DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 07/24/2023.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “Yes” should read “No” and “No” should read “Yes” in Fig. 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0038] “…manage the worker nodes 105, 110, and 115 of the cluster 100…” should read “…manage the worker nodes 115, 120, and 125 of the cluster 100…”.
[0083] “…for the L4 Pod 1000 to send a data message to the second L7 Pod 1005…” should read “…for the L4 Pod 1000 to send a data message to the second L7 Pod 1010…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1 and 18, “the logical router routes data messages and performs L7 services” should read “the logical router routes data messages and performs the L7 services”.
In Claims 1 and 18, “(ii) configuration data defining the L7 services” should read “(ii) the configuration data defining the L7 services”.
In Claims 2 and 19, “the second Pod performs logical forwarding operations” should read “the second Pod performs the logical forwarding operations”.
In Claims 3 and 19, “the first Pod performs L7 services” should read “the first Pod performs the L7 services”.
In Claim 5, “for a second one of the plurality of logical routers” should read “for a second logical router of the plurality of logical routers”.
In Claim 5, “(ii) configuration data defining the second logical router L7 services” should read “(ii) the configuration data defining the second logical router L7 services”.
In Claims 6 and 20, “(ii) configuration data defining the second logical router L7 services” should read “(ii) configuration data defining second logical router L7 services”.
In Claims 7 and 21, “provides the configuration data for the first logical router” should read “provides the configuration data for the logical router”.
In Claims 16 and 17, “of the cluster” should read “of the container cluster”.
In Claim 24, “wherein the set of instructions for providing” should read “wherein the sets of instructions for providing”.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boutros et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0038379 Al (hereafter Boutros).
Regarding claim 1, Boutros anticipates the invention as claimed, including: A method for configuring a first Pod in a container cluster to perform layer 7 (L7) services for a logical router, the method comprising: at a second Pod that performs logical forwarding operations for the logical router ([0055] “…The routing machine, in some embodiments, is one of a standard virtual machine, a lightweight virtual machine, a container, or a pod.”, [0101] “…The MFE, in some embodiments, provides the received data message to the routing instance to determine a next hop…”, Note: The routing instance is interpreted as the second Pod): from a network management system that defines a logical network for which the logical router routes data messages and performs L7 services, receiving configuration data for the logical router ([0054] “…Process 400 begins by receiving (at 410) configuration information from a controller computer set. The configuration information, in some embodiments, includes configuration for a set of components for implementing a VPC in concert with other host computers in an AZ (and possibly other AZs)…”, Note: The controller computer set is interpreted as the network management system, and the virtual private cloud (VPC) is interpreted as the logical network); providing a set of Pod definition data to a cluster controller to create the first Pod ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0057] “After identifying (at 430) the components of the VPC to execute on the host computer, the process 400 instantiates (at 440) the identified DCNs for the VPC…”, [0054] “…Process 400 begins by receiving (at 410) configuration information from a controller computer set…”, [0121] “…The generated configuration data for executing a distributed edge service instance, in some embodiments, includes a number of cores (e.g., of a service GM on which the service instance executes) or an amount of other resources assigned to the service instance…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the first Pod); and after creation of the first Pod, providing to the first Pod (i) networking information to enable a connection between the first and second Pods ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0056] “Either before or after instantiating (at 420) the routing machine on the host computer, the process identifies (at 430) a set of VPC components to execute on the host computer. The identified components, in some embodiments, include a set of DCNs of the VPC, a set of logical forwarding elements (LFEs) of the VPC, and a service compute node (e.g., a virtual machine, container, or pod). In some embodiments, the configuration information also includes information regarding the connections between the DCNs, service compute node, and LFEs…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the first Pod) and (ii) configuration data defining the L7 services for the first Pod to perform the L7 services on data traffic sent from the second Pod to the first Pod ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0058] “In addition to identifying (at 430) the components of the VPC, the process 400 identifies (at 450) a set of services associated with the identified VPC components. The services, in some embodiments, are identified based on policies of the VPC that define sets of services associated with DCNs in the VPC. In some embodiments, the identified services include different types of services such as a firewall service, a NAT service, a load balancing service, an IDS service, and an IPS service…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the first Pod which is associated with an L7 service).
Regarding claim 2, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 1, wherein the second Pod performs logical forwarding operations for a plurality of different logical routers ([0103] “After receiving (at 1310) the ingressing data message, a first routing operation is performed (at 1320) at a routing instance that advertised the availability of the destination network (e.g., IP) address to the other routers in the AZ…”, Note: The routing instance is interpreted as the second Pod).
Regarding claim 3, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 2, wherein the first Pod performs L7 services for a single one of the plurality of logical routers ([0045] “…The VPC includes a first logical switch 272 that is used to connect a set of guest machines 225 (e.g., DCNs, VMs, containers, pods, etc.) to the logical router 271. The VPC further includes, in the depicted embodiment, a separate service logical switch 273 that connects the logical router 271 to an L7 service GM 222…”, Note: The L7 service GM is interpreted as the first Pod).
Regarding claim 4, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 2, wherein for each logical router, at least one additional Pod performs L7 services ([0053] “…Additionally, sets of L7 services 351A and 351B for tenants A and B, respectively, execute within a single multi-context L7 service DCN 350…”, [0009] “…In some embodiments, the different services are provided by different modules (containers, applications, etc.) in a multi-tenant service machine (or pod)…”, Note: Fig. 3 shows routers utilizing service DCN 350).
Regarding claim 5, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 2, wherein the set of Pod definition data is a first set of Pod definition data, the method further comprising, at the second Pod: from the network management system, receiving configuration data for a second one of the plurality of logical routers ([0054] “…Process 400 begins by receiving (at 410) configuration information from a controller computer set. The configuration information, in some embodiments, includes configuration for a set of components for implementing a VPC in concert with other host computers in an AZ (and possibly other AZs)…”, Note: The controller computer set is interpreted as the network management system, and the virtual private cloud (VPC) is interpreted as the logical network); providing a second set of Pod definition data to the cluster controller to create a third Pod to perform L7 services for the second logical router ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0057] “After identifying (at 430) the components of the VPC to execute on the host computer, the process 400 instantiates (at 440) the identified DCNs for the VPC…”, [0054] “…Process 400 begins by receiving (at 410) configuration information from a controller computer set…”, [0121] “…The generated configuration data for executing a distributed edge service instance, in some embodiments, includes a number of cores (e.g., of a service GM on which the service instance executes) or an amount of other resources assigned to the service instance…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the third Pod); and after creation of the third Pod, providing to the third Pod (i) networking information to enable a connection between the first and third Pods ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0056] “Either before or after instantiating (at 420) the routing machine on the host computer, the process identifies (at 430) a set of VPC components to execute on the host computer. The identified components, in some embodiments, include a set of DCNs of the VPC, a set of logical forwarding elements (LFEs) of the VPC, and a service compute node (e.g., a virtual machine, container, or pod). In some embodiments, the configuration information also includes information regarding the connections between the DCNs, service compute node, and LFEs…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the third Pod) and (ii) configuration data defining the second logical router L7 services for the third Pod to perform said second logical router L7 services on data traffic sent from the second Pod to the third Pod ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0058] “In addition to identifying (at 430) the components of the VPC, the process 400 identifies (at 450) a set of services associated with the identified VPC components. The services, in some embodiments, are identified based on policies of the VPC that define sets of services associated with DCNs in the VPC. In some embodiments, the identified services include different types of services such as a firewall service, a NAT service, a load balancing service, an IDS service, and an IPS service…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the third Pod which is associated with an L7 service).
Regarding claim 6, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 1, wherein the set of Pod definition data is a first set of Pod definition data, the method further comprising: determining that a third Pod is needed in addition to the second Pod to also perform the L7 services for the logical router; providing a second set of Pod definition data to the cluster controller to create the third Pod ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0057] “After identifying (at 430) the components of the VPC to execute on the host computer, the process 400 instantiates (at 440) the identified DCNs for the VPC…”, [0054] “…Process 400 begins by receiving (at 410) configuration information from a controller computer set…”, [0121] “…The generated configuration data for executing a distributed edge service instance, in some embodiments, includes a number of cores (e.g., of a service GM on which the service instance executes) or an amount of other resources assigned to the service instance…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the third Pod); and after creation of the third Pod, providing to the third Pod (i) networking information to enable a connection between the first and third Pods ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0056] “Either before or after instantiating (at 420) the routing machine on the host computer, the process identifies (at 430) a set of VPC components to execute on the host computer. The identified components, in some embodiments, include a set of DCNs of the VPC, a set of logical forwarding elements (LFEs) of the VPC, and a service compute node (e.g., a virtual machine, container, or pod). In some embodiments, the configuration information also includes information regarding the connections between the DCNs, service compute node, and LFEs…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the third Pod) and (ii) configuration data defining the second logical router L7 services for the third Pod to perform said second logical router L7 services on data traffic sent from the second Pod to the third Pod ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0058] “In addition to identifying (at 430) the components of the VPC, the process 400 identifies (at 450) a set of services associated with the identified VPC components. The services, in some embodiments, are identified based on policies of the VPC that define sets of services associated with DCNs in the VPC. In some embodiments, the identified services include different types of services such as a firewall service, a NAT service, a load balancing service, an IDS service, and an IPS service…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the third Pod which is associated with an L7 service).
Regarding claim 7, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 1, wherein the second Pod stores a configuration database to which the network management system provides the configuration data for the first logical router ([0048] “…In some embodiments, the various elements of host computer 220 are configured based on configuration data stored in the configuration data storage 228 that are received from a controller computer cluster that generates configuration data for implementing a set of VPCs across multiple host computers including host computer 220.”, Note: The controller computer cluster is interpreted as the network management system).
Regarding claim 8, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 7, wherein: the second Pod executes a network management system agent and a datapath; and the network management system agent reads logical forwarding configuration data for the logical router from the configuration database and uses the logical forwarding configuration data to configure the datapath to perform the logical forwarding operations for the logical router ([0106] “After providing (at 1340) the ingressing data message to the distributed logical router instance, logical routing operations are performed (at 1350) to identify a next hop for the ingressing data message towards the set of DCNs. In some embodiments, the distributed logical router instance implements, along with distributed logical router instances in other host computers, distributed logical edge router that performs edge services for the logical network instead of configuring a set of physical gateway devices of the AZ to perform the edge services. Performing the logical routing at the distributed logical routing instance, in some embodiments, includes determining (at 1355) whether a service is logically configured to be performed before reaching the next hop. In other embodiments, the determination is made (at 1355) as part of a logical forwarding operation at a logical interface (e.g., port) of the distributed logical router performing the logical routing operation (or of the logical interface of the next hop logical router or logical switch). If the process 1300 determines (at 1355) that no service is logically configured between the logical router and the next hop, the process proceeds to operation 1370 and forwards the data message to the next hop, as discussed below, and the process ends.”).
Regarding claim 9, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 8, wherein the logical forwarding operations comprise forwarding at least a subset of data traffic received by the logical router to the first Pod for L7 service processing ([0109] “If the process 1300 determines (at 1355) that the service is logically configured to be performed before reaching the logical switch, the service is called (at 1360). In some embodiments, calling the service includes providing the ingressing data message to a service instance (e.g., a program, module, application, etc.) executing on the host computer…”, [0107] “The distributed logical router processing operation, in some embodiments, identifies a set of services (e.g., stateful or stateless edge services) that are required for processing the data message ingressing into the VPC. The set of services, in some embodiments, includes any or all of a firewall service, a network address translation (NAT) service, a load balancing service, a distributed intrusion detection system (IDS) service, and a distributed intrusion protection system (IPS) service…”, [0108] “…In some embodiments, the different services are provided by different modules (containers, applications, etc.) in a multi-tenant service machine (or pod)…”).
Regarding claim 10, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 9, wherein the logical forwarding operations further comprise forwarding data traffic received back from the first Pod after the L7 service processing ([0109] “If the process 1300 determines (at 1355) that the service is logically configured to be performed before reaching the logical switch, the service is called (at 1360). In some embodiments, calling the service includes providing the ingressing data message to a service instance (e.g., a program, module, application, etc.) executing on the host computer. The service instance, in some embodiments, returns the serviced data message to a logical interface of the distributed logical routing instance (e.g., to a logical interface) from which it was received…”).
Regarding claim 11, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 9, wherein the subset of data traffic is forwarded to the first Pod via the connection between the first and second Pods that is enabled by the networking information provided to the first Pod ([0004] “…data compute nodes (DCNs) (e.g., virtual machines (VMs), containers, pods, etc.)…”, [0056] “Either before or after instantiating (at 420) the routing machine on the host computer, the process identifies (at 430) a set of VPC components to execute on the host computer. The identified components, in some embodiments, include a set of DCNs of the VPC, a set of logical forwarding elements (LFEs) of the VPC, and a service compute node (e.g., a virtual machine, container, or pod). In some embodiments, the configuration information also includes information regarding the connections between the DCNs, service compute node, and LFEs…”, Note: A DCN is interpreted as the first Pod).
Regarding claim 12, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 7, wherein: the second Pod executes an agent for configuring Pods to perform L7 services for the logical router ([0129] “…The configuration data, in some embodiments, is used at the host computers by a local controller (e.g., local controller 1526) and a VMCI proxy (e.g., communication proxy 1527) after being received by a local agent for communicating with the controller computer cluster (e.g., configuration data storage 1528) that communicates with the controller computer cluster using control plane messages. The local controller and VMCI proxy then provide the configuration data or configures the elements on the host computer to implement the distributed service (e.g., instantiate a distributed service instance, configure GMs to use the distributed service instance, configure a DCN with a service IP and with a set of L7 service instances…”, Note: The local agent is interpreted as agent); and the agent communicates with the cluster controller to provide the set of Pod definition data based on the configuration data from the configuration database ([0129] “…The configuration data, in some embodiments, is used at the host computers by a local controller (e.g., local controller 1526) and a VMCI proxy (e.g., communication proxy 1527) after being received by a local agent for communicating with the controller computer cluster (e.g., configuration data storage 1528) that communicates with the controller computer cluster using control plane messages. The local controller and VMCI proxy then provide the configuration data or configures the elements on the host computer to implement the distributed service (e.g., instantiate a distributed service instance, configure GMs to use the distributed service instance, configure a DCN with a service IP and with a set of L7 service instances, and configure an MFE or routing instance to advertise the IPv6 address prefix associated with the distributed service instance, etc.)…”, Note: The local agent is interpreted as agent).
Regarding claim 13, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 12, wherein the agent provides the networking information to the first Pod to enable the connection between the first and second Pods ([0129] “…The configuration data, in some embodiments, is used at the host computers by a local controller (e.g., local controller 1526) and a VMCI proxy (e.g., communication proxy 1527) after being received by a local agent for communicating with the controller computer cluster (e.g., configuration data storage 1528) that communicates with the controller computer cluster using control plane messages. The local controller and VMCI proxy then provide the configuration data or configures the elements on the host computer to implement the distributed service (e.g., instantiate a distributed service instance, configure GMs to use the distributed service instance, configure a DCN with a service IP and with a set of L7 service instances, and configure an MFE or routing instance to advertise the IPv6 address prefix associated with the distributed service instance, etc.)…”, Note: The local agent is interpreted as agent).
Regarding claim 14, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 12, wherein the first Pod executes a database client to retrieve the configuration data defining the L7 services from the configuration database on the second Pod ([0129] “…The configuration data, in some embodiments, is used at the host computers by a local controller (e.g., local controller 1526) and a VMCI proxy (e.g., communication proxy 1527) after being received by a local agent for communicating with the controller computer cluster (e.g., configuration data storage 1528) that communicates with the controller computer cluster using control plane messages. The local controller and VMCI proxy then provide the configuration data or configures the elements on the host computer to implement the distributed service (e.g., instantiate a distributed service instance, configure GMs to use the distributed service instance, configure a DCN with a service IP and with a set of L7 service instances…”, Note: The local agent is interpreted as the database client).
Regarding claim 16, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second Pods execute on different nodes of the cluster ([0038] “The host computers 120 execute guest machines 125 (e.g., DCNs, containers, pods, etc.) which for the sake of simplicity are assumed to belong to a single tenant's VPC. The VPC implemented across the set of host computers 120 also includes a set of services that are provided to the GMs 125 executing on the set of hosts 120…”, [0055] “…The routing machine, in some embodiments, is one of a standard virtual machine, a lightweight virtual machine, a container, or a pod.”, Note: The routing machine (second Pod) and a L7 pod (first Pod) are on different hosts (nodes)).
Regarding claim 17, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second Pods execute on a same node of the cluster ([0045] “The VPC (or logical network) 200 includes a logical router 271 that, in the depicted embodiment, is an edge (or gateway) logical router for the VPC. The VPC includes a first logical switch 272 that is used to connect a set of guest machines 225 (e.g., DCNs, VMs, containers, pods, etc.) to the logical router 271…”, [0055] “…The routing machine, in some embodiments, is one of a standard virtual machine, a lightweight virtual machine, a container, or a pod.”, Note: The routing machine (second Pod) and a L7 pod (first Pod) are on a host (node)).
Regarding claim 18, Boutros further anticipates: A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program which when executed by at least one processing unit configures a first Pod in a container cluster to perform layer 7 (L7) services for a logical router, the program executing within a second Pod that performs logical forwarding operations for the logical router, the program comprising sets of instructions for ([0133] “FIG. 16 conceptually illustrates a computer system 1600 with which some embodiments of the invention are implemented. The computer system 1600 can be used to implement any of the above-described hosts, controllers, and managers. As such, it can be used to execute any of the above described processes. This computer system includes various types of non-transitory machine readable media and interfaces for various other types of machine readable media. Computer system 1600 includes a bus 1605, processing unit(s) 1610, a system memory 1625, a read-only memory 1630, a permanent storage device 1635, input devices 1640, and output devices 1645.”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 2 and 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 7 and 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 9 and 10. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 23, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 14. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutros et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0038379 Al (hereafter Boutros) as applied to claims 1-14 and 16-23 above, in view of Mariappan et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0278927 Al (hereafter Mariappan).
Regarding claim 15, Boutros anticipates: The method of claim 1.
Boutros fails to teach wherein providing the set of Pod definition data comprises: generating a yaml file to define specifications for the first Pod; and calling a cluster API server to create the first Pod based on the generated yaml file.
In analogous art Mariappan teaches wherein providing the set of Pod definition data comprises: generating a yaml file to define specifications for the first Pod ([0102] “…Container specification data may be a pod specification (e.g., a PodSpec-a YAML (Yet Another Markup Language) or JSON object that describes a pod) for one of pods 202 of containers 229…”); and calling a cluster API server to create the first Pod based on the generated yaml file ([0162] “…API server 320 receives a request to instantiate a pod 202A and modifies the configuration store 328 by generating and storing configuration information for creating the pod 202A (402). The pod specification (pod.yaml) includes data for generating socket description data…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boutros to incorporate the teachings of Mariappan to simplify resource management (Mariappan [0005] “…A second advantage is that virtualization provides significant control over the computing infrastructure. As physical computing resources become fungible resources, such as in a cloud-based computing environment, provisioning and management of the computing infrastructure becomes easier…”).
Regarding claim 24, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 15. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 2024/0214448 Al is cited because it discloses load balancing service pod traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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 Y Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights