DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 27 June 2023.
Claims 1-20 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 11-12, “a greater technology strategic potential” should read “a greater technology strategic potential value”. Further, in line 17, “a greater deployment strategic potential” should read “a greater deployment strategic potential value”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method that transmits a strategic alert in response to predicting that a second deployment of a second technology has greater potential value over a first deployment of a first technology. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “predicting… a plurality of strategies associated with a cloud workload” (a person can mentally predict a cloud workload strategy by simply evaluating the cloud workload, and making a judgement of a particular strategy (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
ii. “predicting…a first technology for the cloud workload having a first technology strategic potential value based on the selected strategy” (a person can mentally predict a technology by simply evaluating potential values of technologies, and making a judgement of a particular technology (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iii. “predicting…a first deployment for the cloud workload having a first deployment strategic potential value based on the selected strategy” (a person can mentally predict a deployment by simply evaluating potential values of deployments, and making a judgement of a particular deployment (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iv. “identify a second technology for the cloud workload having a second technology strategic potential value based on the selected strategy, the second technology strategic potential value of the second technology indicating a greater technology strategic potential than the first technology strategic potential value of the first technology” (a person can mentally identify a technology by simply evaluating potential values of technologies compared to first potential values, and making a judgement of a particular technology (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
v. “identify a second deployment for the cloud workload having a second deployment strategic potential value based on the selected strategy, the second deployment strategic potential value of the second deployment indicating a greater deployment strategic potential than the first deployment strategic potential value of the first deployment” (a person can mentally identify a deployment by simply evaluating potential values of deployment compared to first potential values, and making a judgement of a particular deployment (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
vi. “using a workload strategy predictor”, “using a strategic technology predictor”, “using a strategic deployment predictor”, “executing the strategic technology predictor to”, “executing the strategic deployment predictor to” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
vii. “presenting the predicted plurality of strategies to a user for selection of a strategy” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
viii. “transmitting, responsive to the executing the strategic technology predictor and the executing the strategic deployment predictor, a strategic alert” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
vi. “using a workload strategy predictor”, “using a strategic technology predictor”, “using a strategic deployment predictor”, “executing the strategic technology predictor to”, “executing the strategic deployment predictor to” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
vii. “presenting the predicted plurality of strategies to a user for selection of a strategy” (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
viii. “transmitting, responsive to the executing the strategic technology predictor and the executing the strategic deployment predictor, a strategic alert” (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “the strategic technology predictor comprises a machine learning model configured to” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further. the additional element “identify a plurality of technologies based on the cloud workload and the selected strategy” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally identify technologies by simply evaluating workloads and strategies making a judgement of particular technologies (MPEP 2106)).
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “the strategic deployment predictor comprises a machine learning model configured to” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further. the additional element “identify a plurality of deployments based on the cloud workload and the selected strategy” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally identify deployments by simply evaluating workloads and strategies making a judgement of particular deployments (MPEP 2106)).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “generating a strategic report depicting an overview of the cloud workload, the selected strategy, the first technology, and the first deployment” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally generate a report by simply evaluating information about the cloud workload and making a judgement of information of particular relevance (MPEP 2106)).
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “the strategic alert includes one of an application notification, an email message, and a mobile phone message” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, the additional element “storing a strategic decision comprising the cloud workload, the selected strategy, the first technology, and the first deployment” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of storing information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “a technology strategic potential value is based at least in part on technology capability and technology cost” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “a deployment strategic potential value is based at least in part on deployment capability and deployment cost” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 9, the additional element “the executing the strategic technology predictor and executing the strategic deployment predictor is performed on a pre-determined schedule” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “presenting a strategic cloud view including a percentage of cloud workloads in alignment with the selected strategy” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claims 11-15, and 16-20, they comprise limitations similar to claims 1-3, and 7-8 respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
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 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BIJANI et al. Pub. No.: US 2017/0017505 A1 (hereafter BIJANI).
Regarding claim 1, BIJANI teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
predicting, using a workload strategy predictor, a plurality of strategies associated with a cloud workload ([0026] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary environment 100 for decommissioning a production computer system. Illustrated are a decommissioning system 105, a group of servers 110, and a cloud computing system 115. [0027] The cloud computing system 115 corresponds to a collection of computing resources that may be shared by various entities. [0029] The servers 110, on the other hand, generally correspond to computers systems that may be located in-house and managed by a local IT group or an IT consultant (i.e., exemplary environment 100 presents, or “predicts” at least two different computing systems or strategies for executing applications: a local server strategy and a cloud based strategy));
presenting the predicted plurality of strategies to a user for selection of a strategy; predicting, using a strategic technology predictor, a first technology for the cloud workload having a first technology strategic potential value based on the selected strategy; predicting, using a strategic deployment predictor, a first deployment for the cloud workload having a first deployment strategic potential value based on the selected strategy ([0032] The decommissioning system 105 deploys a discovery tool 130 to a server 110 applications. The discovery tool 130 includes modules for performing an analysis of the applications running on the server 110, an in turn transmits application information 135 back to the decommissioning system 105 regarding applications running on the server. [0031] Constantly having to maintain a computer system can be costly. In some cases, IT personal have to be available 24/7 to be able to address unexpected emergencies. Having to upgrade hardware can be cost prohibitive for some companies. [0059] Total cost of ownership data is collected on these applications including run and hosting costs from the questionnaire 140 (i.e., local servers execute deployed applications prior to the deployment of the discovery tool indicating that a user or administrator has made a first choice of “strategy” (local server strategy) based on a first “technology” (local servers) having a total cost of ownership including a first “technology strategic potential value” (costs associated with the technology strategy (local servers) itself, such as hardware maintenance costs, and staffing, as described in TABLE 1) and a first “deployment strategic potential value (costs associated with deployment of the application on the technology (local servers), such as software licensing costs, and capital expenses due to hardware purchase as described in TABLE 1)));
executing the strategic technology predictor to identify a second technology for the cloud workload having a second technology strategic potential value based on the selected strategy, the second technology strategic potential value of the second technology indicating a greater technology strategic potential than the first technology strategic potential value of the first technology ([0057] At block 220, the decommissioning system 105 may receive the information 135 from the discovery tool 130 and generate a recommendation. For example, the properties of the application under evaluation, as determined by the discovery tool 130, may be compared with the properties of applications stored in the training data store 107. Applications in the training data store 107 having properties similar to those of the target application may be selected. The recommendations regarding whether to migrate those applications to the cloud (i.e., a “second identified technology” for the workload), template types for deployment to use, etc., that were specified by the SME are retrieved and form the basis of the recommendation as to cloud migration, template type, etc. for the target application);
executing the strategic deployment predictor to identify a second deployment for the cloud workload having a second deployment strategic potential value based on the selected strategy, the second deployment strategic potential value of the second deployment indicating a greater deployment strategic potential than the first deployment strategic potential value of the first deployment ([0062] A business value column 620 provides an indication of the potential cost savings that may be realized if the application was migrated using the recommended parameters. In this regard, the business value may be based on user 118 feedback provided in the questionnaire 140 regarding a given target application. For example, the SME for the target application may have indicated in the corresponding questioner that the total cost associated with operating the target application on the current server is $150000. On the other hand, operating the application in the cloud using the recommended provider, recommended template, etc. may be known to cost $80,000. Thus, a savings of $70,000 may be realized by migrating the application to the cloud (i.e., cost of operating the target application in the cloud as a “second deployment” based on a second technology (cloud computing system) represents a total cost ($80,000) including a “second technology potential value” (costs associated with a recommended deployment template that specifies virtualized resources to be used to operate the application, as shown in Fig. 7A) and “second deployment potential value” (costs associated with operating the deployed application in the cloud environment, such as cloud solution, cloud model, No. of instance, as shown in Fig. 7A) that is greater (more cost effective) than the first technology potential value ($150,000))); and
transmitting, responsive to the executing the strategic technology predictor and the executing the strategic deployment predictor, a strategic alert ([0057] At block 220, the decommissioning system 105 may receive the information 135 from the discovery tool 130 and generate a recommendation. For example, the properties of the application under evaluation, as determined by the discovery tool 130, may be compared with the properties of applications stored in the training data store 107. Applications in the training data store 107 having properties similar to those of the target application may be selected. The recommendations regarding whether to migrate those applications to the cloud, template types for deployment to use, etc., that were specified by the SME are retrieved and form the basis of the recommendation as to cloud migration, template type, etc. for the target application (i.e., recommendations for cloud migration represent “strategic alerts”)).
Regarding claim 2, BIJANI further teaches:
the strategic technology predictor comprises a machine learning model configured to identify a plurality of technologies based on the cloud workload and the selected strategy ([0058] The application is given a rating of 1-5 for each attribute depending on the answers to the question. Algorithmic evaluations using classification algorithms (e.g., Native Bayes) are then performed to determine the recommendations. [0060] Based on the business value, technical fitment and risk/compliance sensitivities of the application as well as it's dependencies, an alternating least squares (ALS) algorithm is utilized to determine the recommended cloud model for the client as one of: SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS, and its cloud nativity as one of: public, private, and on premise (i.e., machine learning classification algorithms identify a plurality of technologies including SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS based on attributes of the application and the selection of a strategy to utilize cloud based technologies)).
Regarding claim 4, BIJANI further teaches:
generating a strategic report depicting an overview of the cloud workload, the selected strategy, the first technology, and the first deployment ([0044] FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate dialog boxes that may be displayed when the user selects a data center 305. In addition to the previously discovered information listed above, in FIG. 4A, the dialog box 400 displays the number of applications that have been stabilized, deployed, verified, and decommissioned. In this regard, being deployed indicates that the application is set up on the cloud but it's data is yet to be migrated. Being migrated indicates that the application has been set up on the cloud (i.e., deployed) and that the data associated with the application has been migrated. The number of decommissioned applications correspond to the number of applications in the data center than have been shut down and/or deployed to the cloud computing system 115 (i.e., dialog box in Fig. 4a gives an overview of the applications representing the (cloud workload), including number of applications deployed on servers according to the first technology based on the selected strategy)).
Regarding claim 5, BIJANI further teaches:
the strategic alert includes one of an application notification ([0061] FIG. 6 illustrates a screen shot 600 that displays recommendations regarding several applications that may be generated by the decommissioning system 105 (i.e., an application generates and displays the recommendation, representing an “application notification”)), an email message, and a mobile phone message ([0095] The decommissioning system may be configured to send notifications (i.e., emails, text messages, etc.) to stakeholders pertaining to various stages of the decommissioning and cloud migration process, such as “Being Assessed”, “Ready to Deploy”, “Deployed,” etc. The notifications could also provide other status updates, escalations, alerts, approval notices, reverse sign off mailers etc (i.e., the recommendation leads to notifications and alerts sent via email or mobile phone text)).
Regarding claim 6, BIJANI further teaches:
storing a strategic decision comprising the cloud workload, the selected strategy, the first technology, and the first deployment ([0044] FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate dialog boxes that may be displayed when the user selects a data center 305. In addition to the previously discovered information listed above, in FIG. 4A, the dialog box 400 displays the number of applications that have been stabilized, deployed, verified, and decommissioned. In this regard, being deployed indicates that the application is set up on the cloud but it's data is yet to be migrated. Being migrated indicates that the application has been set up on the cloud (i.e., deployed) and that the data associated with the application has been migrated. The number of decommissioned applications correspond to the number of applications in the data center than have been shut down and/or deployed to the cloud computing system 115 (i.e., an overview of the applications representing the (cloud workload), including number of applications deployed on servers according to the first technology based on the selected strategy is stored for display in the dialog boxes of FIGS. 4a and 4B)).
Regarding claim 7, BIJANI further teaches:
a technology strategic potential value is based at least in part on technology capability and technology cost ([0032] The decommissioning system 105 deploys a discovery tool 130 to a server 110 applications. The discovery tool 130 includes modules for performing an analysis of the applications running on the server 110, an in turn transmits application information 135 back to the decommissioning system 105 regarding applications running on the server. [0031] Constantly having to maintain a computer system can be costly. In some cases, IT personal have to be available 24/7 to be able to address unexpected emergencies. Having to upgrade hardware can be cost prohibitive for some companies. [0059] Total cost of ownership data is collected on these applications including run and hosting costs from the questionnaire 140 (i.e., local servers execute deployed applications prior to the deployment of the discovery tool indicating that a user or administrator has made a first choice of “strategy” (local server strategy) based on a first “technology” (local servers) having a total cost of ownership including a first “technology strategic potential value” (costs associated with the technology strategy (local servers) itself, such as hardware maintenance costs, and staffing, as described in TABLE 1)).
Regarding claim 8, BIJANI further teaches:
a deployment strategic potential value is based at least in part on deployment capability and deployment cost ([0032] The decommissioning system 105 deploys a discovery tool 130 to a server 110 applications. The discovery tool 130 includes modules for performing an analysis of the applications running on the server 110, an in turn transmits application information 135 back to the decommissioning system 105 regarding applications running on the server. [0031] Constantly having to maintain a computer system can be costly. In some cases, IT personal have to be available 24/7 to be able to address unexpected emergencies. Having to upgrade hardware can be cost prohibitive for some companies. [0059] Total cost of ownership data is collected on these applications including run and hosting costs from the questionnaire 140 (i.e., local servers execute deployed applications prior to the deployment of the discovery tool indicating that a user or administrator has made a first choice of “strategy” (local server strategy) based on a first “technology” (local servers) having a total cost of ownership including a first “deployment strategic potential value (costs associated with deployment of the application on the technology (local servers), such as software licensing costs, and capital expenses due to hardware purchase as described in TABLE 1))).
Regarding claim 9, BIJANI further teaches:
the executing the strategic technology predictor and executing the strategic deployment predictor is performed on a pre-determined schedule ([0049] Other Information collected by the first module may include the amount of processor usage associated with a given application and/or a number of users that utilize the application. In this regard, the first module may be left to run on the server for a predetermined amount of time, such as a week, month, etc. to provide a better assessment as to the overall usage of the application (i.e., generating the recommendation is scheduled for executed after a predetermined amount of time, representing a “pre-determined schedule”, used to collect information)).
Regarding claim 10, BIJANI further teaches:
presenting a strategic cloud view including a percentage of cloud workloads in alignment with the selected strategy ([0044] FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate dialog boxes that may be displayed when the user selects a data center 305. In addition to the previously discovered information listed above, in FIG. 4A, the dialog box 400 displays the number of applications that have been stabilized, deployed, verified, and decommissioned. In this regard, being deployed indicates that the application is set up on the cloud but it's data is yet to be migrated. Being migrated indicates that the application has been set up on the cloud (i.e., deployed) and that the data associated with the application has been migrated. The number of decommissioned applications correspond to the number of applications in the data center than have been shut down and/or deployed to the cloud computing system 115 (i.e., dialog box in Fig. 4a gives a strategic view of the applications representing the (cloud workload), including number of applications deployed on servers according to the selected strategy vs number of applications migrated to the second technology))).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20, they comprise limitations similar to claims 1-2, and 7-8, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
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 3, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIJANI, as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and in further view of SANDLER et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0103493 A1 (hereafter SANDLER).
Regarding claim 3, while BIJANI teaches allocating resources to workloads, it doesn’t explicitly teach:
the strategic deployment predictor comprises a machine learning model configured to identify a plurality of deployments based on the cloud workload and the selected strategy.
However, in analogous art that similarly allocates resources to workloads, SANDLER teaches:
the strategic deployment predictor comprises a machine learning model configured to identify a plurality of deployments based on the cloud workload and the selected strategy ([0082] At block 168, the process 160 generates a distributed data processing flow, which defines how the data processing tasks from block 164 are distributed among the computing resources identified in block 166. The data processing flow may be defined by one or more deployment configuration files. In some embodiments, the data processing tasks and the identified computing resources may be provided to a machine learning model that assigns data processing tasks to computing resources).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined SANDLER’s teaching of using a machine learning model to determine deployments of data processing tasks to computing resources, with BIJANI’s teaching of deploying tasks to resources, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that deploys tasks to resources, as in BIJANI, based on machine learning model analysis, as in SANDLER. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to more efficiently deploy tasks to resources (SANDLER [0024]).
Regarding claims 13, and 18, they comprise limitations similar to claim 3, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195