provide workload information…” Here, the prior art clearly teaches that the edge monitoring agent was initiated to obtain activity performed by the service instance. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application that configuration of the edge monitoring agent is based on an application programming interface command because invocation of and configuration of a software object to perform a specific task constructively a command to invoke the execution of the software object for the specific configured task regardless of the format of the invocation);
identifying a hardware resource corresponding to the IDT component (paragraph 48, “…information may include main processor utilization rate, memory utilization rate…, and the like….in ….virtual machine level…”);
updating a resource usage data structure that specifies the IDT component, the usage, and the hardware resource (First embodiment, paragraph 48, “…store the obtained workload information into a log database…” in view of paragraph 49 and 70 teaches a log database storing newly obtained resource usage data that corresponds to information related to the virtual machine running the specific workloads. Second embodiment, paragraph 66, “edge monitoring agent …substantially continuously collect …workload information…periodically provided …to the task scheduler 210…” teaches the edge monitoring agent can aggregate the information, which would include aggregating new usage information distinct from the log database of previous embodiment. Third embodiment, paragraph 27, “…based on the …workload information…workload patterns over a long-term period of time can be derived for each computing resource…” teaches workload pattern based on the resource usage information, thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to recognize that it would include updated resource usage data and a resource usage data structure that contain plurality of datapoints because doing so allows for derivation of trends over a period of time and doing so allows improved resource allocation by identifying patterns); and
providing a resource usage report to a client [global resource manager] associated with the IDT component (paragraph 49 in view of paragraph 5. Here, Examiner note, client is understood as any software functionality executed on any computing device and that can receive the information. (See, Application Specification, paragraph 22, “…client…is implemented as a computing device….maybe…a server, a distributed computing system, or a cloud resource…….include instruction ….when executed…perform the functionality of each client…”).
obtaining, by the service instance monitoring agent, a metering request for resource usage metering of the usage from a service instance usage manager [global resource manager 214] operatively connected to the IDT component and a second IDT component (paragraph 48, “…edge monitoring agent 264 configured to monitor workload status of the edge computing resources 266…” in a first embodiment the edge monitoring agent is monitoring directly for resource usage metering from configured usage monitor. Here, plurality of edge monitoring ages each are connected to the global resource manager, each corresponding to the first IDT component and a second IDT component. In a second embodiment, Paragraph 48, “…provide workload information to…the global resource manager 214…” and paragraph 56, “…global resource manager can detect…according to real time workload information received from an edge computing center…” teach the global resource manager 214 needs and is monitoring resource usage data that is reported back from each IDT in the multiple edge computing centers, which clearly includes the previously mapped to edge computing resource/VM in one of the multiple edge computing centers. Here, the global resource manager is clearly collecting resource usage data from multiple IDTs inside each of the plurality of edge computing centers. Moreover, the collection of the resource usage information and the subsequent report the data, are clearly in response to the global resource manager request for/need for the data.)
In response to the metering request, providing the resource usage data structure to the service instance usage manager (paragraph 48, “…provide workload information to …the global resource manager 214…” teaches in both embodiments of usage manager, the resource usage data is provided to the manager.), wherein a second metering request is issued to the second IDT component based on second usage of the second IDT component (paragraph 48 and 56, here, because all edge computing resource component, and VMs have their resource usage data reported, thus, any of the other edge computing resource component and VMs that is not considered “the IDT component” as claimed, is understood as the second IDT component that reports the second usage to the edge resource monitoring agent and the global resource manager respectively under the 2 embodiments.), wherein the usage and the second are aggregated and provided to the client (paragraph 41, “…real time workload status inspection…maybe performed by the global edge scheduler …based on real time workload information forwarded by the global resource manager 214….” Here, the global edge scheduler that uses the data for scheduling determination can be understood as the client to ultimately report the workload usage data to under both embodiments. Paragraph 38, “…historical PES workload information accumulated during an observation window…correspond to a specific computing resource …” teaches the accumulated information given to the scheduler includes historical data (i.e., aggregated from different times), and can clearly include before and after resource reallocation that is continuously performed in the prior art because The present application teaches the IDT component can be either physical unit(s) of resource or virtual/logically defined unit(s) (See, e.g., claims 5-6, 12-13, 19-20), thus, the claim limitation of “the usage and the second usage are aggregated and provided to the client can be reasonably understood as referring to before and after dynamic resource reallocation without the physical migration of service instance from all previous resources to a non-overlapping set of new resources.)
Sending, by the service instance monitoring agent, an indirect tracing information request to an infrastructure indirect tracing (IIT) component (paragraph 48, “…edge monitoring agent …monitor …provide workload information…each edge computing resource maby configured with a usage monitor that can collect and process usage and performance data to generate real time workload information….a network usage monitor….information may include….network performance, disk performance, and the like…usage monitors can communicate with the edge monitor agent …and provide obtained workload information to the edge monitoring agent…” teaching usage monitors at the IIT components. Here, Examiner note Specification teaches at least one embodiment of IIT component can be a disk/storage for the service instance. See, e.g., Specification paragraph 52, “….storage device implemented as the IIT component used for storing data…”),
obtaining, based on the indirect tracing information request, tracing information corresponding to third usage of the IIT component [network resource/disk resource] by the service instance, wherein the IIT component provides resource for use by the service instance and wherein the tracing information is generated by the service instance while using the IIT component (paragraph 48, “…edge monitoring agent ….monitor workload status of the edge computing resources……each edge computing resource maybe configured with a usage monitor that can collect and process usage and performance data to generate real time workload information…network usage monitor…server usage monitor…network performance, disk performance…” teaching the resource usage information of the IIT is obtained from IIT component specific usage monitors. Here, Examiner note Specification teaches at least one embodiment of IIT component can be a disk/storage for the service instance. See, e.g., Specification paragraph 52, “….storage device implemented as the IIT component used for storing data…”);
updating the resource usage data structure based on the tracing information (paragraphs 48-49).
The present application teaches the IDT component can be either physical unit(s) of resource or virtual/logically defined unit(s) (See, e.g., claims 5-6, 12-13, 19-20), thus, the claim limitation of “service instance migrated from a second IDT component to the IDT component” and other migration related limitations can be reasonably understood as a form of resource reallocation without the physical migration of service instance from all previous resources to a non-overlapping different host/set of physical/virtual resources. Here, Guo clearly teaches monitoring of workload resource usage on a set of physical/virtual resources before a resource reallocation, and continues after a resource reallocation (paragraph 17) and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to recognize that the resource usage monitoring subsequent to a resource reallocation can be understood as the IDT component and the one before reallocation understood as the second IDT component and thus reads upon the service instance migrated from a second IDT component to the IDT component prior to detecting the usage and a second metering request issued to the second IDT component for usage data prior to migrating to the IDT component because reallocation of a different resource and monitoring usage by same workload before and after the reallocation reads upon the IDT component and the second IDT components as claimed. Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner note Guo does not explicitly recite the word “migration” in discussion of moving execution of service instance from a second IDT component to the IDT component.
However, Pavlin teaches a known method of workload resource reallocation including the service instance [software application] migrated from a second IDT component [node 104a] to the IDT component [node 104b] prior to detecting the usage (paragraph 18, and 10 and 26, “…mitigation operation involving migrating the software application 106a from node 104a to another node in the distributed computing environment 102 such as node 104b…” in view of “monitoring agent can transmit the resource usage information to a notification controller…” and “…monitoring agent to determine the resource usage 210…” and Abstract. Here, the Pavlin system is a continuously running system to monitor service instance resource usage and perform migration as part of resource reallocation when triggering condition is met. Thus, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the monitoring of the resource usage by the service instance can be performed subsequent to migrating from a second IDT component because doing so allows for continued resource allocation management both before and after a resource reallocation.); and a second metering request is issued to the second IDT component based on second usage of the second IDT component by the service instance prior to migrating to the IDT component (paragraph 18 and 10 and 26. Here, the second metering request and second usage is understood as the resource usage obtained by notification controller that results in triggering of the mitigation operation including migration of the application to a different node. Thus, it is clear the second metering and second usage occurred before migrating to the destination node (i.e., IDT component as claimed).). This known technique is applicable to the system of Guo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to workload resource monitoring and reallocation in a distributed computing environment.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Pavlin would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Pavlin to the teachings of Guo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource utilization monitoring features into similar systems. Further, applying migrating from a second IDT component to the IDT component prior to detecting the usage and second usage of the second IDT component by the service instance prior to migrating to the IDT component to Guo with detecting a usage and a second usage aggregated and provided to the client that corresponds to after and before reallocation of IDT component to the service instance from a second IDT component accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved resource allocation without user intervention. (Pavlin, paragraph 4)
Guo teaches obtaining tracing information corresponding to second usage of the IIT component by the service instance (paragraph 48) and updating the resource usage data structure based on the tracing information (paragraph 48 and 49). In addition, Examiner note it is unclear what is meant by an IIT component that is both “provides resources for use by the service instance” and yet “does not execute the service instance” as claimed because the use of a resource is functionally that resource executing a part of the required function of the service instance, even if it’s a storage device, the functionality of storing data of a service instance functionally executes the storing task of the service instance. Moreover, applicant specification teaches in one embodiment IIT component can be understood as a storage device to store data of the service instance (paragraph 52). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application that the Disk resource of the prior art can be understood as the IIT as claimed, and storage of data of the service instance can be understood as not executing the service instance. Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will note in the event the IIT component refers to a separate, Infrastructure as a service type storage component that is separately managed in a physically distinct unit for a service instance as the basis for determining the IIT component does not execute the service instance in Guo and Pavlin.
Dutta teaches a known method of resource utilization monitoring system for workloads in a networked environment including obtaining tracing information corresponding to third usage of the IIT component by the service instance, wherein the IIT component provides resources for use by the service instance, wherein the IIT component does not execute the service instance….wherein the tracing information is generated by the service instance while using the IIT component (paragraphs 36-37 in view of paragraph 16, “…a monitoring agent 222….can run in the storage system 210 to collect various operational metrics of the storage system…determine operational metrics for each individual storage volume that are tracked…the monitoring agent 222 can transmit collected values of operational metrics 224 to the …workload management engine…” teaches the third usage of the IIT component provides resources for use by the service instance and is not where the service instance (application in the prior art) executes (see, e.g., Fig. 2). In view of paragraph 16, “workload for an individual storage volume can be based on requests submitted …by a requester…(e.g., application program in host systems…” teaching the workload resource tracking and other workload related metrics can correspond to a single requester/application.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Guo and Pavlin as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to workload resource utilization monitoring including monitoring of storage resource utilization in a networked environment.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dutta would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dutta to the teachings of Guo and Pavlin would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource utilization monitoring features into similar systems. Further, applying obtaining tracing information corresponding to third usage of the IIT component by the service instance, wherein the IIT component provides resources for use by the service instance, wherein the IIT component does not execute the service instance….wherein the tracing information is generated by the service instance while using the IIT component to Guo and Pavlin with the service instance monitoring agent obtaining tracing information corresponding to third usage of the IIT component by the service instance and updating the resource usage data structure based on the tracing information accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow better management of resource allocations used by multiple service instances. (Dutta, paragraph 18)
While Guo teaches the use of task description to perform the task and monitor the performance. Thus, it is functionally understood as a contract between the task submitter (user) and the CSP. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner note Guo, Pavlin and Dutta do not explicitly teach user undergoes a contract with the CSP for utilizing resources provided by the CSP and the resource usage report comprises financial charges applied to the user based on the resource usage data structure and based on the contract with the user where contract means an explicit SLA.
However, Ferris teaches a known method of task performance in a cloud service provider environment including usage is performed by a user (paragraph 2, “…user can lease or subscribe to the set of resources needed to build and run…”) wherein the user undergoes a contract with the CSP for utilizing resources provided by the CSP (paragraph 17, “….the requesting user can for instance specify a service level agreement (SLA) acceptable for their application…”), and wherein the resource usage report comprises financial charges applied to the user based on the resource usage data structure and based on the contract with the user (paragraph 49, “…data regarding the utilization…can be used for a variety of purposes…the owner…can use the data to track….determine a charge for subscribers utilization of the cloud…” paragraph 24, “generate records of the usage…to permit ….tracking, billing…subscription billing records for a user that has launched …” paragraph 14, “…price access to the cloud based on the utilization…”. Thus, the charge is derived from the recorded usage and applied based on the usage that according to user’s SLA terms.) This known technique is applicable to the system of Guo, Pavlin, and Dutta as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to workload resource utilization monitoring including monitoring of storage resource utilization in a networked environment.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ferris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ferris to the teachings of Guo, Pavlin, and Dutta would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource utilization monitoring features into similar systems. Further, applying the user undergoes a contract with the CSP for utilizing resources provided by the CSP and wherein the resource usage report comprises financial charges applied to the user based on the resource usage data structure and based on the contract with the user to Guo, Pavlin, and Dutta with user submitting task requirements to CSP to perform task according to requirements and generating reports of execution of task accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow better tracking of resource usage in cloud based computing environments. (Ferris, paragraph 14)
As for claim 3, Guo also teaches the IIT component is a storage device (paragraph 48, “…disk performance…” teaches the obtained tracing information corresponds to a disk, a form of storage device.), and wherein the IDT component is a virtual machine (paragraph 48, “…virtual machine…”).
In addition, Dutta also teaches the IIT component is a storage device (paragraph 36-37).
As for claim 5., Guo also teaches IDT component is one selected from a group consisting of: a server node and a virtual machine (paragraph 48, “….server or virtual machine…”).
As for claim 6, Guo also teaches the service instance is a database application instance (paragraph 20, “….data center services…” in view of paragraph 47, “resources …can include…data base systems…” and paragraph 66, “…edge …information of the data center 251a…”, data center services executing on the edge devices are understood as a form of database application instance), wherein the IIT component is a storage device (paragraph 47-48, “edge computing resources 266 can include…storage…” and “…disk performance…”) , and wherein the database application instance stores data on the storage device (paragraph 20, “…edge computing resources can include…data bases…” data bases are understood as storing data of the workload).
As for claims 8, 10 and 12-13, and 15, 17 and 19-20 , they contain similar limitations as claims 1, 3 and 5-6 above respectively. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris, further in view of Formanek et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0239648).
As for claim 4, Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris do not explicitly teach the indirect tracing information request is sent to the IIT component via the service instance.
However, Formanek teaches a known method of cloud resource utilization monitoring and resource allocation for virtual machines including the indirect tracing information request is sent via the service instance [application] (Fig. 3 – App 110 initiating resource utilization determination, and paragraph 59-60). This known technique is applicable to the system of Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to workload resource utilization in clouds.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Formanek would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Formanek to the teachings of Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource utilization monitoring features into similar systems. Further, applying the tracing information request I sent via the service instance to Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris sending, an indirect tracing information request to an IIT component accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved timely analysis of execution environment performance and identify abnormal operating conditions. (Formanek, paragraph 7-9)
As for claim 11 and 18, they contain similar limitations as claim 4 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris, and further in view of Lu et al. (US PAT 10460254).
As for claim 7, Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris do not explicitly teach the monitoring agent and the service instance execute on the IDT component.
However, Lu teaches a method of resource utilization monitoring for VMs including the service instance monitoring agent and the service instance execute on the IDT component (col. 5, line 7-15, “…the monitoring agent is a software program running in the VM to monitor and report resource metrics for that VM…” teaches the agent is running inside the VM (a type of IDT component, see, e.g., claim 2)). This known technique is applicable to the system of Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to workload resource utilization monitoring and resource allocation for VMs.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lu to the teachings of Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource utilization monitoring features into similar systems. Further, applying the monitoring agent and the workload executing on the IDT component to Guo, Pavlin, Dutta and Ferris with monitoring agent and the service instance executing on the same host accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved workload specific resource monitoring and reporting for the specific VM running the workload (Lu, col. 5, lines 7-15)
As for claim 14, it contain similar limitations as claim 7 above. Thus, it is rejected under the same rationales.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KEVIN X LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 5712723759. 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.
/KEVIN X LU/Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights