DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of Applicant’s Response, dated 04/01/2024.
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 .
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 02/24/2022. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10/572,287 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 17 further clarifies claim 1’s reference to pinning and therefore the rejection should be withdrawn.
As to this argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 just rewords what is already claimed in claim 1.
Claim 17.
The method of claim 1, wherein virtual resources allocated based on the first priority are available to virtual machines assigned with the first priority instead of being available to virtual machines having the second priority.
Claim 1.
A method of configuring virtual machines on a host device comprising a plurality of physical processing cores, in which processing resources of each of the plurality of physical processing cores can be made available to one or more virtual machines, the method comprising:
pinning a first virtual machine to run only on a subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, the first virtual machine being of a first type;
configuring a second virtual machine to run on any of the plurality of physical processing cores, the second virtual machine being of a second type, the first type different from the second type;
Claim 17.
The method of claim 1, wherein virtual resources allocated based on the first priority are available to virtual machines assigned with the first priority instead of being available to virtual machines having the second priority.
assigning a first priority to the first virtual machine, wherein the first priority is higher than a second priority of the second virtual machine such that processing resources of the subset of cores are available to the first virtual machine when required by the first virtual machine instead of being available to the second virtual machine; and
prohibiting pinning of any other virtual machine of the first type to run on the subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, wherein the first priority and the second priority are respectively determined based on the first type and the second type, and wherein the first priority and the second priority are usable for allocating virtual resources to physical resources for a plurality of host devices in a cloud computing environment.
As can be seen above, Claim 1 already states to function of claim 17. Claim 17 does nothing to “clarify” claim 1 and merely rewords the same limitation. Rejection still stands.
Applicant’s main argument against the prior art states,
“… Shan [0066] teaches “In this way, the number of allocated physical cores in the level-1 resource pool is adjusted dynamically according to the change in the number of virtual machines in the level-1 resource pool, and the number of allocated physical cores in the default resource pool is adjusted correspondingly” (emphasis added). Thus, when a non-default resource pool (e.g., level-1) is created and a resource 1s added to the level-1 resource pool, that resource is removed from the default pool. That is, a resource is not simultaneously in the default pool and a non-default pool. In claim 1, there is no such logical exclusivity. A high priority VM is pinned to a high priority processing core. A lower priority VM can be assigned to any processing core including the pinned high priority processing core. The two sets overlap (are not exclusive). Patentee’s claim addresses an efficiency issue where resources that are reserved for high priority tasks may not be efficiently utilized. By allowing all VMs to use any processing core, the processing cores may be efficiently utilized when there are no high priority needs. However, when such a need arises, only then is the high priority processing core made available to a high priority VM over a low priority VM.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites: prohibiting pinning of any other virtual machine of the first type to run on the subset of the plurality of physical processing cores.
Thus, pinning of any other virtual machine to the previously pinned subset of cores is prohibited, thereby ensuring that time critical tasks at the high priority VM can be performed without contention from another high priority VM. The idea of pinning virtual machines to CPU cores is known, but it is generally accepted that it is not possible or advisable to have a mix of dedicated and non-dedicated VMs on the same host, because the dedicated and non-dedicated VMs can interfere with one another. Put another way, it is not advisable to have CPU overcommit on a host where you are pinning to CPUs. Hence, in known systems, the cloud has to be segmented into dedicated hosts that only support CPU pinning and hosts that do not support it. However, the present claims allow for mixing of pinned CPUs with non-pinned CPUs and allow for overcommit.”
As to this argument, Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language appears to contradict what is specifically stated in the claim under BRI. Specifically, Applicant states that
“A high priority VM is pinned to a high priority processing core. A lower priority VM can be assigned to any processing core including the pinned high priority processing core. The two sets overlap (are not exclusive). Patentee’s claim addresses an efficiency issue where resources that are reserved for high priority tasks may not be efficiently utilized. By allowing all VMs to use any processing core, the processing cores may be efficiently utilized when there are no high priority needs. However, when such a need arises, only then is the high priority processing core made available to a high priority VM over a low priority VM.”
Firstly, the claims do not state the scenario the Applicant has presented, i.e., “By allowing all VMs to use any processing core, the processing cores may be efficiently utilized when there are no high priority needs”. The claim clearly states that there are two priorities and in no situation is there less than two priorities for this interpretation to be read into the claims. The argument of, “However, when such a need arises, only then is the high priority processing core made available to a high priority VM over a low priority VM”, is stated and in the claims as having a high and low priority as claimed and therefore the lower priority does not have access to “any processing core”. Looking further into the claim language, there appears to be a contradiction based on Applicant’s statement. The limitations of, “configuring a second virtual machine to run on any of the plurality of physical processing cores, the second virtual machine being of a second type, the first type different from the second type” , would mean that the second virtual machines with a second priority can use any physical processing core. The next limitation contradicts this by stating, “assigning a first priority to the first virtual machine, wherein the first priority is higher than a second priority of the second virtual machine such that processing resources of the subset of cores are available to the first virtual machine when required by the first virtual machine instead of being available to the second virtual machine. This would mean that in the first part there are two types of virtual machines where one of them can use all processing cores and the second part contradicts this by saying that the second virtual machine cannot use any of the processing cores and the first virtual machine has “exclusivity” to specific cores.
Examiner interprets the limitation of the first virtual machine pinned specific cores that are only used for the first virtual machine, i.e., Level 1 in the prior art of Shan. The second virtual machine can run on any of the remaining default processing cores, also stated by Shan. The priorities are based on type as stated in the rejection below, and where in the assignment of priority determines what processing cores are not available to the lower priority virtual machine, as stated in the claims and prior art.
Based on the Applicant’s arguments, the prior art still reads on the claims. As stated by the Applicant, “By allowing all VMs to use any processing core, the processing cores may be efficiently utilized when there are no high priority needs”. This is taught by the prior art of Shan as if there are no VMs with a high level, the processing cores are then dynamically reallocated to the default processing core pool where all the lower level VM can use all the processing cores. As also stated by the Applicant in their arguments, “However, when such a need arises, only then is the high priority processing core made available to a high priority VM over a low priority VM”. This is clearly stated by Shan as the different levels of VM needing their own processing cores that are taken from the default processing core pool and reallocated to the specific processing core levels with Matzek specifically teaching priority levels.
If the Applicant wishes the elaborate on the specific scenario given in their arguments into claim language, it would clear up the interpretation under BRI and aid in understanding the inventive parts of the Applicant’s invention.
All other arguments are similar in nature to what is stated above and are also not persuasive. Rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17’s limitation of “instead of being available” is the definition of the claimed “pinning” in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 does not further limit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9, and 12 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0040131, (hereinafter “Shan”), and further in view of Matzek et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0012904, (hereinafter “Matzek”).
Claim 1:
A method of configuring virtual machines on a host device comprising a plurality of physical processing cores, in which processing resources of each of the plurality of physical processing cores can be made available to one or more virtual machines, the method comprising:
pinning a first virtual machine to run only on a subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, the first virtual machine being of a first type;
Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). The act of “pinning” is interpreted a scheduling the virtual machine to a specific resource pool that is exclusive to that level, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0027 – 0029, 0051, 0058, 0065).
configuring a second virtual machine to run on any of the plurality of physical processing cores, the second virtual machine being of a second type, the first type different from the second type;
Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. What is not specifically taught is a second type being different from a second type. Matzek specifically teaches different virtual machine types with priorities based on different factors, (e.g., Matzek, ¶ 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Matzek with Shan because it is utilizing the common practice of assigning priority to tasks to be processed in a timely manner yields the predictable result of the less important activities to make way for what is essential.
assigning a first priority to the first virtual machine, wherein the first priority is higher than a second priority of the second virtual machine such that processing resources of the subset of cores are available to the first virtual machine when required by the first virtual machine instead of being available to the second virtual machine; and
Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. What is not specifically taught is a second type being different from a second type. Matzek specifically teaches different virtual machine types with priorities based on different factors, (e.g., Matzek, ¶ 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Matzek with Shan because it is utilizing the common practice of assigning priority to tasks to be processed in a timely manner yields the predictable result of the less important activities to make way for what is essential.
prohibiting pinning of any other virtual machine of the first type to run on the subset of the plurality of physical processing cores,
Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065, et al.). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the resource pool levels 1, 2, or 3 of cores run on any of the cores. It is also seen that the resources that are allocated to the highest resource pool cannot be used by the default pool and stay in the advanced resource pool until certain specific conditions are met.
wherein the first priority and the second priority are respectively determined based on the first type and the second type, and wherein the first priority and the second priority are usable for allocating virtual resources to physical resources for a plurality of host devices in a cloud computing environment.
Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. What is not specifically taught is a second type being different from a second type. Matzek specifically teaches different virtual machine types with priorities based on different factors, (e.g., Matzek, ¶ 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Matzek with Shan because it is utilizing the common practice of assigning priority to tasks to be processed in a timely manner yields the predictable result of the less important activities to make way for what is essential.
Furthermore, the limitations that starts with “and wherein the first priority and the second priority are usable for allocating virtual resources to physical resources for a plurality of host devices in a cloud computing environment” is an intended use limitation and has not specific weight. Regardless, Matzek teaches VM used in a cloud computing environment, (e.g., Matzek, ¶¶ 0004, 0059 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Matzek with Shan because cloud computing often provides for cost efficiencies via elastic computing.
Claims 8, and 12 – 17 claim similar limitations as stated above and are therefore rejected for the same reasons stated above.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein configuring the second virtual machine to run on any of the plurality of physical processing cores comprises configuring the second virtual machine to run on any of the cores in the physical plurality of processing cores including at least one physical processing core in the subset of the plurality of physical processing cores such that the processing resource of the at least one physical processing core is available to the first virtual machine when required by the first virtual machine instead of being available to the second virtual machine.
Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. Shan teaches the cores in the default pool being allocated to the pools of the advanced resource pools during specific conditions, see cited areas above.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one physical processing core is at least partially required by the first virtual machine during a period of relatively high processing demand for the first virtual machine.
Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. Shan teaches the cores in the default pool being allocated to the pools of the advanced resource pools during specific conditions, see cited areas above.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein the at least one physical processing core is fully utilized by the first virtual machine during the period of relative high processing demand for the first virtual machine.
Shan teaches the use of scheduling through a resource adjusting unit, (e.g., ¶¶ 0029 – 0031, 0057). As seen in paragraph 57, 100% of the core can be use. It is also noted many different percentages can be designated in the allotment of cores and the amount of processing space if given to a VM.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one physical processing core is not fully required by the first virtual machine during a period of relatively low processing demand for the first virtual machine, and
wherein a processing resource of the at least one physical processing core is at least partially available to the second virtual machine during the period for relatively low processing demand for the first virtual machine.
Shan teaches the use of scheduling through a resource adjusting unit, (e.g., ¶¶ 0030 – 0035, 0057). As seen in paragraph 57, 50% of the core can be use. It is also noted many different percentages can be designated in the allotment of cores and the amount of processing space if given to a VM.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first type comprises a type of virtual machine responsible for providing one or more time critical services.
It is noted that the Applicant’s specification does not have specific timers or an actual time element to their invention. Therefore, the interpretation of “time critical” is the mere indication of importance and to be performed before others. Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the resource pool levels 1, 2, or 3 of cores run on any of the cores. It is also seen that the resources that are allocated to the highest resource pool cannot be used by the default pool and stay in the advanced resource pool until certain specific conditions are met. In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the higher level resource pool are of higher priority. It is further understood by one skilled in the art that the higher the priority the more “time critical” the service is and the more resources need to be dedicated to those processes.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second type comprises a type of virtual machine responsible for providing one or more non-time critical services.
Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. It is further understood by one skilled in the art that the default resource pool does not have any priority level of significance and is therefore given VMs that are not “time critical”.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sub set of the plurality of physical processing cores is a first subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, the method further comprising configuring a third virtual machine to run on a second subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, wherein there is no overlap between the first subset of the plurality of physical processing cores and the second subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, the third virtual machine being of the first type,
Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065, et al.). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the resource pool levels 1, 2, or 3 of cores run on any of the cores. It is also seen that the resources that are allocated to the highest resource pool cannot be used by the default pool and stay in the advanced resource pool until certain specific conditions are met. It can be interpreted that the third virtual machine is part of an “advanced resource pool” group and not the default resource pool group and therefore is similar to the first virtual machine type, i.e., “advanced”. Regardless if the Applicant agrees, Matzek specifically teaches different virtual machine types with priorities based on different factors, (e.g., Matzek, ¶ 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Matzek with Shan because it is utilizing the common practice of assigning priority to tasks to be processed in a timely manner yields the predictable result of the less important activities to make way for what is essential.
Furthermore, this limitation is mere duplication of parts and is obvious to one skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts.
wherein configuring the second virtual machine comprises configuring the second virtual machine to run on any of the plurality of processing cores including at least one physical processing core in the second subset of the plurality of physical processing cores; and
Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores.
assigning a third priority to the third virtual machine, wherein the third priority is higher than the second priority such that processing resources of the second plurality of physical processing cores are available to the third virtual machine when required by the third virtual machine instead of being available to the second virtual machine.
Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. Shan teaches the use of scheduling specific processor cores out of a pool of different resource pools to the virtual machines that have specific priorities, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0010 – 0021). Shan teaches different levels assigned to different virtual machines, (e.g., Shan, ¶¶ 0051, 0056 et al., 0065). In this instance the virtual machines that are assigned to the default resource pool of cores run on any of the cores. Shan teaches the cores in the default pool being allocated to the pools of the advanced resource pools during specific conditions, see cited areas above. Furthermore, this limitation is mere duplication of parts and is obvious to one skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Duplication of Parts.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan and Matzek, in further view of Mehta et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0092259, hereinafter “Mehta”.
Claim 10:
The method of claim 9,
wherein there is no overlap between the first subset of the plurality of physical processing cores and the second subset of the plurality of physical processing cores,
Shan teaches the use of scheduling through a resource adjusting unit, (e.g., ¶¶ 0029 – 0031, 0057). As seen in paragraph 57, 100% of the core can be use, i.e., “no overlap”. It is also noted many different percentages can be designated in the allotment of cores to the VM(s), (i.e., some cores are used at 100%, some may be at 50% depending on the task).
wherein the host comprises a first non-uniform memory access node and a second non-uniform memory access node,
Mehta specifically teaches the use of non-uniform memory access nodes, (NUMA), (e.g., Mehta, Abstract, ¶¶ 0079 – 0084 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Mehta with Shan and Matzek because using matching VMs on a particular NUMA node can achieve the highest overall efficiency (with respect to NUMA node assignments) in transmitting data from VMs to a network when all VMs and queues are on the same NUMA node as the PNIC, (e.g., Mehta, ¶¶ 0080 et al., & Fig. 7).
wherein the first non-uniform memory access node comprises the first subset of the plurality of physical processing cores, wherein the second non-uniform memory access node comprises the second subset of the plurality of physical processing cores.
Shan teaches the use of core subsets as seen above in the resource pools, see above cited areas of Shan. Mehta teaches the specifics of NUMA in specific subsets, (e.g., Mehta, Figs. 2 – 10 and supporting areas of the specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Mehta with Shan and Matzek because using matching VMs on a particular NUMA node can achieve the highest overall efficiency (with respect to NUMA node assignments) in transmitting data from VMs to a network when all VMs and queues are on the same NUMA node as the PNIC, (e.g., Mehta, ¶¶ 0080 et al., & Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan and Matzek, in further view of Sugumar et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,673,113, hereinafter “Sugumar”.
Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first type comprises a type of virtual machine responsible for performing media packet forwarding.
The claim language is non-functional descriptive language and therefore does not specifically distinguish itself from the prior art, MPEP, 2112.01 III. Regardless, Sugumar teaches forwarding media packets to VMs, (e.g., Sugumar, 2:50 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Sugumar with Shan and Matzek because sending media over a network would result in the predictable result of sending information and further does not require undue experimentation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DAVID E ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Roland Foster/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights