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 .
Detail Action
On 4/18/2023, application 18/136,262 is filed with claims 1-20.
This is a Non-Final Action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/metal process without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
to keep the cooling systems operating in one or more of the realms having lower performance and cost than another one of the realms; MPEP 2106.04(a);
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A Method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
dispatching jobs across electronic hardware components, the electronic hardware components to process the jobs, the electronic hardware components coupled to respective cooling systems, the respective cooling systems each capable of cooling according to different cooling mechanisms, the different cooling mechanisms having different performance and cost operating realms, the dispatching of the jobs comprising assigning the jobs to specific ones of the electronic hardware components; MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A Method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
wherein the electronic hardware components are racks with electronic systems installed therein; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A Method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
wherein the electronic components are electronic systems installed within a rack; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 4 also recites the step of:
recognizing from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs has increased; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
monitoring respective workloads of the electronic hardware components; …. the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components; moving the one job from the one electronic hardware component to another one of the electronic hardware components to keep the one electronic hardware component's respective cooling system operating in the one realm.; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 5 also recites the step of:
predicting from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs will increase,; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
monitoring respective workloads of the electronic hardware components…the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components; moving the one job from the one electronic hardware component to another one of the electronic hardware components to keep the one electronic hardware component's respective cooling system operating in the one realm; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 6 also recites the step of:
predicting from the monitoring a failure of a component within one of the electronic hardware components or one of the cooling systems; MPEP 2106.04(a)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method ) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
monitoring respective workloads of the electronic hardware components; predicting from the monitoring a failure of a component within one of the electronic hardware components or one of the cooling systems; scheduling a replacement time for the component; before the replacement time, parking and/or moving a subset of the jobs that are affected by the component's replacement.; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A Method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
wherein the dispatching of jobs is to prevent any one of the cooling systems from operating in a first of the realms until all of the cooling systems are operating in a second of the realms, the second of the realms having an immediately lower performance and cost than the first of the realms; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a machine-readable storage media comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the method of claims 1-7 are configured to perform. Claims 8-14 recite the same limitations as claims 1-7, respectively; therefore, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a machine-readable storage media without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-7. See above.
Claims 15-19 are directed to a data center comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the method of claims 1 and 4-7 are configured to perform. Claims 15-19 recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 4-7, respectively; therefore, claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a data center without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 4-7. See above.
Claim 20:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 20 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A Method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 20 recites the additional element of:
the data center of claim 15 wherein the jobs are executed within containers deployed on the electronic hardware components; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Barsness US Patent 9,122,525.
18/136,262
Barsness US Patent 9,122,525
Claim 1
A method, comprising:
dispatching jobs across electronic hardware components, the electronic hardware components to process the jobs, the electronic hardware components coupled to respective cooling systems, the respective cooling systems each capable of cooling according to different cooling mechanisms, the different cooling mechanisms having different performance and cost operating realms,
Barsness: Returning to block 138 of FIG. 8, the program code may select a node based on at least one of the following: the layout of the data center(s), the location of at least one node of the system in the data center(s), the location of at least one node in relation to at least one cooling source (for example, based on the proximity of at least one node to a cooling source, in that a node closer to a cooling source may be cooled more effectively), the configuration of at least one node in relation to at least one power circuit (for example, to reduce the power drawn from a particular power circuit, and thus attempt to decrease the heat generated by that power circuit), the temperature of at least one node (for example, determining the temperature of a plurality of nodes, then selecting at least one node with at least a lower temperature than the node with the highest temperature, or selecting nodes to address heat islands), the current processing load of at least one node (for example, selecting at least one free node, or at least one node that has substantially completed a current job), and/or historic information about the job (for example, based on an estimated processing requirement for the job, or such that a job known to use large amounts of node resources and otherwise run hot may be scheduled on a cool node, and alternatively a job known to use small amounts of node resources and otherwise run cool may be scheduled on a hot node). Thus, the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs, and distribute at least one of the heat load and/or energy load of the system; c12:60-c15:25;
the dispatching of the jobs comprising assigning the jobs to specific ones of the electronic hardware components to keep the cooling systems operating in one or more of the realms having lower performance and cost than another one of the realms.
Barsness c12:60-c15:25; It is noted that more power means more cost.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1 wherein the electronic hardware components are racks with electronic systems installed therein.
Barsness c7:9-35; c9:40-c11:25; It is noted that cabinets include racks.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1 wherein the electronic components are electronic systems installed within a rack.
Barsness c7:9-35; c9:40-c11:25; It is noted that cabinets include racks.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1 wherein the method further comprises: monitoring respective workloads of the electronic hardware components; recognizing from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs has increased, the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components; moving the one job from the one electronic hardware component to another one of the electronic hardware components to keep the one electronic hardware component's respective cooling system operating in the one realm.
Barsness: Returning to block 138 of FIG. 8, the program code may select a node based on at least one of the following: the layout of the data center(s), the location of at least one node of the system in the data center(s), the location of at least one node in relation to at least one cooling source (for example, based on the proximity of at least one node to a cooling source, in that a node closer to a cooling source may be cooled more effectively), the configuration of at least one node in relation to at least one power circuit (for example, to reduce the power drawn from a particular power circuit, and thus attempt to decrease the heat generated by that power circuit), the temperature of at least one node (for example, determining the temperature of a plurality of nodes, then selecting at least one node with at least a lower temperature than the node with the highest temperature, or selecting nodes to address heat islands), the current processing load of at least one node (for example, selecting at least one free node, or at least one node that has substantially completed a current job), and/or historic information about the job (for example, based on an estimated processing requirement for the job, or such that a job known to use large amounts of node resources and otherwise run hot may be scheduled on a cool node, and alternatively a job known to use small amounts of node resources and otherwise run cool may be scheduled on a hot node). Thus, the program code selects at least one nodes to schedule the respective at least one job based on at least the location of the plurality of nodes, and in some embodiments additionally based on an estimated processing requirement to process the job. In block 140, the program code schedules the jobs on the selected nodes. In some embodiments where the workload is transformed into a plurality of jobs, the program code selects a group of nodes from the plurality of nodes to schedule the respective plurality of jobs, and distribute at least one of the heat load and/or energy load of the system. c12:60-c15:25;
As per claims 8-11, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4.
As per claims 15-16, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 4.
18/136,262
Barsness US Patent 9,122,525
Claim 20
The data center of claim 15 wherein the jobs are executed within containers deployed on the electronic hardware components.
Barsness c7:9-35; c9:40-c11:25; It is noted that cabinets include containers.
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 5-6, 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness US Patent 9,122,525 in view Balle et al. US Publication 2018/0024861.
18/136,262
Barsness US Patent 9,122,525 in view Balle et al. US Publication 2018/0024861
Claim 5
The method of claim 1 wherein the method further comprises: monitoring respective workloads of the electronic hardware components; predicting from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs will increase, the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components; moving the one job from the one electronic hardware component to another one of the electronic hardware components to keep the one electronic hardware component's respective cooling system operating in the one realm.
Barness does not specifically teaches predicting from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs will increase, the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components;
Balle teaches predicting from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs will increase, the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components; Fig. 14, item 1446; Fig. 11; p0041-p0066;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Balle’s teaching with method of Barsness in order to dynamically managing the allocation of accelerator resources include an orchestrator server; and the orchestrator server is to assign a workload to a managed node for execution, determine a predicted demand for one or more accelerator resources to accelerate the execution of one or more jobs within the workload, provision, prior to the predicted demand, one or more accelerator resources to accelerate the one or more jobs, and allocate the one or more provisioned accelerator resources to the managed node to accelerate the execution of the one or more jobs.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1 wherein the method further comprises: monitoring respective workloads of the electronic hardware components; predicting from the monitoring a failure of a component within one of the electronic hardware components or one of the cooling systems; scheduling a replacement time for the component; before the replacement time, parking and/or moving a subset of the jobs that are affected by the component's replacement.
Barness does not specifically teaches predicting from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs will increase, the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components;
Balle teaches predicting from the monitoring that processing activity of one of the jobs will increase, the one job executing on one of the electronic hardware components; Fig. 14, item 1446; Fig. 11; p0041-p0066;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Balle’s teaching with method of Barsness in order to dynamically managing the allocation of accelerator resources include an orchestrator server; and the orchestrator server is to assign a workload to a managed node for execution, determine a predicted demand for one or more accelerator resources to accelerate the execution of one or more jobs within the workload, provision, prior to the predicted demand, one or more accelerator resources to accelerate the one or more jobs, and allocate the one or more provisioned accelerator resources to the managed node to accelerate the execution of the one or more jobs.
As per claims 12-13 and 17-18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 5-6. See rejection above.
Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barsness US Patent 9,122,525 in view Fadell US Publication 2010/0010857 and Spurlock US Publication 2020/0374348.
18/136,262
Barsness US Patent 9,122,525 in view Fadell US Publication 2010/0010857 and Spurlock US Publication 2020/0374348;
Claim 7
The method of claim 1 wherein the dispatching of jobs is to prevent any one of the cooling systems from operating in a first of the realms until all of the cooling systems are operating in a second of the realms, the second of the realms having an immediately lower performance and cost than the first of the realms.
Barsness does not specifically teaches prevent any one of the cooling systems from operating in a first of the realms until all of the cooling systems are operating in a second of the realms, the second of the realms having an immediately lower performance and cost than the first of the realms.
Fadell teaches the electronic device can determine the power cost characteristics set for the identified process. For example, the electronic device can determine the relative importance of power cost and processing immediacy for the identified process (e.g., from a slider setting for the identified process). As another example, the electronic device can determine a maximum power cost value for the category of processes of the identified process. The electronic device can schedule the identified process based on the determined power cost and power cost characteristics set for the identified process. For example, the electronic device can determine the power cost of the process at different times (e.g., determined at peak and off-peak power times) and schedule the process for the earliest time when the power cost satisfies the power cost characteristics set by the user. In particular, if the power cost characteristic includes a maximum cost, the electronic device can schedule the identified process for execution at the earliest time that allows the power cost to be less than the maximum cost. In some embodiments, the identified process can be schedule for a time and duration that are associated with different power costs (e.g., start in peak time and finish in off-peak time). Fig 8, p0066
Spurlock teaches use that second cloud computing resources first because it is more cost effective; p0098;
It is noted that by assigning all operation to second resource first prevent any one of the cooling systems from operating in a first of the realms until all of the cooling systems are operating in a second of the realms.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include teachings of Fadell and with method of Barsness in order to minimize financial cost for the cloud computing operation.
As per claims 14 and 19, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Related Prior Art
Here is a list of Prior Art related to Cloud Management:
Belady US Publication 2007/0251254: Cooling systems and methods are disclosed. In an exemplary embodiment, a method may comprise thermally coupling a network of cooling lines to each of a plurality of heat exchangers in a cooling system. The method may also comprise providing a first connection from a network of cooling lines to a first fluid source and a second connection from the network of cooling lines to an optional second fluid source. The method may also comprise delivering cooling fluid through the network of cooling lines to each of the plurality of heat exchangers whether the network of cooling lines is connected only to the first fluid source or to both the first and second fluid sources;
Kubota US Publication 2015/0355941: An information processing device includes arithmetic processing devices, a cooling device, and a job assignment device. Each of the arithmetic processing devices is configured to perform a job. The cooling device is connected to the arithmetic processing devices. The cooling device includes a circulation unit, a cooling unit, and an adjustment unit. The circulation unit is configured to circulate refrigerant through a supply route. The refrigerant absorbs heat generated by the arithmetic processing devices. The cooling unit is configured to cool the refrigerant circulated by the circulation unit. The adjustment unit is configured to adjust, in response to a temperature of the refrigerant, a cooling capacity of the cooling unit to cool the refrigerant. The job assignment device includes a processor configured to control, on the basis of cooling capacity information indicating the cooling capacity, job charging to the arithmetic processing devices.;
Matsuo et al. US 2019/0065282: An information processing apparatus includes a processor that acquires a temperature of each of a plurality of arithmetic processing devices. The processor acquires a first raised temperature and a second raised temperature for a first predetermined processing. The first raised temperature is a temperature expected to be raised in a first arithmetic processing device if the first arithmetic processing device executes the first predetermined processing. The second raised temperature is a temperature expected to be raised in a second arithmetic processing device if the first arithmetic processing device executes the first predetermined processing. The second arithmetic processing device is different from the first arithmetic processing device. The processor determines an arithmetic processing device to be assigned to execute the first predetermined processing, based on the temperature of each of the plurality of arithmetic processing devices, the first raised temperature, and the second raised temperature;
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights