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 1-19 and 21 are pending. Claim 20 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding: Prior Art Rejections:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-19 and 21 are maintained.
Applicant’s remarks recite:
However, nowhere does Gonciulea disclose "initializing a first QCS of the first quantum computing device using the QCS metadata, wherein the first QCS is configured to execute the at least one functionality of the second QCS." Rather, Gonciulea merely discloses that specific operations can be assigned to worker nodes. Assigning an operation to a worker node does not disclose "initializing ... a first QCS of the first quantum computing device using the QCS metadata." The "declarative instantiation plan" of Gonciulea does not disclose "QCS metadata," as the "declarative instantiation plan" (a) is not "received for a second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device," and (b) is not "indicative of at least one functionality of the second QCS." Dadashikelayeh and Allen, taken separately or in combination, fail to remedy these deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the present rejections.
Examiner interprets initializing the first QCS of the first quantum computing device using the QCS metadata as a resource provisioning system using some input data to provision another node/worker/machine to process quantum tasks. The mapping teaching receiving QCS metadata within Gonciulea is clarified to be the received operations and location for the execution of each operation. The provisioning service within the driver node of Gonciulea both receives operations and locations of execution for instructions. The provisioning service then utilizes the received operations and locations to draft a declarative instantiation plan (i.e., current state) used to provision qubit resources for worker nodes to execute quantum operations. Examiner suggests to applicant to clarify the newly amended current state of the second QCS to describe at least one of the current state(s) as seen in instant specification [0018] specifically: “quantum services scheduled to execute on the second quantum computing device, qubits in use on the second quantum computing device, or qubits available for allocation on the second quantum computing device” to distinguish applicant’s invention from the generically issued qubits in prior art Gonciulea.
However, nowhere does Gonciulea disclose "receiving, by the first quantum computing device, the service request from the second quantum computing device." First, the "driver node" of Gonciulea does not disclose the "second quantum computing device" of Applicant's claim 1. The "driver node" of "Gonciulea does not execute "a second QCS" with "at least one functionality." The "driver node" of Gonciulea is not "configured ... to forward a service request directed to the second QCS ... to the first quantum computing device." Finally, issuing "relevant operations" to a worker node does not disclose a "service request" forwarded from the "first quantum computing device" to the "second quantum computing device." Dadashikelayeh and Allen, taken separately or in combination, fail to remedy these deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the present rejections.
Examiner interprets the receiving of the service request as a system component taking up a requested quantum computing task from an outside sender. As seen in Fig 1 of Gonciulea, [0024] “client 110 may send quantum computing instructions to service 125”, [0025] “service 125 may compile the quantum computing instructions into a set of operations that are to be invoked in order to satisfy the computation”, [0028] “Service 125 may provide may send the compiled set of operations with the locations to driver node 130. Driver node 130 may compose a declarative instantiation plan and may provide this to provisioning service 132 to instantiate compute resources (e.g., worker nodes 140) based on the declarative instantiation plan”, and [0031] Once compute resources are instantiated, driver node 130 may send the appropriate operations to each worker node 140 based on the location. For example, each worker node 140 may receive its own set of operations based on the location (e.g., the binary prefix) for each operation”. As can be seen in the cited sections pertaining to Fig 1, quantum instructions make their way from the service 125 through the driver node 130 and finally to the worker nodes 140.
However, nowhere does Gonciulea disclose "configuring the second quantum computing device to forward a service request directed to the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to the first quantum computing device." The ability of devices to communicate amongst themselves does not disclose, and is unrelated to, "configuring" a "quantum computing device" to "forward a service request." Nowhere does Gonciulea disclose a "service request." Nowhere does Gonciulea disclose "forward[ing]." Nowhere does Gonciulea disclose "configuring" a "quantum computing device" in relation to forwarding communications. Dadashikelayeh and Allen, taken separately or in combination, fail to remedy these deficiencies. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the present rejections.
Examiner interprets the configuring step to be the system needing to contain the required communication channels for a service request to be forwarded from one device to another. Examiner cites the connections in Fig 1 mainly to demonstrate that there is required some configuring of networking/communication lines between the driver nodes and worker nodes in order to route quantum operations from the driver node to the assigned worker nodes. The mapping of Gonciulea is clarified to include the communication protocol between the driver and worker nodes to teach actual issuing of quantum operations based on location information.
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, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gonciulea et al. US 20220309374 A1 in view of Dadashikelayeh et al. US 20170357539 A1 in view Allen US 11372689 B1.
Gonciulea and Dadashikelayeh are cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Gonciulea teaches the invention substantially as claimed including:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a first quantum computing device from a second quantum computing device, quantum core service (QCS) metadata for a second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device, wherein the QCS metadata is indicative of at least one functionality of the second QCS and a current state of the second QCS ([0031] driver node 130 may send the appropriate operations to each worker node 140 … each worker node 140 may receive its own set of operations based on the location (e.g., the binary prefix) for each operation; [0032] Driver node 130 may assign or issue each worker node 140 a variable set of dimensions (qubits) and the fixed values for the other dimensions; [0048] In step 220, the driver node may receive the compiled set of operations, and the locations for executing each instruction, from the service and may compose a declarative instantiation plan. In step 225, a provisioning service provided by the driver node may to instantiate compute resources (e.g., worker nodes) based on the declarative instantiation plan; Examiner notes: driver node issues qubits and operation assignments to worker nodes according to the current state of the driver node i.e., declarative instantiation plan from the set of operations and locations for executing each instruction);
configuring the second quantum computing device to forward a service request directed to the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to the first quantum computing device (Fig 1 communications path from Client 110 through Service 125 through driver node 130 out to worker nodes 140; [0035] Driver node 130 and worker nodes 140 may be Kubernetes containers and may communicate using gRPC. The gRPC protocol supports streaming, which makes implementation faster; [0036] The gRPC protocol may use Protocol Buffers as a serialization mechanism. The processing on each driver node 130 maximizes parallelism by using all the CPUs or GPUs on the box. The parallel processes are specific to the language being used. For example, Go procs and channels may be used for concurrent synchronization; Fig 2 230 Driver node issues operations to worker nodes based on the location for the operation; [0050] In step 230, once the resources are instantiated, the driver node may issue the relevant operations to each worker node based on the location prefix for each operation; [0031] Once compute resources are instantiated, driver node 130 may send the appropriate operations to each worker node 140 based on the location. For example, each worker node 140 may receive its own set of operations based on the location (e.g., the binary prefix) for each operation; communications in [0069]);
initializing a first QCS of the first quantum computing device by recreating the current state of the second QCS in the first QCS using the QCS metadata ([0032] Driver node 130 may assign or issue each worker node 140 a variable set of dimensions (qubits) and the fixed values for the other dimensions. In one embodiment, the fixed values may be the prefix for that node; [0048] In step 220, the driver node may receive the compiled set of operations, and the locations for executing each instruction, from the service and may compose a declarative instantiation plan. In step 225, a provisioning service provided by the driver node may to instantiate compute resources (e.g., worker nodes) based on the declarative instantiation plan; Examiner notes: the provisioning service instantiates worker nodes and issues qubits using current state information from the driver node in the declarative instantiation plan describing the set of operations and locations for executing each instruction. In other words, the corresponding state of the plan is recreated in a worker node through operation and qubit issuing), wherein the first QCS is configured to execute the at least one functionality of the second QCS ([0048] a provisioning service provided by the driver node may to instantiate compute resources (e.g., worker nodes) based on the declarative instantiation plan; [0050] once the resources are instantiated, the driver node may issue the relevant operations to each worker node based on the location prefix for each operation; [0051] the worker nodes may execute the operations that were issued by the driver node);
receiving, by the first quantum computing device, the service request from the second quantum computing device ([0050] once the resources are instantiated, the driver node may issue the relevant operations to each worker node based on the location prefix for each operation); and
servicing, using the first QCS, the service request ([0051] the worker nodes may execute the operations that were issued by the driver node).
While Gonciulea teaches that quantum computing is simulated on cloud nodes, it does not explicitly teach the service provisioning being performed on quantum computing devices.
However, Dadashikelayeh teaches provisioning services onto quantum computing devices ([0037] The quantum computer may be configured to perform one or more quantum algorithms).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Dadashikelayeh’s configuring of quantum algorithms onto quantum computers with the centralized quantum provisioning system of Gonciulea. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Gonciulea’s system with the advantage of provisioning distributed quantum services across multiple quantum computers for improved scalability and capability (see Dadashikelayeh [0005] Systems and methods disclosed herein may be able to improve the quality of computing services with much greater capability, flexibility, and affordable costs. Scalable quantum computers disclosed herein may be complementary to digital computers wherein special-purpose computing resources are programmed or configured for certain classes of problems. Users in need of quantum computing services for their specific computing problems can access quantum-computing resources remotely, such as on the cloud).
Gonciulea and Dadashikelayeh do not explicitly teach receiving, by a first quantum computing device from a second quantum computing device, quantum core service (QCS) metadata for a second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device and
configuring the second quantum computing device to forward a service request directed to the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to the first quantum computing device.
However, Allen teaches receiving, by a first computing device from a second computing device, core service (QCS) metadata for a second QCS executing on the second computing device (Fig 4 Multi-Cloud Bursting Service deploys cloud nodes according to templates that enable performance of the jobs on the on-site premises; a multi-cloud bursting service, can generate one or more cloud agnostic burst templates for bursting one or more workload environments (e.g., infrastructure resources or nodes, execution environments, jobs or workloads, applications, cloud instances, etc.) on different cloud environments. Each cloud agnostic burst template can define a stack associated with a workload environment and one or more tasks for provisioning one or more cloud resources and deploying the workload environment on the one or more cloud resources. The stack can define or include, without limitation, one or more applications, one or more libraries, one or more services, an operating system, hardware requirements or preferences, and/or data for the workload environment. The stack can be used to generate and/or deploy the workload environment or an image thereof, Col 2 21-36); and
configuring the second computing device to forward a service request directed to the second QCS executing on the second computing device to the first computing device (Fig 4 Cloud Bursting Nodes integrated with onsite nodes means bursted job requests are forwarded to the integrated nodes; These provisioned nodes 412, 414, 416 can then be used to process the jobs or workloads associated with the cloud bursting request 404, Col 20 60-62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Allen with the system of Gonciulea and Dadashikelayeh. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Gonciulea and Dadashikelayeh’s system with the advantage of monitoring and managing incoming workload requests for improved task scheduling and system scalability in cloud systems (see Allen Col 1 40-45 However, on-premises network sites may have limited network or resource capacity, and thus may not be able to always handle all workload demands. To avoid service interruptions when an on-premises site is at full capacity, overflow traffic may be directed to a public cloud through cloud bursting).
Regarding claim 6, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea further teaches selecting the first quantum computing device as QCS manager based on one or more of a functionality of the first quantum computing device, a system load of the first quantum computing device, a geographical location of the first quantum computing device, or an environmental attribute of the first quantum computing device ([0027] service 120 may optimize the configuration of worker nodes 140 based on, for example, available computing resources, quantum operation(s) being executed, etc).
Regarding claim 7, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea further teaches configuring the second quantum computing device comprises configuring the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to forward the service request to the first quantum computing device ([0050] once the resources are instantiated, the driver node may issue the relevant operations to each worker node based on the location prefix for each operation).
Regarding claim 9, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea further teaches the first QCS and the second QCS comprise one of a qubit registry, a quantum task manager, or a quantum scheduler ([0028] Driver node 130 may compose a declarative instantiation plan; [0031] driver node 130 may send the appropriate operations to each worker node 140 based on the location; [0032] Driver node 130 may assign or issue each worker node 140 a variable set of dimensions (qubits) and the fixed values for the other dimensions. In one embodiment, the fixed values may be the prefix for that node; [0046] worker node 01 may manage both 010 and 011; [0051] worker nodes may communicate with each other to, for example, request a result for a dependency).
Regarding claim 10, it is the quantum computing system of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Gonciulea further teaches a first system memory and a first processor device communicatively coupled to the first system memory ([0074] a computer or computer system, for example, that includes at least one memory).
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 18, they are the quantum computing system of claims 6, 7, and 9 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 6, 7, and 9 respectively.
Regarding claim 19, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Gonciulea further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions ([0074] the particular medium, i.e., the memory in the processing machine, utilized to hold the set of instructions and/or the data used in the invention may take on any of a variety of physical forms or transmissions, for example. Illustratively, the medium may be in the form of paper, paper transparencies, a compact disk, a DVD, an integrated circuit, a hard disk, a floppy disk, an optical disk, a magnetic tape, a RAM, a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, a wire, a cable, a fiber, a communications channel, a satellite transmission, a memory card, a SIM card, or other remote transmission, as well as any other medium or source of data that may be read by the processors of the invention).
Regarding claim 21, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea further teaches wherein configuring the second quantum computing device to forward the service request further comprises configuring the second quantum computing device to forward the service request to the first quantum computing device based on a characteristic of the QCS metadata, wherein the characteristic of the QCS metadata comprises an availability of qubits of the second quantum computing device ([0027] service 120 may optimize the configuration of worker nodes 140 based on, for example, available computing resources, quantum operation(s) being executed, etc).
Allen further teaches configuring the second computing device to forward the service request to the first computing device based on a characteristic of the QCS metadata, wherein the characteristic of the QCS metadata comprises an availability of qubits of the second computing device (the trigger can define a threshold amount or a type of resources that should be available or capable of processing the job or workload at the time the job or workload request is submitted or within a specified grace period. If the threshold amount or type of resources available or capable is reached or exceed when the request is submitted or within the specified grace period, the trigger will cause the cloud bursting request 404 to be generated and transmitted to the multi-cloud bursting service 340A, Col 17 66- Col 18 8).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gonciulea et al. US 20220309374 A1 in view of Dadashikelayeh et al. US 20170357539 A1 Allen US 11372689 B1 in further view of Li et al. US 20180246757 A1.
Li is cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 2, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen do not explicitly teach causing the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to enter an inactive state.
However, Li teaches causing the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to enter an inactive state ([0076] After receiving a notification that the VNF module finishes migrating the running service on the second VM to the first VM, the VNFM module disables the second VM and releases an idle resource).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Li’s disabling of unused resources with the centralized quantum service provisioning system of Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen’s system with the advantage of increasing resource availability (see Li [0016] after the VNFM module receives a service migration completion notification from the VNF module, releasing, by the VNFM module, the second VM, to avoid a waste of idle resources).
Regarding claim 11, it is the quantum computing system of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gonciulea et al. US 20220309374 A1 in view of Dadashikelayeh et al. US 20170357539 A1 Allen US 11372689 B1 in view of Li et al. US 20180246757 A1 in further view of DeVilbiss et al. US 9473400 B1.
Devilbiss is cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 3, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Li teach the method of claim 2.
Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Li do not explicitly teach detecting, by the second quantum computing device, a loss of connectivity with the first quantum computing device; and responsive to detecting the loss of connectivity, restarting the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device.
However, DeVilbiss teaches detecting, by the second quantum computing device, a loss of connectivity with the first quantum computing device (Col 5 lines 53-55 the VNIC client 440 detects a problem with communicating with network 280, the problem notifier 442 can notify the hypervisor 450); and
responsive to detecting the loss of connectivity, restarting the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device ([Abstract] the VNIC server failover mechanism selects the next VNIC client in the prioritized list as the active VNIC server, and establishes a connection to the VNIC client's CRQ; Col 5 lines 62-67 VNIC server failover mechanism 510 additionally includes a VNIC server selection mechanism 520 and a VNIC server monitor mechanism 530. The VNIC server selection mechanism 520 selects the highest VNIC server on the prioritized VNIC server list 480 when a CRQ is opened by a VNIC client; Examiner notes: losing connection to the first computing device triggers the failover mechanism to use the preferred next server which as claimed would be the second QCS that was made inactive during the transferring of the service. Selecting the failover server as the new active server and re-establishing the connection to utilize the new active server represents a reset).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined DeVilbiss’ server failover system with the quantum service provisioning system of Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Li. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Li’s system with the advantage of improving failure recovery and system resilience (see DeVilbiss Col 2 lines 9-15 When the selected VNIC server stops working, the VNIC server failover mechanism selects the next VNIC client in the prioritized list as the active VNIC server, and establishes a connection to the VNIC client's CRQ. In this manner, recovery of a failure in a VNIC server is done in a way that does not require any changes to the VNIC client).
Regarding claim 12, it is the quantum computing system of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claims 4, 8, 13, and 17 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gonciulea et al. US 20220309374 A1 in view of Dadashikelayeh et al. US 20170357539 A1 Allen US 11372689 B1 in further view of Manjunatha et al. US 20190306231 A1.
Manjunatha is cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 4, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen do not explicitly teach updating a service definition for a quantum service of the second quantum computing device to cause the quantum service to direct the service request to the first quantum computing device.
However, Manjunatha teaches updating a service definition for a quantum service of the second quantum computing device to cause the quantum service to direct the service request to the first quantum computing device ([0071] he IP addresses which were configured on the failed node may be configured on any one of the other two nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Manjunatha’s utilization of a proxy manager on each node and the performing of reassignment of mapping table for service routing to a new node with the centralized quantum provisioning system of Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen’s system with the advantage of maintaining and updating service routes to improve resource utilization and resiliency (see Manjuntha [0071] If one of the nodes fail (which may be a total failure or a partial failure, i.e. the node is unhealthy), the IP addresses which were configured on the failed node may be configured on any one of the other two nodes. In this way high availability is achieved. An example of reassigning an IP address, for example in the event of that a node fails, or becomes unhealthy, may comprise utilizing a mapping table associated with a node, as is now discussed with reference to FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen teach the method of claim 1.
Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, and Allen do not explicitly teach updating an alias associated with the second QCS executing on the second quantum computing device to direct service requests to the first quantum computing device.
However, Manjunatha further teaches configuring the second quantum computing device comprises updating an alias associated with the second QCS of the second quantum computing device to direct service requests to the first quantum computing device ([0071] reassigning an IP address, for example in the event of that a node fails, or becomes unhealthy, may comprise utilizing a mapping table associated with a node; Claim 1 reassigning an IP address of the first node to a second node by updating a mapping table associating a virtual router associated with the IP address such that the IP address is associated with the second node).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, they are the quantum computing systems of claims 4 and 8 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4 and 8 respectively.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gonciulea et al. US 20220309374 A1 in view of Dadashikelayeh et al. US 20170357539 A1 Allen US 11372689 B1 in view of Manjunatha et al. US 20190306231 A1 in further view of Anderson US 20220011958 A1.
Anderson is cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 5, Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen and Manjunatha teach the method of claim 4.
Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Manjunatha do not explicitly teach
However, Anderson teaches the service definition comprises a Quantum Assembly (QASM) file ([0036] Translator 620 converts the machine-independent instructions of QASM circuit program 144 to instructions 508 that are interpretable by quantum controller 112 (FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Anderson’s usage of QASM for quantum instructions related to mapping with the centralized quantum provisioning system of Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Manjunatha. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Gonciulea, Dadashikelayeh, Allen, and Manjunatha’s system with the advantage of improving adaptability of the provisioning system by utilizing a widely adopted quantum language (see Anderson [0035] QML circuit program 148 results from transpiling QASM circuit program 144. QASM circuit program 144 defines logical quantum circuits in an assembly language that is independent of any specific quantum technology (e.g., superconductors vs. cold atoms)).
Regarding claim 14, it is the quantum computing system of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to HARRISON LI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1469. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm ET.
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, Aimee Li can be reached on (571) 272-4169. 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.
/H.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights