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 .
Applicant’s response dated 01/21/2026 has been received and made of record.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in Application 18/290,947.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims suffice to allow for examination on the merits. However, the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims is maintained as numerous claim elements remain indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks dated 01/21/2026, regarding the finality of this office action have been considered but are not persuasive. The new grounds of rejection provided are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and the claims were previously not in condition to allow examination on the merits (see the Non-Final Rejection dated 10/21/2025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “guarantee” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “provide,” while the accepted meaning is “the promise to fulfill contractual obligations.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. This issue extends to dependent claims 2-14.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the monitoring data detected by said container with monitoring function" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as neither monitoring data nor a containing with a monitoring function are previously presented in this claim or any claim from which it depends. Claim 10 suffers from the same issue, as do claims 11-15, which depend from it.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “containers being physically positioned proximate each other”. However, containers are abstract software constructs, not tangible physical objects, and therefore cannot be physically positioned (see Claim 1 section C). Claim 4 also states that exchanges are “immediate”, which is physically impossible if “immediate” is meant to mean “instantaneous”; the term is otherwise not defined in the disclosure, which leaves it indefinite. Moreover, Applicant has not defined how “immediate” file exchange would be “suitable to act as backend for the desktop applications of the operators”.
Additionally, claims 7 and 14 recites the language “architecture indispensable for displaying the data”, but no particular architecture is “indispensable” for displaying data in the subject area, nor is such an “indispensable” architecture defined in the instant application, leaving the term indefinite.
The term “reduced” in claims 7 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15, as written, depends from itself and cannot be examined.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that functional language such as “suitable to”, “based on the possibility of exploiting”, and “optimized for” is understood as a matter of capability. See, inter alia, Duncan Parking Techs v. IPS Grp., Inc. In addition, the term “predetermined bandwidth” in claims 7 and 14 is not limited or defined by the disclosure and therefore will be examined using the standard of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Largman (US 2008/0127348 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Largman discloses a System for the containerization (Largman: Paragraph [0037], “the hypervisor (either as a VMware or as a Xen, for example) manages virtual containers”) of business workstations (Largman: Paragraph [0003], “business and personal computing”) with remote user interfaces (Largman: Paragraph [0047], “a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) 190 is used to support communication between the clients 190-1, . . . , 190-N and the VM's server 102. While various remote desktop protocols are known in the art and may be used, the system may advantageously use Freenx which is open source”), wherein the system allows workflows to a plurality of operators, with use of hardware resources in a Cloud environment (Largman: Paragraph [0043], “ the computing machine 180-N one which the physical desktop appears is advantageously a thin device physical computing machine… high levels of performance may be achieved by using the resources of the server (or of a plurality of servers) to provide the desired level of contemporary processing capabilities”); said system comprising:
A) a plurality of remote user interfaces in turn comprising: a single-board computer connected to a plurality of input-output peripherals depending on the needs of the operator (Largman: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0044], “the client-side machine is a thin client machine 180-1. In a non-limiting embodiment, the thin device physical desktop machine 180-1 provides a minimal operating system 181-1, a memory or buffer 182-1, a network interface (IF) 183-1, a display interface and display device 184-1, and means for user interaction with the machine such as a keyboard and mouse or other pointing device (KB/mouse) 185-1… Embodiments of the invention may utilize so called system on a chip (SOC) technology since the hardware requirements of the client side machine are so minimal”);
B) a plurality of server computers connected in a network and having installed a container orchestration suitable to manage the life cycle of a plurality of application containers containing the desktop applications to be served to the operators connected through said remote user interfaces (Largman: Paragraph [0041], “ the control environment (in what ever form implemented) may spawn, create, or initiate only one or a plurality of virtual machines or virtual desktops”, and Paragraph [0043], “plurality of servers”);
C) said containers being created with a containerization software that allows to run in isolated mode, a Windows operating system with graphical remote access capacity, on a host container with Unix-based operating system (Largman: Paragraph [0031], “a Linux operating system is used on the server that is running VMware Server, which is a hypervisor and creates Virtual Machines that are loaded with and running Windows XP on each virtual machine (VM)”, and Paragraph [0091], “ These options are independent of operating system (e.g., Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Linux, Unix, Apple Operating system, or any other operating system)”);
said system therefore comprising containers suitable to guarantee availability of the applications toward the operators, and a customized network communication protocol suitable to allow communication between Windows applications distributed to a local area network LAN (Largman: Paragraph [0042], “server 102 may generate one or a plurality of virtual machines that may for example execute a virtual desktop 130-N for a corresponding physical machine 180-N. A user of the physical machine may have the impression that she/he is executing an operating system and one or more application programs on that physical machine, however, in fact most or all of the processing is being carried out using resources (such as processor 150, memory 140, and storage 104) of the server”, and Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], “In one non-limiting embodiment, the (each) client side machine 180 is coupled with the server via an Ethernet communication link 192 via an Ethernet enabled network interface 183 on the client side and one or more Ethernet network interfaces on the server 102 side. A single server side Ethernet interface is sufficient when it is Centos (Linux). Advantageously, a plurality of Ethernet interfaces or Ethernet interface ports within a single Ethernet network interface may be used… a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) 190 is used to support communication between the clients 190-1, . . . , 190-N and the VM's server 102. While various remote desktop protocols are known in the art and may be used, the system may advantageously use Freenx which is open source”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-9, 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beveridge (US 2016/0055017 A1) and in view of Bleve (US 2022/0237007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beveridge discloses a System for the containerization of business workstations with remote user interfaces, wherein the system allows workflows to a plurality of operators, with use of hardware resources in a Cloud environment (Beveridge: Paragraph [0017], “allow access to applications remotely from a virtual machine (VM)-based desktop provisioned rapidly”, and Paragraph [0038], “utilizes cloud services to create, store, and retrieve child VMs”); said system comprising:
A) a plurality of remote user interfaces in turn comprising: a single-board computer (Beveridge: Paragraph [0134], “mobile computing devices… hand-held or laptop devices… gaming consoles… set top boxes… mobile telephones” are all typically single-board computers) connected to a plurality of input-output peripherals depending on the needs of the operator (Beveridge: Paragraph [0027], “User interface device 110 may include, for example, a keyboard, a pointing device, a mouse, a stylus, a touch sensitive panel (e.g., a touch pad or a touch screen), a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a position detector, and/or an audio input device.”);
B) a plurality of server computers connected in a network and having installed a container orchestration suitable to manage the life cycle of a plurality of application containers containing the desktop applications to be served to the operators connected through said remote user interfaces (Beveridge: Paragraph [0017], “access to applications remotely from a virtual machine (VM)-based desktop provisioned rapidly”, Paragraph [0034], “Virtual hardware platform 240.sub.1 may function as an equivalent of a standard x86 hardware architecture such that any x86-compatible desktop operating system (e.g., Microsoft WINDOWS brand operating system, LINUX brand operating system, SOLARIS brand operating system, NETWARE, or FREEBSD) may be installed as guest operating system (OS) 265 in order to execute applications 270 for an instantiated VM”, and Paragraph [0038], “utilizes cloud services to create, store, and retrieve child VMs”);
C) said containers being created with a containerization software that allows to run in isolated mode (Beveridge: Paragraph [0105], “Benefits of VM isolation are preserved, allowing 100% application software compatibility, a true desktop OS as opposed to a server based OS, and/or complete user isolation so there are no ‘noisy-neighbor’ performance problems often seen among RDSH solutions that cater to a diverse set of users and applications.”), a Windows operating system with graphical remote access capacity, on a host container with Unix-based operating system (Beveridge: Paragraph [0034], “Virtual hardware platform 240.sub.1 may function as an equivalent of a standard x86 hardware architecture such that any x86-compatible desktop operating system (e.g., Microsoft WINDOWS brand operating system, LINUX brand operating system, SOLARIS brand operating system, NETWARE, or FREEBSD) may be installed as guest operating system (OS) 265 in order to execute applications 270 for an instantiated VM”, and Paragraph [0086], “While method 600 is described with reference to execution by a processor, or a hypervisor 210, it is contemplated that method 600 may be performed by any computing device”; note that Solaris is a UNIX branded operating system);
said system therefore comprising containers suitable to guarantee availability of the applications toward the operators, and a customized network communication protocol suitable to allow communication between Windows applications distributed to a local area network LAN (Beveridge: Paragraph [0033], “a communication interface driver 220 that interacts with network communication interface 112 to receive and transmit data from, for example, a local area network (LAN) connected to host computing device 100”, and Paragraph [0132], “Communication may occur using any protocol or mechanism over any wired or wireless connection”).
Beveridge does not explicitly disclose that the host is a Unix-based operating system (but see Beveridge: Paragraph [0034], “Virtual hardware platform 240.sub.1 may function as an equivalent of a standard x86 hardware architecture such that any x86-compatible desktop operating system (e.g., Microsoft WINDOWS brand operating system, LINUX brand operating system, SOLARIS brand operating system, NETWARE, or FREEBSD) may be installed as guest operating system (OS) 265 in order to execute applications 270 for an instantiated VM”, and Paragraph [0086], “While method 600 is described with reference to execution by a processor, or a hypervisor 210, it is contemplated that method 600 may be performed by any computing device”; note that Solaris is a UNIX branded operating system).
However, Bleve discloses that the host is a Unix-based operating system (Bleve: Paragraph [0024], “the host operating system may be a full Linux distribution”; Linux can be considered a UNIX-based operating system, particularly in light of Instant Application Paragraph [0005], which notes that “the OCI-Open Container Initiative… [is] under the umbrella of the Linux foundation”). Note also that Bleve explicitly discloses the use of orchestration software to manage container lifecycles (Bleve: Paragraph [0025], “The orchestrator module 406 may control application lifecycle of individual containers or multiple containers by controlled starting and close monitoring”).
Beveridge and Bleve are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to virtual machines/containerization. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Bleve’s Linux host into the system of Beveridge to allow greater compatibility with cloud operating systems and other extant systems.
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 3. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a control panel consisting of a touch-screen panel, connected to said network, provided with an interactive software (Beveridge: Paragraph [0027], “User 108 may interact indirectly with host computing device 100 via another computing device such as VMware's vCenter Server or other management device. User interface device 110 may include, for example, a keyboard, a pointing device, a mouse, a stylus, a touch sensitive panel (e.g., a touch pad or a touch screen)”; Bleve: Paragraph [0041], “The user terminal 661 may provide a touch screen interface. ”).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 4. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a communication system suitable to enable video calls, file exchange, and messages between employees of a company and between employees and external collaborators; (Beveridge: Paragraph [0132], “UDP” and Bleve: Paragraph [0025], “TCP/IP” are typical communication systems used for streaming information, including video calls, file exchange, and messages).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 8. The system, according to claim 1, comprising a containerization software, said containers generalized to pairs of any host-guest operating systems (Bleve: Paragraph [0024], “Each container includes a guest operating system 415, 425, 435 which is integrated with artifacts of application components and is platform-agnostic to the target host operating system”).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the specialized containers comprise at least one container with monitoring function suitable to recover the unused resources (Bleve: Paragraph [0025], “The orchestrator module 406 may control application lifecycle of individual containers or multiple containers by controlled starting and close monitoring. For example, orchestrator module 406 may start the containers in response to a user request and may monitor the containers throughout execution.”).
Note: Claims 10-15, although suffering from improper dependencies and/or lack of antecedent basis, otherwise recite substantially the same limitations as claims 3-8 and would be rejected by the same rationale under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beveridge (US 2016/0055017 A1) and Bleve (US 2022/0237007 A1) as applied above further in view of Caldato (US 2019/0102157 A1).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 2. The system, according to claim 1, further comprising containers (Beveridge: Paragraph [0115], “the credentials associated with the AuthenticationId”), said distributed file system, accessible to all the application containers, being stored on a redundant shared storage system, according to known redundancy protocols (Beveridge: Paragraph [0003], “shared storage array”; Bleve: Paragraph [0042], “distributed data stores”; these normally incorporate redundancy).
Beveridge-Bleve does not explicitly disclose containers dedicated to tasks without interaction with the user, dedicated to: load balancing, firewall, IAM, two-factor authentication.
However, Caldato teaches containers dedicated to tasks without interaction with the user, dedicated to: load balancing, firewall, IAM, two-factor authentication (Caldato: Paragraph [0051], “instruct the container platform to instantiate multiple instances of the service and/or additional load-balancing modules to ensure high reliability of the service during runtime”; the tasks are considered to be listed in the alternative under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as no conjunction is specified).
Beveridge-Bleve and Caldato are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to virtual machines/containerization. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Caldato’s load balancing containers into the system of Beveridge-Bleve to allow greater efficiency and system compatibility.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beveridge (US 2016/0055017 A1) and Bleve (US 2022/0237007 A1) as applied above further in view of Doshi (US 2021/0117249 A1).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 5. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a system for partitioning hardware resources suitable to isolate, at hardware level, resources entrusted to external collaborators (Bleve: Claim 3, “the namespace kernel feature dictates a set of resources visible to a specific process group and isolates process groups within different namespaces”), said isolation suitable to guarantee a higher level of cyber security and render attacks against containerization software.
Beveridge-Bleve does not explicitly disclose the containers running on physically different machines.
However, Doshi teaches this feature (Doshi: Paragraph [0170], “Potential benefits of use of an IPU can include any of the following: (a) reduced attack surface through physical isolation from untrusted tenant applications”).
Beveridge-Bleve and Doshi are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to virtual machines/containerization. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Doshi’s IPU scheme into the system of Beveridge-Bleve to increase system security and resilience.
Note: Claims 10-15, although suffering from improper dependencies and/or lack of antecedent basis, otherwise recite substantially the same limitations as claims 3-8 and would be rejected by the same rationale under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beveridge (US 2016/0055017 A1) and Bleve (US 2022/0237007 A1) as applied above further in view of Collins (US 2003/0001009 A1).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 6. The system, according to claim 1.
Beveridge-Bleve does not explicitly disclose a hardware authentication device connected to said single- board computers suitable to ensure secure access to files present in the system; said device being suitable to be activated by means of hardware token contained in a company badge.
However, Collins teaches this feature (Collins: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0041], “ this same system of positive identification of an item associated with a RFID device can also be used for securing documents/computer files. In this example, a RFID device would contain the encryption code used to decrypt a file stored in a secure computer file. The reader would require an employee to present his RFID badge to the reader along with the RFID device containing the encryption code. The system would read each item in the field to ensure that the appropriate individual is unlocking the encrypted file before granting access to the file”).
Beveridge-Bleve and Collins are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to computer systems and security procedures. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Collin’s RFID badges into the system of Beveridge-Bleve to allow greater system security.
Note: Claims 10-15, although suffering from improper dependencies and/or lack of antecedent basis, otherwise recite substantially the same limitations as claims 3-8 and would be rejected by the same rationale under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beveridge (US 2016/0055017 A1) and Bleve (US 2022/0237007 A1) as applied above further in view of Helgesen (US 2014/0295948 A1).
Beveridge-Bleve teaches 7. The system, according to claim 1, wherein said single-board computers are configured
Beveridge-Bleve does not explicitly disclose the single-board computers are configured for graphical rendering on multiple screens.
However, Helgesen teaches single-board computers configured for graphical rendering on multiple screens(Helgesen: Paragraph [0135], “he game controller 170 is a small personal computer that contains a dealer processor which has a small single board computer and an I/O board with sensor controller and door switch. An example of a single board computer which could be used is an IB 883 family board from iBase Technology Inc. The token sensor controller 500 drives two mechanical meters as well. The dealer input and display 150 has a capacitive touch screen display, which is made by Zytronic PLC. The game controller 170 is connected to a dual monitor panel (not shown) which is used to display the progressive values and other information regarding the game being played at the table”; the IB 883 typically has two HDMI ports for display on two monitors).
Beveridge-Bleve and Helgesen are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to lower-powered computing devices. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Helgesen’s use of dual-display SBCs into the system of Beveridge-Bleve to allow greater efficiency and usability.
Note: Claims 10-15, although suffering from improper dependencies and/or lack of antecedent basis, otherwise recite substantially the same limitations as claims 3-8 and would be rejected by the same rationale under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Putnam (US 2022/0179398 A1) discloses the use of a touchscreen control panel for an administrator to monitor and adjust the state of a system (Putnam: Paragraph [0020].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMAD HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/IMAD HUSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453