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
Claims 1-30 are pending. Claims 1-30 have been examined and rejected.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 is a method claim and recites:
A method for generating an enhanced digital model for of a system of systems, 1, the method comprising:
generating an end-to-end model of the system of systems, wherein the end-to-end model of the system of systems comprises a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems (SoS); (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
identifying one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS; (mental processes)
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model is based on the generated end-to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems, wherein the digital model includes one or more constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS and one or more connections between the one or more constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
associating data to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
generating an enhanced analysis model based on the generated digital model and the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 2 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying the plurality constituent systems belonging to the SoS; (mental processes)
identifying the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 3 is a method claim depending on claim 2 and recites:
The method of claim 2, wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying one or more mission threads associated with the SoS; and (mental processes)
associating the one or more mission threads with plurality of constituent systems or (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 4 is a method claim depending on claim 2 and recites:
The method of claim 2, wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS; and (mental processes)
associating the one or more mission metrics with plurality of constituent systems or the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 5 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS comprises:
labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes; (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes; and (mental processes)
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 6 is a method claim depending on claim 5 and recites:
The method of claim 5, wherein identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS comprises:
labelling one or more mission threads associated with the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes; (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes; and (mental processes)
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the mission threads associated with the selected one or more stereotypes. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 7 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the digital model comprises:
specifying one or more criteria associated with the digital model; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
selecting one or more constituent systems from the end-to-end model based on the identified one or more constituent systems of the SoS and the one or more criteria associated with the digital model. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 8 is a method claim depending on claim 7 and recites:
The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more criteria associated with the digital model comprises a degree of connectivity between the identified constituent systems, and other constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the end-to-end model. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 9 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model includes information pertaining to the operation of the one or more constituent systems associated with the data. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: no additional elements are recited.
Claim 10 is a method claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the end-to-end model, the digital model, and the enhanced analysis model are generated using SysML.
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites an additional element of SysML, which is a generic tool, to perform modeling the E2E and SoS. It does not amount significantly more abstract ideas.
Claim 11 is a system claim and recites:
A system for generating an enhanced digital model for of a system of systems, the system comprising:
a memory;
one or more processors;
wherein the memory stores one or more programs that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
generate an end-to-end model of the system of systems, wherein the end-to-end model of the system of systems comprises a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems (SoS), and one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems; (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
identify one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS; (mental processes)
generate a digital model, wherein the digital model is based on the generated end- to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems, wherein the digital model includes one or more constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS and one or more connections between the one or more constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
associate data to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
generate an enhanced analysis model based on the generated digital model and the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite a limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites additional elements, a memory and one or more processors, at generic level to perform recited steps, which does not amount significantly more abstract ideas.
Claims 12-20 are system claims depending on claim 11 and recite limitations analogous to those in claims 2-10. Hence, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 21 is a product claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 11. Hence, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 22-30 are product claims depending on claim 21 and recite limitations analogous to those in claims 2-10. Hence, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-30 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 1 recited “a system of systems” in the preamble. The first limitation recites “an end-to-end model of the system of systems,” which is fine. The first limitation also recites “a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems.” It is not clear if “the systems” in “the systems of systems” is a typographical error of “system of systems” or a new term in the claim because in the specification the Applicant sometimes uses a term “systems of systems” and sometimes a slightly different term “system of systems.” Hence, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Since it is not clear if the term “the systems of systems” is a new term in the claim or not, the claim is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 21 recite the analogous limitation, so they are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 depend on claims 1, 11, and 21, respectively and do not cure the defects. Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reasons.
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 1-3, 7-13, 17-23, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denby et al. (US 2005/0204333) in view of Gao et al. (The Architecture of Digital System Model for System-of-Sytems Engineering, 2019 Chinese Automation Congress).
As per claim 1, Denby teaches a method for generating an enhanced digital model for of a system of systems, 1, the method comprising:
generating an end-to-end model of the system of systems, wherein the end-to-end model of the system of systems comprises a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems (SoS) (¶ 0005, 0042; Denby teaches using a tool for a complete modeling and representation of an end-to-end horizonal and top-to-bottom vertical view of a modeled environment of a system-of-systems);
identifying one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches model components at various levels allowing for a system-of-systems to be modeled analyzed from vertical and/or horizonal perspective; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS are identified);
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model is based on the generated end-to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems, wherein the digital model includes one or more constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches Denby teaches a modeling environment facilitating both an individual system model and system-of-systems modeling; in addition, in ¶ 0027-0028 Denby teaches an environment 150 including a plurality of cohesive intergraded modeling framework 50, each of which corresponding one of a plurality systems in a SoS, and the framework 50 are integrated with one another in that modeling is based on a single representation with multiple views of system-of-systems; in other words, the integration is based on the generated end-to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems; the generated model corresponds to a digital model as recited); and
associating data to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model (¶ 0030, 0036; Denby teaches configuration of the integrated modeling allowing user to target a system and individual data elements such as key performance parameters, assumptions, constraints, and systems architect inputs of a system); and
generating an enhanced analysis model based on the generated digital model and the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model (¶ 0030, 0036; Denby teaches building a digital model as recited in the limitation above and associating data to one or more constituent systems of the digital model to perform analysis on the digital model to generate analysis data; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
Denby does not teach:
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model includes one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS.
However, Gao teaches:
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model includes one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS (p. 2744 right col. ¶ 3, p. 2745 right col. ¶ 4; Gao teaches describing the internal structure of the block according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements corresponding to systems).
Denby and Gao are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and analysis of a system-of-systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denby and Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Gao’s teachings would have supported the application of modeling and simulation based to describe the architecture and capability of SoS (Gao, Abstract).
As per claim 2, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby further teaches wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying the plurality constituent systems belonging to the SoS (¶ 0005, 0042; Denby teaches using a tool for a complete modeling and representation of an end-to-end horizonal and top-to-bottom vertical view of a modeled environment of a system-of-systems, so naturally the plurality constituent systems belonging to the SoS has to be identified for modeling);
Denby does not teach:
identifying the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems.
However, Gao teaches:
identifying the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems (p. 2744 right col. ¶ 3, p. 2745 right col. ¶ 4; Gao teaches describing the internal structure of the block according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements corresponding to systems; these teachings read onto this limitation).
As per claim 3, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 2, Gao further teaches wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying one or more mission threads associated with the SoS (p. 2744 right col. ¶ 3; Gao teaches modeling SoS including mission; this teaching means one or more mission threads associated with the SoS are identified); and
associating the one or more mission threads with plurality of constituent systems or
As per claim 7, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby futher teaches wherein generating the digital model comprises:
specifying one or more criteria associated with the digital model (¶ 0023; Denby teaches modeling performance requirements of a system and/or SoS, which correspond to one or more criteria associated with the digital model); and
selecting one or more constituent systems from the end-to-end model based on the identified one or more constituent systems of the SoS and the one or more criteria associated with the digital model (¶ 0023; Denby teaches modeling performance requirements of a system and/or SoS; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems from the end-to-end model are selected and modeled with the one or more criteria associated with the digital model).
As per claim 8, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 7, Gao further teaches wherein the one or more criteria associated with the digital model comprises a degree of connectivity between the identified constituent systems, and other constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the end-to-end model (p. 2745 right col. ¶ 3-4; Gao teaches defining relationship between blocks according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements; definitions of relationship between blocks according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements are interpreted as a degree of connectivity between the identified constituent systems, and other constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the end-to-end model as recited in the claim, see the instant application specification ¶ 0086).
As per claim 9, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby further teaches wherein the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model includes information pertaining to the operation of the one or more constituent systems associated with the data (¶ 0027; Denby teaches modeling operational aspects of a system or a SoS; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 10, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Gao further teaches wherein the end-to-end model, the digital model, and the enhanced analysis model are generated using SysML (p. 2747 right col. ¶ 1).
As per claim 11, Denby and Gao in combination teach a system for generating an enhanced digital model for of a system of systems, the system comprising:
a memory (Denby, ¶ 0037);
one or more processors (Denby, ¶ 0037);
wherein the memory stores one or more programs that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (¶ 0024; Denby teaches using UML software tool for modeling): (these limitations below are analogous to those in claim 1. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons by Denby in view of Gao)
generate an end-to-end model of the system of systems, wherein the end-to-end model of the system of systems comprises a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems (SoS), and one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems;
identify one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS;
generate a digital model, wherein the digital model is based on the generated end- to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems, wherein the digital model includes one or more constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS and one or more connections between the one or more constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS; and
associate data to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model; and
generate an enhanced analysis model based on the generated digital model and the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model.
As per claim 12, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 13, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 7. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 18, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 19, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 10. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 21, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 11. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 22, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 23, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 3. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 27, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 7. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 28, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 29, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 30, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 10. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denby et al. (US 2005/0204333) in view of Gao et al. as applied to claims 2, 12, and 22 above, and further in view of Czekster et al. (Introduction to Performance Evaluation of Systems, 2019).
As per claim 4, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 2, Denby further teaches generating the end-to-end model.
Denby and Gao do not teach:
identifying one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS; and
associating the one or more mission metrics with plurality of constituent systems or the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems.
However, Czekster teaches:
identifying one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS (p. 3 ¶ 5, 7, p. 4 ¶ 2, p. 6 last paragraph; Czekster teaches SoS and modeling a system in systems associated with a mission with metrics or measures such as throughput, utilization, response time; this teaching indicates one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS is identified); and
associating the one or more mission metrics with plurality of constituent systems or the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems (p. 3 ¶ 5, 7, p. 4 ¶ 2, p. 6 last paragraph; Czekster teaches SoS and modeling a system in systems associated with a mission with metrics or measures such as throughput, utilization, response time).
Denby, Gao, and Czekster are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and analysis of a system-of-systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denby, Gao, and Czekster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Czekster’s teachings would have evaluated performance and ability to conduct “what-if” analysis by the definition of multiple scenarios (Czekster, p. 5 ¶ 3).
As per claim 14, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 24, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 15, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denby et al. (US 2005/0204333) in view of Gao et al. as applied to claims 1, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of Runchy (US Pat 72774388).
As per claim 5, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby further teaches wherein identifying one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS comprises:
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches model components at various levels allowing for a system-of-systems to be modeled analyzed from vertical and/or horizonal perspective; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS are identified).
Denby and Gao do not teach:
labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes;
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes; and
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes.
However, Runchy teaches:
labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes (col. 31 lines 44-49; Runchy teaches applying labels onto systems, which are collections of things or ideas cohered by common group label; the teaching of labels for collections of things, corresponding to systems, reads onto labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems, and the teaching of labeling by common group label means stereotyping; these teachings in combination read onto this limitation);
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes (col. 31 lines 44-49; Runchy teaches applying labels onto systems as discussed immediately above, which means a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes is selected); and
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes (col. 4 lines 48-55, col. 31 lines 44-49; Runchy teaches applying labels/stereotypes onto systems as discussed above for searching sysetms)
Denby, Gao, and Runchy are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and analysis of a system-of-systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denby, Gao, and Runchy for “identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Runchy’s teachings would have helped search people find and manage information more successfully (Runchy, col. 4 lines 48-55).
As per claim 15, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 25, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 16, and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 6, Denby, Gao, and Runchy in combination teach the method of claim 5, wherein identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS comprises:
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches model components at various levels allowing for a system-of-systems to be modeled analyzed from vertical and/or horizonal perspective; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS are identified).
However, Denby, Gao, and Runchy and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
labelling one or more mission threads associated with the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes;
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes; and
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the mission threads associated with the selected one or more stereotypes;
in combination with other limitations as recited in the claim.
Claims 16 and 26 recite limitations analogous to those in claim 6. They would, hence, be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, 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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189