DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to appeal brief filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 12, 14, 16 – 20 and 22 are pending.
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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the appeal brief filed on 12/22/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below: /APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 – 12, 14, 16 – 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per independent claims 1 and 11, the claimed limitation “determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system” failed to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a) as the specification is silent in regards to “calculate a group of efficiencies”. Specification only teaches determining efficiency score of a management profile and select the management profile based on the efficiency score ([0054] – [0057]), it is unclear how the group of efficiencies are calculated nor how the management profile is selected from the group of efficiencies.
Claims 2, 4, 6 – 10, 12, 14, 16 – 20 and 22 are rejected due to dependency to the rejected base claim.
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, 2, 4, 6 – 12, 14, 16 – 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of mental activities without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 11:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determine workload estimation for a future time duration based on the plurality of previous workloads;”, “select, based on the workload estimation, a management profile from a group of management profiles for managing the computing system for the future time duration, wherein the group of management profiles define different threshold ranges” and “wherein the device is further caused to select the management profile by: determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine a workload estimation for a future period based on previous workloads and select an optimization plan that improves the efficiencies. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “A device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes; the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the device to ”generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “obtain a plurality of previous workloads of a computing system for a previous time duration” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes; the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the device to” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element “obtain a plurality of previous workloads of a computing system for a previous time duration” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2 and 12:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold and the device is further caused to manage applied resources in the computing system by any of: increasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; decreasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold.” merely recites the “select a management profile” generated in claim 1, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 4 and 14:
Regarding claim 4, The additional element “wherein the device is further caused to determine the group of efficiencies by: with regard to a given management profile in the group of management profiles, determining a given efficiency for the computing system associated with the given management profile based on an amount of applied resources that are to be saved in the computing system by a decrease of the applied resources, the determining the given efficiency comprising specifying a target amount of applied resources that are to be saved in the computing system by the decrease of the applied resources; determining a false ratio for incorrectly managing the computing system based on the workload estimation and the management profile;” merely further limits the “determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system”. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “and updating the given efficiency based on the target amount of applied resources and the false ratio” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 6 and 16:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “to determine the false ratio by: determining the false ratio based on workloads of a previous time window within the previous time duration, the previous time window ending at a current time point.” recites a mental process. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 7 and 17:
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the false ratio comprises any of: a false decreasing ratio associated with incorrectly decreasing the applied resources in the computing system; and a false maintaining ratio associated with failing to increase the applied resources in the computing system.” recites a mental process on which the “group of efficiencies” are determined. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 8 and 18:
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the device is further caused to: and select a further management profile from the group of management profiles in response to determining that degradation of the performance indicator being above a threshold degradation, the further management profile comprising any of: a first threshold that is below the first threshold of the management profile; and a second threshold that is below the second threshold of the management profile.” recites a mental process on which the “group of efficiencies” are determined. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “obtain a performance indicator of the computing system;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 9 and 19:
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “determining, at a processor in the computing system, the workload estimation based on a machine learning model trained by historical workloads of the computing system.” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 10 and 20:
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold, and the device is further caused to manage a data amount that is to be processed by of the computing system by any of: decreasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; increasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the data amount in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold.” recites a mental process on which the “group of efficiencies” are determined. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 22:
Regarding claim 22, the additional element “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the method of claim 11” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorshams et al (US 20190386889, prior art part of IDS dated 3/14/2023, hereinafter Noorshams), in view of Ramesh et al (US 20080120273, hereinafter Ramesh), and further in view of Wei et al (US 20130117475, hereinafter Wei).
As per claim 1, Noorshams discloses: A device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes; the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the device to:
obtain a plurality of previous workloads of a computing system for a previous time duration; (Noorshams [0053]: “The method 100 comprises sampling and storing, 102, historic workload request data of the computing cluster as time-stamped workload values, typically performed by the SMF.”.)
determine workload estimation for a future time duration based on the plurality of previous workloads; (Noorshams [0054]: “forecasting, 104, an expected total number—e.g., the sum—of workload requests for a defined time interval (which can theoretically be unlimited) in the future based on a time-series analysis of the time-stamped workload values”.)
and select, based on the workload estimation, a management profile for managing the computing system for the future time duration, (Noorshams [0066]: “if a utilization that requires 10 CPUs to be processed is expected for the next peak period on a node in the cluster, but only 9 CPUs are currently granted to that node, a scheduled policy can be generated in form of an XML file. That XML file is used by, e.g., a Capacity Provisioning Manager (CPM) or similar automated capacity provisioning products to add the required CPU on demand during the expected peak period. As an alternative, if adding resources is too expensive, the specific workload on the cluster can be given a higher priority in form of an importance factor in the respective Workload Manager (WLM) policy or similar server workload manager products of that node. While this can help important workloads to meet their performance goals, the consequence is that the relative priority of other workloads can be decreased”.)
Noorshams did not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the management profile is selected from a group of management profiles;
wherein the device is further caused to select the management profile by: determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system.
However, Ramesh teaches:
Wherein the management profile is selected from a group of management profiles; (Ramesh [0036] – [0037])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ramesh into that of Noorshams in order to have the management profile is selected from a group of management profiles. Ramesh [0036] – [0037] teaches using task profile to select appropriate execution plan from a plurality of existing plans, such combination would reduce the overall cost of having to generate a management profile from scratch each time and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Wei teaches:
wherein the device is further caused to select the management profile by: determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system. (Wei [0024]: “After determining the characteristic of the data transfer, the IDM 108 may select and implement an optimization profile based on the characteristic. In some embodiments, an optimization profile may be selected based upon a determined interface protocol. An optimization profile may include a set of operating modes for the data storage device 106, the host system 102, or the system 100 generally… An optimization profile may be a collection of one or more operating modes.”; [0025]: “The IDM 108 may select an optimization profile, e.g. an operating mode or set of operating modes, based upon the determined characteristic. Once an optimization profile is selected, it may be implemented to improve performance. The optimization profile may be tailored to achieve improved performance in the system 100 or an aspect or part of the system 100 according to the characteristic.”; [0026]: “In some examples, the IDM 108 may be in a data storage device 106 and may detect a slow interface 104. The IDM 108 may then select and implement an optimization profile that improves the performance of the data storage device 106, such as reducing power consumption and increasing the amount of read-after-write verifications performed by the data storage device 106.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wei into that of Noorshams and Ramesh in order to determine a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily recognize that selecting the best management profile from multiple profiles would reduce the overall cost of having to generate a management profile from scratch each time and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 9, the combination of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei further teach:
The device of claim 1, wherein the device is further caused to determine the workload estimation by: determining, at a processor in the computing system, the workload estimation based on a machine learning model trained by historical workloads of the computing system. (Noorshams [0003]: “Additionally, the method can comprise, in response to a result of the time-series analysis, training a workload prediction model by using additional data about acyclic events in expected workload requests. The training can apply a statistical regression technique for predicting a future workload demand for the computing cluster, and upon exceeding a predefined threshold value of the predicted future workload demand, reassigning resources of the computing cluster.”)
As per claim 11, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the method variant of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 22, the combination of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei further teach:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the method of claim 11. (Noorshams [0080])
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei, and further in view of Campbell et al (USPAT 11210138, hereinafter Campbell).
As per claim 2, the combination of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei did not teach:
The device of claim 1, wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold; and the device is further caused to manage applied resources in the computing system by any of: increasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; decreasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold.
However, Campbell teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold; and the device is further caused to manage applied resources in the computing system by any of: increasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; decreasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold. (Campbell col 11, lines 19 – 58: “Optionally, a number of cores, an amount of memory (e.g., RAM), a number of virtual machines, and/or a hardware configuration can be assigned or removed from the first set of computing resources. In other words, the change (e.g., increase, decrease) in computing resources may be triggered in response to dynamic analysis of the at least one simulation attribute, for example, in order to meet demand and/or respond to existing conditions. Alternatively or additionally, the dynamic analysis of step 206 optionally includes comparing an attribute of the simulation to a threshold. It should be understood that this may not involve determining a difference between required and available computing resources. If the attribute of the simulation exceeds or is less than the threshold, then the computing resources (e.g., the first set of computing resources) can be modified accordingly.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Campbell into that of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei in order to have the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold;, and the device is further caused to manage applied resources in the computing system by any of: increasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; decreasing the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the applied resources in the computing system in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold. Campbell has shown the claimed limitations are commonly known and used criteria to perform well known load balancing operations, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve the predictable results of load balancing and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 12, it is the method variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorshams, Ramesh, Wei and Campbell, and further in view of Myers et al (US 20210064492, hereinafter Myers).
As per claim 8, the combination of Noorshams, Ramesh, Wei and Campbell did not teach:
The device of claim 2, wherein the device is further caused to: obtain a performance indicator of the computing system; and select a further management profile from the group of management profiles in response to determining that degradation of the performance indicator being above a threshold degradation, the further management profile comprising any of: a first threshold that is below the first threshold of the management profile; and a second threshold that is below the second threshold of the management profile.
However, Myers teaches:
The device of claim 2, wherein the device is further caused to: obtain a performance indicator of the computing system; and select a further management profile from the group of management profiles in response to determining that degradation of the performance indicator being above a threshold degradation, the further management profile comprising any of: a first threshold that is below the first threshold of the management profile; and a second threshold that is below the second threshold of the management profile. (Myers [0007])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Myers into that of Noorshams, Ramesh, Wei and Campbell in order to obtain a performance indicator of the computing system; and select a further management profile from the group of management profiles in response to determining that degradation of the performance indicator being above a threshold degradation, the further management profile comprising any of: a first threshold that is below the first threshold of the management profile; and a second threshold that is below the second threshold of the management profile. Myers [0007] teaches the performance degradation is an important factor in determining load balancing or similar optimization, and are commonly known and used ways to perform well known load balancing operations, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve the predictable results of load balancing and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 18, it is the method variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei, and further in view of Fuller et al (US 20150227393, hereinafter Fuller).
As per claim 10, the combination of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei did not teach:
The device of claim 1, wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold, and the device is further caused to manage a data amount that is to be processed by of the computing system by any of: decreasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; increasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the data amount in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold.
However, Fuller teaches:
The device of claim 1, wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold, and the device is further caused to manage a data amount that is to be processed by of the computing system by any of: decreasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; increasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the data amount in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold. (Fuller [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fuller into that of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei in order to have the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold, and the device is further caused to manage a data amount that is to be processed by of the computing system by any of: decreasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; increasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the data amount in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold. Fuller has shown the claimed limitations are commonly known and used ways to perform well known load balancing operations, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve the predictable results of load balancing and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 20, it is the method variant of claim 10 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 8, 10, 12, 18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claims 1 and 11:
Applicant argued on pages 11 – 12 that the combination of Noorshams, Ramesh and Wei does not teach the claimed limitations of “wherein the device is further caused to select the management profile by: determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system.”
The examiner disagrees. Firstly, the specification is silent in regards to how the claimed “group of efficiencies” are determined as specification only teaches determining efficiency score of a management profile and select the management profile based on the efficiency score ([0054] – [0057]), it is unclear how the group of efficiencies are calculated nor how the management profile is selected from the group of efficiencies. Secondly, Wei [0024] – [0026] teaches selecting an optimization profile that comprises sets of operating modes each impacts the performance of specific part of the system, and selecting the optimization profile comprising one or more operating modes that may be tailored to achieve improved performance in the system or an aspect or part of the system according to the characteristic. Examiner notes that the operating modes are mapped to the efficiencies as they each improve efficiencies of the components the operating modes govern, and selecting an optimization profile that comprises one or more operating mode to best improve the performance of the system or an aspect of the system is the same as the claimed “wherein the device is further caused to select the management profile by: determining a group of efficiencies for the computing system associated with the group of management profiles, respectively; and selecting the management profile based on the group of efficiencies for the computing system.”. The combination of
Rest of the claims:
Applicant presented similar arguments as claims 1 and 11 and are subject to the same counter arguments presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196