Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations identifies resource types and determines a criteria is satisfied, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: memory, processor, computing device, resource collector. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving, monitoring, and transferring do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (Ex. v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory, processor, computing device, resource collector, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving, monitoring, and transferring the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, 14 the limitations of determining are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. The limitations of transferring are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of transferring data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
Regarding claim 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17,18 the limitations of determining details, what a trigger defines/includes, what a criteria includes, what consumption data includes, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, 19 the limitations of sending a signal are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (Pub. No. US 2021/0303367) in view of Akkapeddi (Pub. No. US 2022/0114020) in view of Goodman (Pub. No. US 2009/0265707).
Claim 1, 11, 20 Keller teaches “a computer server system comprising: a communications module; a processor coupled with the communications module; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to: receive from a remote computing device, over a communication network and via the communications module ([Fig. 3A] remote servers to client machines), trigger data specifying two or more digital resource types and criteria for triggering an one or more actions associated with each-of the two or more digital resource types ([0072] At 410, data can be received characterizing a plurality of virtual resources executing application code and deployed within a remote computing environment (e.g., a cloud provider). The plurality of virtual resources can include virtual machines, storage accounts, web applications, databases, and/or virtual networks. The remote computing environment can be providing a first configuration of computing resources for execution of the plurality of virtual resources. [0041] Example rules and recommended actions can include: TABLE-US-00002; Examiner notes table depicting multiple digital resource types and multiple rules indicating criteria and multiple actions); monitor digital resource consumption data in real-time to identify another digital resource type being provided to a resource requester ([0020] In some implementations, the monitoring can including receiving and/or accessing real time utilization information, operational characteristics (sometimes referred to as metrics) information, and cost information [0041] Example rules and recommended actions can include: TABLE-US-00002; Examiner notes table depicting another digital resource type like CosmosDB); responsive to identifying the first digital resource type being provided to the resource requester, determine, based on the trigger data, the one or more actions to be triggered and whether the criteria for triggering the one or more actions are satisfied ([0041] Example rules and recommended actions can include: TABLE-US-00002; Examiner notes table depicting CosmosDB as an action and criteria of TABLE-US-00002 with additional types like storage, cloud services, bandwidth, etc…); and responsive to determining the criteria for triggering the one or more actions has been met, automatically trigger the one or more actions including transferring digital resources of at least one of the two or more digital resource types to at least one resource collector ([0036] Each rule can include one or more conditions and actions to take (when the conditions evaluate as true) that can automatically perform an action such as scale resources (e.g., increasing or decreasing an allocation of the computing resources relative to the current configuration of computing resources), change the SKU of a resource being used (e.g., modifying a type of a resource being utilized relative to the current configuration of computing resources), and provide high utilization alerts (e.g. to identify potential threats).)”.
Keller may be silent regarding the new limitations.
Akkapeddi teaches “responsive to determining that the criteria are satisfied automatically calculate and transfer digital resources of at least one of the two or more digital resource types to at least one resource collector configured to accumulate resources ([0049] In step 322 capacity optimizing tool 102 monitors the resource usages of computational resources 202a through 202c. In step 324 capacity optimizing tool 102 determines whether any of computational resources 202a through 202c have excess capacity. This may occur, for example, after the effects of an event 138 have subsided. Capacity optimizing tool 102 may determine that one or more of computational resources 202a through 202c has excess capacity in any suitable manner. For example, in certain embodiments, capacity optimizing tool 102 may determine that computational resource 202a has excess capacity where the resource usage of computational resource 202a has remained below a given threshold for a set period of time. If, in step 324 capacity optimizing tool 102 determines that none of computational resources 202a through 202c has excess capacity, method 300 returns to step 322. If, in step 324 capacity optimizing tool 102 determines that one or more of computational resources 202a through 202c has excess capacity, in step 326 capacity optimizing tool 102 removes the excess capacity. As an example, in certain embodiments, capacity optimizing tool 102 releases computational resources back to resource buffer 120. As another example, in certain embodiments, capacity optimizing tool 102 transmits an instruction 142 to release computational resources. For example, capacity optimizing tool 102 may transmit an instruction 142 to a hosting provider of subsystems 108a through 108c (e.g., a cloud computing host), for execution by the hosting provider to release excess capacity. In some embodiments, capacity optimizing tool 102 may transmit an instruction 142 to a system administrator 104, instructing the system administrator to physically release computational resources from subsystems 108a through 108c. For instance, in response to receiving an instruction 142 to reduce the capacity of the RAM associated with subsystem 108b, a system administrator 104 may physically remove one or more RAM cards from subsystem 108b. [0038] FIG. 2 presents an example of the process by which capacity optimizing tool 102 may predict that an event 138 will lead to an increased consumption of any of computational resources 202a through 202c, belonging to subsystems 108a through 108c, respectively. While FIG. 1 illustrates each subsystem 108a through 108c as including multiple computational resources (e.g., processors 110a through 110c and memories 112a through 112c), for simplicity, FIG. 2 illustrates each subsystem 108a through 108c as having a single computational resource 202a through 202c, respectively. Computational resources 202a through 202c may correspond to processors 110a through 110c, respectively, memories 112a through 112c, respectively, and/or any other suitable computational resources. Each computational resource 202a through 202c is associated with a maximum capacity 204a through 204c, respectively. [0022-0023] additional types of resources)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings Akkapeddi with the teachings of Keller in order to provide a system that teaches resource management. The motivation for applying Akkapeddi teaching with Keller teaching is to provide a system that allows for resource reuse in a distributed environment. Keller, Akkapeddi are analogous art directed towards resource management. Together Keller, Akkapeddi teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Akkapeddi with the teachings of Keller by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach trigger data is user-defined.
Goodman teaches “user-defined trigger data ([0039] FIG. 2A further illustrates that message 200 comprises a set of user-defined triggers or parameters that define operation and performance of Application 155 within acceptable constraints, or otherwise for the performance of virtual machine 140b when running/executing Application 155. In particular, FIG. 2A shows that message 200 indicates that, when Application 155 is running, if CPU.sub.1 and CPU.sub.2 are running high, and if the memory usage is "growing," monitoring service 110 should reallocate virtual machine resources (or schedule a reallocation). In this particular case, message 200 indicates that reallocating host 130 resources includes changing the RAM allocation and assigning an additional processor. In such a case, therefore, one will appreciate that the triggers can be set to reallocate resources (or schedule a reallocation) in anticipation of future problems, or before a problem occurs that could cause a crash of some sort.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings Goodman with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi in order to provide a system that teaches rules of Kellar may be user-defined. The motivation for applying Kellar teaching with Keller, Akkapeddi teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman are analogous art directed towards resource management. Together Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Goodman with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman in further view of Hebbalalu.
Claim 7, 17 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Hebbalalu teaches “the computer server system of claim 1, wherein the criteria for triggering the one or more actions includes triggering a first action associated with a first specified digital resource type of the specified two or more digital resource types in response to a first amount of the first digital resource type being provided to the resource requester and triggering a second action associated with a second specified digital resource type of the specified two or more digital resource types in response to a second amount of the first digital resource type being provided to the resource requester ([Col. 6, Lines 46-67] (29) During initialization of the new virtual machine 340, it may be determined that certain quantities of certain digital resource types may need to be allocated to the new application 341. The new monitoring client 342 may send a request 351 for such an allocation to the resource manager 302. Upon reviewing the request, the resource manager 302 may determine that one of the requested digital resource types is unavailable and may broadcast its own request 352 to the other virtual machines 312, 322, and 332. This request 352 may include a request for the unavailable digital resource type and an offer of one or more alternate digital resource types. Each monitoring client 312, 322, 332 may receive the request 352 from the resource manager 302 and, by reviewing the current resource usage and resource requirements of the application running on its respective virtual machine, may send a response 353 back to the host system 301 indicating the quantity of the scarce digital resource type that it can give up and the quantities of at least one of the one or more alternate resources that it would require in return. Some virtual machines may indicate they cannot provide any of the scarce digital resource type (e.g., because they need all of the resources that they have been allocated). Based on collecting and analyzing the responses, the trade-off manager 303 may establish and evaluate a plurality of trade-off groups. A desired trade-off group may then be select and a direction 354 may be sent to the resource manager 302 indicating the manner in which resources should be reallocated. The resource manager 302 may then reallocate the resources among the virtual machines and, per 355, allocate the requested digital resource type to the new virtual machine 340.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings Hebbalalu with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman in order to provide a system that teaches details of resource management. The motivation for applying Hebbalalu teaching with Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, Hebbalalu are analogous art directed towards resource management. Together Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, Hebbalalu teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Hebbalalu with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 8, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Hebbalalu teaches “the computer server system of claim 1, wherein the criteria for triggering the one or more actions includes triggering a first action associated with a first specified digital resource type of the specified two or more digital resource types in response to the first digital resource type being provided to a first resource requester and triggering a second action associated with a second specified digital resource type of the specified two or more digital resource types in response to the first digital resource type being provided to a second resource requester ([Col. 6, Lines 46-67] (29) During initialization of the new virtual machine 340, it may be determined that certain quantities of certain digital resource types may need to be allocated to the new application 341. The new monitoring client 342 may send a request 351 for such an allocation to the resource manager 302. Upon reviewing the request, the resource manager 302 may determine that one of the requested digital resource types is unavailable and may broadcast its own request 352 to the other virtual machines 312, 322, and 332. This request 352 may include a request for the unavailable digital resource type and an offer of one or more alternate digital resource types. Each monitoring client 312, 322, 332 may receive the request 352 from the resource manager 302 and, by reviewing the current resource usage and resource requirements of the application running on its respective virtual machine, may send a response 353 back to the host system 301 indicating the quantity of the scarce digital resource type that it can give up and the quantities of at least one of the one or more alternate resources that it would require in return. Some virtual machines may indicate they cannot provide any of the scarce digital resource type (e.g., because they need all of the resources that they have been allocated). Based on collecting and analyzing the responses, the trade-off manager 303 may establish and evaluate a plurality of trade-off groups. A desired trade-off group may then be select and a direction 354 may be sent to the resource manager 302 indicating the manner in which resources should be reallocated. The resource manager 302 may then reallocate the resources among the virtual machines and, per 355, allocate the requested digital resource type to the new virtual machine 340.)”.
Rationale to claim 7 is applied here.
Claim 10 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Hebbalalu teaches “the computer server system of claim 1, wherein the digital resource consumption data includes digital resource consumption data stored in a database in association with a single account ([0136] The RWPPT graph is a customized graph that maintains and manages the relationships among the processes, their current priorities, and resource consumption for each resource. [0157] An example of this system has been observed experimentally. For example, a comparison was done in an experimental system running Blender and Discord, wherein the user was rendering video in Blender. The results without the process ranking engine included: (i.e. associated with a single user))”.
Rationale to claim 7 is applied here.
Claim/s 4-6, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, in view of Boss (Pat. No. US 9,280,392)
Claim 4, 14, the combination may not explicitly teach details regarding the resource allocation.
Boss teaches “the computer server system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: determine an amount of the another digital resource type being provided to the resource requester; and wherein transferring the digital resources of the at least one of the two or more digital resource types to the at least one resource collector includes, transferring an amount of the at least one of the two or more digital resource types to the at least one resource collector based on the amount of the another digital resource type being provided to the resource requester ([Col. 6, Lines 46-67] (29) During initialization of the new virtual machine 340, it may be determined that certain quantities of certain digital resource types may need to be allocated to the new application 341. The new monitoring client 342 may send a request 351 for such an allocation to the resource manager 302. Upon reviewing the request, the resource manager 302 may determine that one of the requested digital resource types is unavailable and may broadcast its own request 352 to the other virtual machines 312, 322, and 332. This request 352 may include a request for the unavailable digital resource type and an offer of one or more alternate digital resource types. Each monitoring client 312, 322, 332 may receive the request 352 from the resource manager 302 and, by reviewing the current resource usage and resource requirements of the application running on its respective virtual machine, may send a response 353 back to the host system 301 indicating the quantity of the scarce digital resource type that it can give up and the quantities of at least one of the one or more alternate resources that it would require in return. Some virtual machines may indicate they cannot provide any of the scarce digital resource type (e.g., because they need all of the resources that they have been allocated). Based on collecting and analyzing the responses, the trade-off manager 303 may establish and evaluate a plurality of trade-off groups. A desired trade-off group may then be select and a direction 354 may be sent to the resource manager 302 indicating the manner in which resources should be reallocated. The resource manager 302 may then reallocate the resources among the virtual machines and, per 355, allocate the requested digital resource type to the new virtual machine 340.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Boss with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, in order to provide a system that teaches resource allocation. The motivation for applying Boss teaching with Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman teaching is to provide a system that allows for providing alternatives when resources are unavailable for the purposes of design choice. Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, Boss are analogous art directed towards resource allocation. Together Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, Boss teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Boss with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 5, 15, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Boss teaches “the computer server system of claim 4, wherein the amount of the at least one of the two or more digital resource types is determined based on a modifier between the first digital resource type being provided to the resource requester and the at least one of the specified two or more digital resource types ([Col. 6, Lines 46-67] (29) During initialization of the new virtual machine 340, it may be determined that certain quantities of certain digital resource types may need to be allocated to the new application 341. The new monitoring client 342 may send a request 351 for such an allocation to the resource manager 302. Upon reviewing the request, the resource manager 302 may determine that one of the requested digital resource types is unavailable and may broadcast its own request 352 to the other virtual machines 312, 322, and 332. This request 352 may include a request for the unavailable digital resource type and an offer of one or more alternate digital resource types. Each monitoring client 312, 322, 332 may receive the request 352 from the resource manager 302 and, by reviewing the current resource usage and resource requirements of the application running on its respective virtual machine, may send a response 353 back to the host system 301 indicating the quantity of the scarce digital resource type that it can give up and the quantities of at least one of the one or more alternate resources that it would require in return.)”.
Rationale to claim 4 is applied here.
Claim 6, 16, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Boss teaches “the computer server system of claim 5, wherein the trigger data defines the modifier between the first digital resource type being provided to the resource requester and the at least one of the specified two or more digital resource types ([Col. 6, Lines 46-67] (29) During initialization of the new virtual machine 340, it may be determined that certain quantities of certain digital resource types may need to be allocated to the new application 341. The new monitoring client 342 may send a request 351 for such an allocation to the resource manager 302. Upon reviewing the request, the resource manager 302 may determine that one of the requested digital resource types is unavailable and may broadcast its own request 352 to the other virtual machines 312, 322, and 332. This request 352 may include a request for the unavailable digital resource type and an offer of one or more alternate digital resource types. Each monitoring client 312, 322, 332 may receive the request 352 from the resource manager 302 and, by reviewing the current resource usage and resource requirements of the application running on its respective virtual machine, may send a response 353 back to the host system 301 indicating the quantity of the scarce digital resource type that it can give up and the quantities of at least one of the one or more alternate resources that it would require in return.)”.
Rationale to claim 4 is applied here.
Claim/s 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, in view of Panuganty (Pub. No. US 2020/0401593).
Claim 9, 19 the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Goodman teaches “the computer server system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: send, over the communication network and via the communications module and to a remote computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display at least one interface that includes one or more interface elements for defining the trigger data ([0015] In addition to the foregoing, an additional or alternative method of automatically managing physical host resource allocations among one or more virtual machines based on information from an end-user can involve receiving one or more end-user configurations regarding allocation of physical host resources by one or more hosted virtual machines. The method can also involve receiving one or more messages regarding performance metrics related to the one or more virtual machines and of the physical host. In addition, the method can involve automatically determining that the one or more virtual machines are operating at a suboptimal level defined by the received one or more end-user configurations. Furthermore, the method can involve automatically reallocating physical host resources for the one or more of the virtual machines based on the received end-user configurations. As such, the one or more virtual machines use physical host resources at an optimal level defined by the received end-user configurations.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach displaying trigger information.
Panuganty teaches displaying trigger information ([0135] Various implementations enable a user to define a schedule for triggering user-defined query analyses. To illustrate, consider now the upper portion of FIG. 5B that includes personalized analytics system 500 and display device 516. Similar to that described with respect to display device 508 FIG. 5A, display device 516 renders an example scheduler user interface for discussion purposes, but alternate implementations can trigger query analyses without the scheduler user interface being rendered. In this example, the scheduler displays two user-defined triggers schedules, where the user has defined various contextual and/or keywords to base a query analysis on and a schedule for when to perform the analysis)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Panuganty with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman in order to provide a system that teaches displaying information. The motivation for applying Panuganty teaching with Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman teaching is to provide a system that allows for situational awareness. Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, Panuganty are analogous art directed towards processing trigger information. Together Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman, Panuganty teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Panuganty with the teachings of Keller, Akkapeddi, Goodman by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199