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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
[STEP 1] The claims recite at least a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claim(s) is/are to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 recite(s) “identifying one or more possible solutions associated with the alert, the one or more possible solutions including one or more actions applicable to the one or more objects; applying a filter to the one or more possible solutions to select one or more solutions from the one or more possible solutions;”
The non-highlighted aforementioned, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can think/identify possible solutions and reduce possible solutions by filtering.
Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 10 and 19 only recites the additional element(s) – “generating an alert, the alert associated with one or more objects; presenting the one or more selected solutions; wherein the method is performed using one or more processors”.
The aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, presenting one or more solution falls under as being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-18 and 20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of determining one or more performance indicators, each performance indicator of the one or more performance indicators being associated with one selected solution of the one or more selected solutions; and presenting the one or more selected solutions with the one or more performance indicators to the user; determining a recommended solution from the one or more selected solutions based at least in part on the one or more performance indicators; and presenting the recommended solution; receiving an indication of solution selection; and deploying a solution that is one of the one or more selected solutions based on the indication of solution selection to one or more computing devices; wherein the alert includes one or more metrics associated with the one or more objects, wherein at least one performance indicator of the one or more performance indicators is associated with at least one metrics of the one or more metrics; wherein the filter uses the at least one metric of the one or more metrics; wherein at least one metric of the one or more metrics is dynamically changeable; wherein the identifying one or more possible solutions comprises generating at least one of the one or more possible solutions; wherein the alert includes a set of alerts, wherein the method further comprises: filtering the set of alerts to a first subset of alerts and a second subset of alerts; wherein the one or more possible solutions include a first set of possible solutions associated with the first subset of alerts and a second set of possible solutions associated with the second subset of alerts, which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. The additional element(s) of perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devarakonda et al. (Pub 20180173566) (hereafter Dev) in view of Laicher et al. (Pub 20160306719) (hereafter Laicher).
As per claim 1, Dev teaches:
A method for solution proposals, the method comprising:
generating an alert, the alert associated with one or more objects;
identifying one or more possible solutions associated with the alert, the one or more possible solutions including one or more actions applicable to the one or more objects;
applying a filter to the one or more possible solutions to select one or more solutions from the one or more possible solutions; and ([Paragraph 6], A system for evaluating compatibility of a computing solution to perform one or more workload tasks is shown that includes an aspect database configured to determine one or more computing solution aspects corresponding to one or more sets of workload factors, where the workload factors characterize one or more workloads, to characterize one or more computing solutions; and a processing module configured to compare the workload factors to the computing solution aspects in a rule-based system to exclude computing solutions that cannot satisfy the workload factors and further configured to select a computing solution having aspects that accommodate all of the workload factors to find a solution that accommodates the one or more individual workloads.)
presenting the one or more selected solutions;
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors. ([Paragraph 5], A method is shown that includes determining computing solution aspects using a processor to accommodate a set of workload factors that characterize one or more workloads, determining a set of components for a computing solution that provide or exceed the determined computing solution aspects according to a rule based system, selecting components from the determined set of components that optimize cost, and generating a computing solution design that uses the selected components such that the computing solution is compatible with the one or more workloads.)
Although Dev teaches object(s) being monitored with elastic capability with Service Level Agreement (SLA) ([Paragraph 28 and 52])
Dev does not explicitly disclose generating an alert, the alert associated with one or more objects.
Laicher teaches generating an alert, the alert associated with one or more objects. ([Paragraph 30], A solution manager 126 may be positioned as a monitoring tool used for solution availability monitoring. A connectivity service 128 may manage connectivity between the users 106A-106C and the cloud 104. A governance and service level agreements (SLAs) component 130 may manage various rules and regulations for cloud data, including adherence to one or more SLAs. A monitoring and administration component 132 may monitor conditions in the cloud 104 and generate alerts, as well as providing an interface to the landscape virtualization manager 110 to allow the administrator 108 to alter conditions for the monitoring and/or alerts. [Paragraph 52], The solution manager 126 may be positioned as a monitoring tool used for solution availability and system monitoring. The collected availability monitoring data is used for generating alerts but also as a basis for service quality reporting in regards to SLA compliance…)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine teachings of Dev wherein various objects are monitored for performance metrics, filter is applied to one or more solutions which cannot satisfy workload requirements, and solutions are selected for presentation and applied, into teachings of Laicher wherein an alert(s) is/are generated for objects being monitored, because this would enhance the teachings of Dev wherein by generating alerts for the monitored objects, it ensures SLA/Service Quality is enforced and appropriate solution can be applied.
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Laicher teaches further comprising: determining one or more performance indicators, each performance indicator of the one or more performance indicators being associated with one selected solution of the one or more selected solutions; and
presenting the one or more selected solutions with the one or more performance indicators to the user. ([Paragraph 30] [Fig.1], The cloud integration component 102 may also comprise additional components other than the infrastructure controller 112. A data security component 122 may manage the data security of the cloud 104. A development and lifecycle management component 124 may manage the development, deployment, and updates for various applications in the cloud 104, including, for example, applications 116A-116D. A solution manager 126 may be positioned as a monitoring tool used for solution availability monitoring. A connectivity service 128 may manage connectivity between the users 106A-106C and the cloud 104. A governance and service level agreements (SLAs) component 130 may manage various rules and regulations for cloud data, including adherence to one or more SLAs. A monitoring and administration component 132 may monitor conditions in the cloud 104 and generate alerts, as well as providing an interface to the landscape virtualization manager 110 to allow the administrator 108 to alter conditions for the monitoring and/or alerts. All these management components refer to the primary side (which is by default the primary data center but may get failed over to the secondary data center in the case of a disaster). The disaster recovery architecture is able to foresee that all the central cloud managing entities while applied on the primary side are also then automatically or semi-automatically applied to the secondary side in order to ensure that the secondary side can become the primary side in the event of an disaster, in the fastest possible way. [Paragraph 35], In an example embodiment, for end-to-end disaster recovery, five phases maybe implemented. In the context of the failover (real disaster) the key performance indicators (KPIs) of recovery point objective (RPO) and recovery time objective (RTO) determine the overall service quality FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating the operations phases of high availability, in accordance with an example embodiment. [Paragraph 51], The landscape virtualization manager 110 may provide basic availability monitoring on the system level and is the central tool for any system management-related activity. The landscape virtualization manager 110 is also the main orchestration framework when it comes to the automatic setup of systems, instrumentation for monitoring, and automation of failover procedures. The landscape virtualization manager 110 may provide instructions to the infrastructure controller 112 as to how to react to the detection of a disaster. Specifically, the instructions may include instructions on attempting to restart the applications in the first data center after a disaster occurs, and these instructions may vary depending on the type of alert detected by the solution manager 126.)
Dev also teaches ([Paragraph 28], Measured service: cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service. [Paragraph 68], Another exemplary rule might require that the cloud offer at least 4 gigabytes of memory. Block 514 provides a recommendation to a user based on this assessment. The monetary factors 512 may include steady-state costs, such as software licenses and fixed monthly image costs, and may include migration costs, such as the cost of porting code from one platform to another.)
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 2 is incorporated:
Dev teaches further comprising: determining a recommended solution from the one or more selected solutions based at least in part on the one or more performance indicators; and presenting the recommended solution. ([Paragraph 6], A system for evaluating compatibility of a computing solution to perform one or more workload tasks is shown that includes an aspect database configured to determine one or more computing solution aspects corresponding to one or more sets of workload factors, where the workload factors characterize one or more workloads, to characterize one or more computing solutions; and a processing module configured to compare the workload factors to the computing solution aspects in a rule-based system to exclude computing solutions that cannot satisfy the workload factors and further configured to select a computing solution having aspects that accommodate all of the workload factors to find a solution that accommodates the one or more individual workloads. [Paragraph 68], Another exemplary rule might require that the cloud offer at least 4 gigabytes of memory. Block 514 provides a recommendation to a user based on this assessment. The monetary factors 512 may include steady-state costs, such as software licenses and fixed monthly image costs, and may include migration costs, such as the cost of porting code from one platform to another.)
Laicher also teaches ([Paragraph 30] [Fig.1], The cloud integration component 102 may also comprise additional components other than the infrastructure controller 112. A data security component 122 may manage the data security of the cloud 104. A development and lifecycle management component 124 may manage the development, deployment, and updates for various applications in the cloud 104, including, for example, applications 116A-116D. A solution manager 126 may be positioned as a monitoring tool used for solution availability monitoring. A connectivity service 128 may manage connectivity between the users 106A-106C and the cloud 104. A governance and service level agreements (SLAs) component 130 may manage various rules and regulations for cloud data, including adherence to one or more SLAs. A monitoring and administration component 132 may monitor conditions in the cloud 104 and generate alerts, as well as providing an interface to the landscape virtualization manager 110 to allow the administrator 108 to alter conditions for the monitoring and/or alerts. All these management components refer to the primary side (which is by default the primary data center but may get failed over to the secondary data center in the case of a disaster). The disaster recovery architecture is able to foresee that all the central cloud managing entities while applied on the primary side are also then automatically or semi-automatically applied to the secondary side in order to ensure that the secondary side can become the primary side in the event of an disaster, in the fastest possible way. [Paragraph 35], In an example embodiment, for end-to-end disaster recovery, five phases maybe implemented. In the context of the failover (real disaster) the key performance indicators (KPIs) of recovery point objective (RPO) and recovery time objective (RTO) determine the overall service quality FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating the operations phases of high availability, in accordance with an example embodiment. [Paragraph 51], The landscape virtualization manager 110 may provide basic availability monitoring on the system level and is the central tool for any system management-related activity. The landscape virtualization manager 110 is also the main orchestration framework when it comes to the automatic setup of systems, instrumentation for monitoring, and automation of failover procedures. The landscape virtualization manager 110 may provide instructions to the infrastructure controller 112 as to how to react to the detection of a disaster. Specifically, the instructions may include instructions on attempting to restart the applications in the first data center after a disaster occurs, and these instructions may vary depending on the type of alert detected by the solution manager 126.)
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 2 is incorporated:
Dev teaches further comprising: receiving an indication of solution selection; and deploying a solution that is one of the one or more selected solutions based on the indication of solution selection to one or more computing devices. ([Paragraph 6], A system for evaluating compatibility of a computing solution to perform one or more workload tasks is shown that includes an aspect database configured to determine one or more computing solution aspects corresponding to one or more sets of workload factors, where the workload factors characterize one or more workloads, to characterize one or more computing solutions; and a processing module configured to compare the workload factors to the computing solution aspects in a rule-based system to exclude computing solutions that cannot satisfy the workload factors and further configured to select a computing solution having aspects that accommodate all of the workload factors to find a solution that accommodates the one or more individual workloads. [Paragraph 68], Another exemplary rule might require that the cloud offer at least 4 gigabytes of memory. Block 514 provides a recommendation to a user based on this assessment. The monetary factors 512 may include steady-state costs, such as software licenses and fixed monthly image costs, and may include migration costs, such as the cost of porting code from one platform to another. [Paragraph 27], Rapid elasticity: capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.)
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 2 is incorporated:
Laicher teaches wherein the alert includes one or more metrics associated with the one or more objects, wherein at least one performance indicator of the one or more performance indicators is associated with at least one metrics of the one or more metrics. ([Paragraph 30], A solution manager 126 may be positioned as a monitoring tool used for solution availability monitoring. A connectivity service 128 may manage connectivity between the users 106A-106C and the cloud 104. A governance and service level agreements (SLAs) component 130 may manage various rules and regulations for cloud data, including adherence to one or more SLAs. A monitoring and administration component 132 may monitor conditions in the cloud 104 and generate alerts, as well as providing an interface to the landscape virtualization manager 110 to allow the administrator 108 to alter conditions for the monitoring and/or alerts. [Paragraph 35], In an example embodiment, for end-to-end disaster recovery, five phases maybe implemented. In the context of the failover (real disaster) the key performance indicators (KPIs) of recovery point objective (RPO) and recovery time objective (RTO) determine the overall service quality FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating the operations phases of high availability, in accordance with an example embodiment. [Paragraph 37], Monitoring of availability metrics can also be performed on the application side. Depending on the kind of failure, the issue can be captured either by the redundant service (e.g., dialog instance) or by the explicitly triggered failover (e.g., central services) for high availability. For disaster recovery, an outage affecting more than one single entities is occurring. Also in this case monitoring would detect this, but in contrast of restoring the single service a failover to the disaster recovery side would be initiated. [Paragraph 52], The solution manager 126 may be positioned as a monitoring tool used for solution availability and system monitoring. The collected availability monitoring data is used for generating alerts but also as a basis for service quality reporting in regards to SLA compliance…)
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 5 is incorporated:
Dev teaches wherein the filter uses the at least one metric of the one or more metrics. ([Paragraph 6], A system for evaluating compatibility of a computing solution to perform one or more workload tasks is shown that includes an aspect database configured to determine one or more computing solution aspects corresponding to one or more sets of workload factors, where the workload factors characterize one or more workloads, to characterize one or more computing solutions; and a processing module configured to compare the workload factors to the computing solution aspects in a rule-based system to exclude computing solutions that cannot satisfy the workload factors and further configured to select a computing solution having aspects that accommodate all of the workload factors to find a solution that accommodates the one or more individual workloads.)
As per claim 7, rejection of claim 5 is incorporated:
Dev teaches wherein at least one metric of the one or more metrics is dynamically changeable. ([Paragraph 6], A system for evaluating compatibility of a computing solution to perform one or more workload tasks is shown that includes an aspect database configured to determine one or more computing solution aspects corresponding to one or more sets of workload factors, where the workload factors characterize one or more workloads, to characterize one or more computing solutions; and a processing module configured to compare the workload factors to the computing solution aspects in a rule-based system to exclude computing solutions that cannot satisfy the workload factors and further configured to select a computing solution having aspects that accommodate all of the workload factors to find a solution that accommodates the one or more individual workloads. [Paragraph 79], Workload requirements may include the factors described above, including for example SLAs, compliance requirements, and availability requirements. Also considered are cloud aspects 803, which may include cloud image metadata 808 and general cloud metadata 810. An image as used herein refers to a description of a virtual server for easy deployment in a cloud. [Paragraph 52], In one example, management layer 64 may provide the functions described below. Resource provisioning provides dynamic procurement of computing resources and other resources that are utilized to perform tasks within the cloud computing environment. Metering and Pricing provide cost tracking as resources are utilized within the cloud computing environment, and billing or invoicing for consumption of these resources. In one example, these resources may comprise application software licenses. Security provides identity verification for cloud consumers and tasks, as well as protection for data and other resources. User portal provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators. Service level management provides cloud computing resource allocation and management such that required service levels are met. Service Level Agreement (SLA) planning and fulfillment provide pre-arrangement for, and procurement of, cloud computing resources for which a future requirement is anticipated in accordance with an SLA.)
Laicher also teaches ([Paragraph 30], A governance and service level agreements (SLAs) component 130 may manage various rules and regulations for cloud data, including adherence to one or more SLAs. A monitoring and administration component 132 may monitor conditions in the cloud 104 and generate alerts, as well as providing an interface to the landscape virtualization manager 110 to allow the administrator 108 to alter conditions for the monitoring and/or alerts.)
As per claim 8, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Dev teaches wherein the identifying one or more possible solutions comprises generating at least one of the one or more possible solutions. ([Paragraph 5], A method is shown that includes determining computing solution aspects using a processor to accommodate a set of workload factors that characterize one or more workloads, determining a set of components for a computing solution that provide or exceed the determined computing solution aspects according to a rule based system, selecting components from the determined set of components that optimize cost, and generating a computing solution design that uses the selected components such that the computing solution is compatible with the one or more workloads. [Paragraph 6], A system for evaluating compatibility of a computing solution to perform one or more workload tasks is shown that includes an aspect database configured to determine one or more computing solution aspects corresponding to one or more sets of workload factors, where the workload factors characterize one or more workloads, to characterize one or more computing solutions; and a processing module configured to compare the workload factors to the computing solution aspects in a rule-based system to exclude computing solutions that cannot satisfy the workload factors and further configured to select a computing solution having aspects that accommodate all of the workload factors to find a solution that accommodates the one or more individual workloads.)
As per claims 10-17, these are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1-8. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claims 19 and 20, these are method claims corresponding to the method claims 1, 2 and 4. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dev in view of Laicher and further in view of Ke (Pub 20140317280).
As per claim 9, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
However, Dev and Laicher do not explicitly disclose wherein the alert includes a set of alerts, wherein the method further comprises: filtering the set of alerts to a first subset of alerts and a second subset of alerts; wherein the one or more possible solutions include a first set of possible solutions associated with the first subset of alerts and a second set of possible solutions associated with the second subset of alerts.
Ke teaches wherein the alert includes a set of alerts, wherein the method further comprises: filtering the set of alerts to a first subset of alerts and a second subset of alerts; wherein the one or more possible solutions include a first set of possible solutions associated with the first subset of alerts and a second set of possible solutions associated with the second subset of alerts. ([Paragraph 99], where the notification message may include a notification type (such as a "The QoE is insufficient" message), a target user (such as a user currently using a service), and information about a suggested product that meets the bandwidth requirement of the service source, that is, recommendation of a higher bandwidth product, such as a product ID list. [Paragraph 102], The "bandwidth product recommendation" message sent by the ODP server to the user may include a message type (bandwidth product recommendation), a list of products that are recommended for subscription and meet the bandwidth requirement of the service source, and description of each product. The description of each product may be abstracted from a locally stored product description information base according to a product ID received from the billing system.)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine teachings of Dev in view of Laicher wherein various objects are monitored for performance metrics, filter is applied to one or more solutions which cannot satisfy workload requirements, and solutions are selected for presentation and applied based on a generated alert, into teachings of Ke wherein alerts are filtered based on type of alert, because this would enhance the teachings of Dev and Laicher wherein by filtering alerts based on type of generated alert, alerts and its corresponding possible solutions can be applied based on respective object its being alerted on.
As per claim 18, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 9. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONG U KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1313. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 5712723338. 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.
/DONG U KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197