DETAILED ACTION
This Office Actions is in response to communication (Amendment) filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are in independent form. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 21 are amended. Claims 2 and 12 are canceled. Claims 22 and 23 are newly added. This action is Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on 12/31/2025.
a. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 21 were amended. Claims 2 and 12 were canceled. Claims 22 and 23 were newly added. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-23 remain pending in the application, and are being considered on the merits.
b. The objection of claim 10 has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claim filed on 12/31/2025.
c. Applicant’s argument filed on 12/31/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The examiner agreed with all of the argument made to the claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 21. The 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections has been withdrawn.
d. The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §101 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For further details, please see Response to Arguments under 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection Remarks below.
e. The Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 12/31/2025. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art Liu et al. US Pub. No. US 20210286654 A1 (hereafter Liu) and in view of the previously cited prior art(s). Reference Liu, in combination with previously cited prior art(s), discloses each element of the claims highlighted by applicant.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks and/or arguments, filed on 12/31/2025 have been fully considered with the following result(s).
The examiner is entitled to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-1] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Response to 35 U.S.C § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 12/31/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C § 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that “the claims involve a management device receiving resource usage information and determining a target computing task based on differences in resource usage information among the tasks. These actions cannot be performed by the human brain. The human brain is unable to receive information or send target tasks to a computing device. The claims can only be executed by a computer, both in terms of the scope defined by the claims and in the essence of the solution.”
The examiner fully considered, and totally agree that the steps of “receive information or send target tasks to a computing device” cannot be performed by human brain. The limitation “receive information or send target tasks to a computing device” are analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A and step 2B, which is mere data gathering, that does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
However, the examiner would like to point out that the current claims languages of the limitation “determining a target computing task based on differences in resource usage information among the tasks” are still too broad and too generic, and can be performed in the human mind. the limitation “determining .......” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered as an abstract idea and could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper because the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can perform the determining/selecting, a computing task from a plurality of computing tasks, by looking at a file/report/table, that contained information about the plurality of computing tasks, and the resource usage information that associate with the plurality of computing tasks, in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. The “management apparatus” is considered merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception, and analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A.
Thus, based on all of the above explanation, the examiner finds these arguments
unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is proper.
Response to 35 U.S.C § 112 Remarks
Applicant’s argument filed on 12/31/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejections have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The examiner agreed with all of the argument made to the claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 21. The 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejections has been withdrawn.
Response to 103 Remarks
Applicant's arguments in the applicant’s remarks and amendments of independent claims 1, 11 and 21, found on pages 12 – 14 and filed on 12/31/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art Liu et al. US Pub. No. US 20210286654 A1 (hereafter Liu), and in view of the previously cited prior art(s). Reference Liu, in combination with previously cited prior art(s), discloses each element of the claims highlighted by applicant.
For further details, please see below claims rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103.
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 1, 3-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
With regard to claims 1,11, and 21, these claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Claim 11 is directed to a system and falls within the statutory category of machines;
Claim 21 is directed to an electric device and falls within the statutory category of machines;
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, under Step 1.
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.
Step 2A Prong 1:
However, the limitations
Claims 1, 10, and 21: “determining ...... based on the first resource usage information, ........., a target computing task from the computing tasks, wherein there is a data association between the target computing task and a first computing task of the computing tasks, and wherein the data association comprises that input data of the target computing task comprises output data of at least one other computing task”
as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can perform the determining/selecting a computing task from a plurality of computing tasks, in their mind, and/or including with the aid of pen and paper. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
That is, the above limitations in the claims 1, 10, and 21 as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: “A method comprising; a management apparatus; a first computing device......; a second computing device........””
Claim 11: “A system comprising: a management apparatus configured to......; a first computing device coupled to the management apparatus configured to......; and a second computing device coupled to the first device and configured to......”
Claim 21: “An electronic device, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to.......; a first computing device......; a second computing device........”
are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception.
Further, the claims recite the following additional element
Claim 1: obtaining, .........., first resource usage information; sending, ........, a first instruction instructing to execute the first computing task; sending, ........ according to the first instruction, the data;
Clam 11: obtain, .........., first resource usage information; send a first instruction instructing to execute the first computing task; receive the first instruction; send, according to the first instruction, the data; receive the data;
Claim 21: obtain, .........., first resource usage information; send, ......, a first instruction instructing to send, to the target computing task in a second computing device, data from the first computing task.
which is the limitation merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea amounts to necessary data transmitting or transferring - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity - pre-solution and post-solution activity - mere receiving or transmitting data over a network. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of mere receiving or transmitting data over a network for use in a claimed process. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
In addition, the claims also recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence (Al) application task are executed; the first computing device executes the computing task; executing, ........, the first computing task to obtain data; using, ........, the data as the input data; and executing, ........, the target computing task based on the input data;
Clam 11: when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence {AI) application task are executed; execute the first computing task to obtain data; use the data as input data; and execute the target computing task based on the input data.
Claim 21: when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence {AI) application task are executed.
which are merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The above limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claims 1, 11, and 21 do not only recites a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components and invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.
The claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: obtaining, .........., first resource usage information; sending, ........, a first instruction instructing to execute the first computing task; sending, ........ according to the first instruction, the data;
Clam 11: obtain, .........., first resource usage information; send a first instruction instructing to execute the first computing task; receive the first instruction; send, according to the first instruction, the data; receive the data;
Claim 21: obtain, .........., first resource usage information; send, ......, a first instruction instructing to send, to the target computing task in a second computing device, data from the first computing task.
which is the limitation merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity - pre-solution and post-solution activity - mere data gathering. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The courts have recognized the “sending and receiving data” are insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and are limitations computer functions as well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as “either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.”) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
In addition, the claims also recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence (Al) application task are executed; the first computing device executes the computing task; executing, ........, the first computing task to obtain data; using, ........, the data as the input data; and executing, ........, the target computing task based on the input data;
Clam 11: when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence {AI) application task are executed; execute the first computing task to obtain data; use the data as input data; and execute the target computing task based on the input data.
Claim 21: when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence {AI) application task are executed.
which are merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apply the same analysis to the dependent claims 3 – 10 and 13 – 23, according to the above analysis, are mental processes, groupings of abstract ideas. Thus claims 3 – 10 and 13 – 23 are ineligible.
With regard to claims 3, 13, and 22, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein when a running program of the target computing task is not deployed on the second computing device, the method further comprises sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, the running program, or sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, a second instruction instructing to obtain the running program” which is merely amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The courts have recognized the “Receiving or transmitting data over a network e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are limitations computer functions as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC) functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” and MPEP § 2106.05(d). Further, claims 3, 13, and 22 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 13, and 23 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 13, and 22 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 4, 14, and 23 the claims recite additional element recitations of “sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, a third instruction instructing to prepare a computing resource for executing the target computing task.” which is merely amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The courts have recognized the “Receiving or transmitting data over a network e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are limitations computer functions as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC) functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” and MPEP § 2106.05(d). Further, claims 4, 14, and 23 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 14, and 23 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 14, and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, the claims recite “wherein determining the target computing task comprises: determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task when running efficiency of the plurality of computing tasks does not meet a first preset condition or when a utilization status of resources that are used to run the computing tasks and that are in the first computing device does not meet a second preset condition.” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can perform the determining base on resource usage information in their mind. Therefore, this limitation recites and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claims 5 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 16, the claims recite additional element recitations of “obtaining, by the management apparatus, second resource usage information of a second computing task of the second computing device” which is merely amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The courts have recognized the “Receiving or transmitting data over a network e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are limitations computer functions as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC) functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” and MPEP § 2106.05(d). In addition, the additional element recitations of “wherein determining the target computing task comprises determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task based on the first resource usage information and the second resource usage information” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can perform the determining base on resource usage information in their mind. Therefore, this limitation recites and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claims 6 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the first resource usage information comprises running information of a second computing task of the computing tasks and resource information of the first computing device” which is merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments or technology environment (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 7 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 8 and 18, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the running information is based on one or more of: a quantity of invoking times of the second computing task in unit duration, an input data amount of the second computing task, an output data amount of the second computing task, running duration of invoking the second computing task, a consumption amount of a processor for invoking the second computing task, or a consumption amount of memory for invoking the second computing task; and wherein the resource information is based on one or more of: a first rated value and a total consumption amount of memory of the first computing device, a first bandwidth of a processor memory of the first computing device to transmit data to AI computing memory of the first computing device and a second rated value of the first bandwidth, or a second bandwidth of the AI computing memory to transmit data to the processor memory and a third rated value of the second bandwidth.” which is merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments or technology environment (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 8 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 9 and 19, they claim recites additional element recitations of “deploying the management apparatus on the first computing device, the second computing device, or a third computing device; and coupling the third computing device to the first computing device and the second computing device through a communication path.” which are merely defines the intended functions of the user interface, which are merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The above limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 9 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9 and 19 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 10 and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the first computing device is a first graphics card, a first AI computing chip, or a first server, wherein the second computing device is a second graphics card, a second AI computing chip, or a second server, and wherein the third computing device is a third graphics card, a third AI computing chip, or a third server.” which is merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments or technology environment (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 10 and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 10 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 10 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA et al. US Pub. No. US 20090144358 A1, in further view of Liu et al. US Pub. No. US 20210286654 A1 (hereafter LIU)
Regarding claim 1, YOSHIDA teaches the invention substantially as claimed: A method comprising: ........ determining, by the management apparatus, ......., and when the first computing device executes the computing task, a target computing task from the computing tasks, (e.g. FIG. 3A-3D, FIG. 11, [0060]: “FIGS. 3A to 3D represent the case of processing, in the form of a cluster, a plurality of jobs (three in FIG. 3, i.e., jobs J1-1 to J1-3) which are produced by the master M and are to be processed by using the processing result of a job (parent job, e.g., the job J1 in FIG. 3) which is common to the plurality of jobs. The processing in FIG. 3A is similar to that in FIG. 1A.” and [0110]: “The master M produces a succeeding job (at S1107) and executes a job assignment process for the produced job (at S1108). Then, the master M transmits a job processing request to an assignment target agent Ab (at S1109). The job processing request includes the produced job.”)) The citation discloses at FIG. 3A-3D and [0060] that there are plurality of jobs/computing tasks. at FIG. 11 and [0110] discloses the master M/management apparatus, identify a succeeding job/target computing task. However, the teaching of YOSHIDA does not clearly indicate that the determining of a target computing task is “based on the first resource usage information”. The missing feature is taught by Liu, as discuss below.
wherein there is a data association between the target computing task and a first computing task of the computing tasks; (e.g. FIG. 3A-3D, FIG. 11, [0110]: “The master M produces a succeeding job (at S1107) and executes a job assignment process for the produced job (at S1108). Then, the master M transmits a job processing request to an assignment target agent Ab (at S1109). The job processing request includes the produced job. The succeeding job is a job to be processed by using the processing result of the job that has been processed by the agent Aa as the previous assignment target.” and [0111]: “When the processing result from the previous assignment target agent Aa and a job to be processed by using that processing result are both loaded, the new assignment target agent Ab executes processing of the loaded job (at S1112)”) The citation discloses the processing result/data association, of the job that has been processed/first computing task, is used by the succeeding job/target computing task. The processing result is a data association between the job that has been processed and the succeeding job.
and wherein the data association comprises that input data of the target computing task comprises output data of at least one other computing task (e.g. FIG. 3A-3D, FIG. 11 and [0108] – [0111]; [0110]: “Then, the master M transmits a job processing request to an assignment target agent Ab (at S1109). The job processing request includes the produced job. The succeeding job is a job to be processed by using the processing result of the job that has been processed by the agent Aa as the previous assignment target. Further, the master M transmits, to the agent Aa as the previous assignment target, a request for transferring the job processing result to a new assignment target agent Ab (at S1110).”) The citation discloses the processing result/data association, of the job that has been processed/first computing task, is used by the succeeding job/target computing task. The agent Aa/first computing device, executes the job processing request/first computing task; then the agent Aa/first computing device, transfers the job processing result/the data, to the agent Ab/second computing device. At [0111] discloses the agent Ab/second computing device, executes a job to be processed by using that processing result /second computing task using the data as input data.
sending, by the management apparatus to the first computing device, a first instruction instructing to execute the first computing task; (e.g. FIG. 11 and [0108]: “FIG. 11 illustrates a decentralized processing sequence in the grid computing system 100 according to an example embodiment. First, the master M produces an initial job (at S1101) and executes a job assignment process for the produced job (at S1102). Then, the master M transmits a job processing request to an assignment target agent Aa (at S1103). The job processing request includes the produced job.”)
executing, by the first computing device, the first computing task to obtain data; (e.g. [0109]: “Upon receiving the job processing request, the assignment target agent Aa executes job processing (at S1104). The data size of the obtained job processing result, the processing time, and the CPU loads before and after the processing are returned, as processing information, to the master M (at S1105).”) The citation discloses the agent Aa/first computing device, executes the job processing request/first computing task.
sending, by the first computing device to a second computing device and according to the first instruction, the data; (e.g. [0111]: “Upon receiving the transfer request, the previous assignment target agent Aa transfers the job processing result to the new assignment target agent Ab (at S1111).”) The citation discloses the agent Aa/first computing device, transfers the job processing result/the data, to the agent Ab/second computing device.
using, by the second computing device, the data as the input data; (e.g. [0110]: “The succeeding job is a job to be processed by using the processing result of the job that has been processed by the agent Aa as the previous assignment target.” and [0111]: “When the processing result from the previous assignment target agent Aa and a job to be processed by using that processing result are both loaded, the new assignment target agent Ab executes processing of the loaded job (at S1112). The data size of the obtained processing result, the processing time, and the CPU loads before and after the processing are returned, as processing information, to the master M (at S1113).”) The citation discloses at [0111] the agent Ab/second computing device, executes a job to be processed by using that processing result /second computing task using the data as input data.
and executing, by the second computing device, the target computing task based on the input data. ([0111]: “When the processing result from the previous assignment target agent Aa and a job to be processed by using that processing result are both loaded, the new assignment target agent Ab executes processing of the loaded job (at S1112). The data size of the obtained processing result, the processing time, and the CPU loads before and after the processing are returned, as processing information, to the master M (at S1113).”) The citation discloses the agent Ab/second computing device, executes a job to be processed by using that processing result /second computing task using the data as input data.
YOSHIDA fails to teach obtaining, by a management apparatus when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence (Al) application task are executed by a first computing device, first resource usage information; ....... determining, ......... based on the first resource usage information, ........, a target computing task from the computing tasks
However, LIU teaches obtaining, by a management apparatus when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence (Al) application task are executed by a first computing device, first resource usage information; (e.g. [0024], [0032]: “For ease of description, in the context of the present disclosure, various example implementations of the present disclosure will be described with a deep learning-based computing job as a specific example.”) and FIG. 2, FIG. 3, table 1 on Page 5 and [0042]: “According to an example implementation of the present disclosure, the concept of resource requirement 220 is proposed, and the resource requirement of each computing task in the first set of computing tasks 212 for a computing resource can be determined. By comparing each resource requirement with resource threshold condition 222, computing task 230 that has a high computing resource requirement in the first set of computing tasks 212 can be determined.” and [0043]) The citations disclose at [0024] and [0032] that the jobs in the context of the reference are deep learning-based computing job/artificial intelligence (Al) application task. At FIG. 2, FIG. 3, table 1 on Page 5 and [0042], and [0043] discloses the concept of determining the resource requirement of each computing task from the set of computing task 212.
determining, ......... based on the first resource usage information, ........, a target computing task from the computing tasks (e.g. FIG. 2, FIG. 3, table 1 on Page 5 and [0042]: “According to an example implementation of the present disclosure, the concept of resource requirement 220 is proposed, and the resource requirement of each computing task in the first set of computing tasks 212 for a computing resource can be determined. By comparing each resource requirement with resource threshold condition 222, computing task 230 that has a high computing resource requirement in the first set of computing tasks 212 can be determined.” and [0043]) The citations disclose at FIG. 2, FIG. 3, table 1 on Page 5 and [0042], and [0043], the computing task 230, in the first set of computing tasks 212, is determined based on the resource requirement that was determined previously.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the obtaining, by a management apparatus when computing tasks related to an artificial intelligence (Al) application task are executed by a first computing device, first resource usage information; ....... determining, ......... based on the first resource usage information, ........, a target computing task from the computing tasks, as taught in Liu’s invention into YOSHIDA’s invention because the combination would improve the resources usage, speeds up execution, and ensures that data produced by AI application tasks can be executed more accurate, as the complex AI tasks are divided into smaller, related tasks that can run across multiple processing computers.
Regarding claim 9, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 1, and YOSHIDA further teaches further comprising: deploying the management apparatus on the first computing device,
the second computing device,
or a third computing device; (e.g. FIG. 1A, and [0003]: “The present invention relates to a decentralized processing technique in a grid computing system in which a master computing machine (such as a master computer or server, hereinafter referred to simply as a "master" controls a plurality of agent computing machines (such as agent computers or servers, hereinafter referred to simply as an "agent") to perform decentralized processing.” and [0048]: “For simplicity of the explanation, FIGS. 1A to 1D illustrate three agents in the grid computing system 100 controlled by a master M. However, it should be understood that the master M may control any plurality of agents so as to perform decentralized processing via a network 110.”) the citation discloses the master M/third computing device, controls the multiple agents/ computing devices, which comprises first and second computing devices
and coupling the third computing device to the first computing device and the second computing device through a communication path. (e.g. FIG.1A and [0048]: “For simplicity of the explanation, FIGS. 1A to 1D illustrate three agents in the grid computing system 100 controlled by a master M. However, it should be understood that the master M may control any plurality of agents so as to perform decentralized processing via a network 110.” and [0049]: “In FIG. 1A, the master M produces a job J1 and loads (or transmits) the job J1 (via the network 110) into the agent A1 that is designated as an assignment target of the job J1.”) The citation discloses the network/ communication path, for communicating between the master/third computing devices with multiple agents, which comprises first and second computing devices.
Regarding claim 10, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 9, and YOSHIDA further teaches wherein the first computing device is a first graphics card,
a first AI computing chip,
or a first server, (e.g. FIG. 1A, and [0003]: “The present invention relates to a decentralized processing technique in a grid computing system in which ...... a plurality of agent computing machines (such as agent computers or servers, hereinafter referred to simply as an "agent") to perform decentralized processing.”) The citation discloses at the agent A1/first computing device is a server/first server.
wherein the second computing device is a second graphics card,
a second AI computing chip,
or a second server, (e.g. FIG. 1A, and [0003]: “The present invention relates to a decentralized processing technique in a grid computing system in which ...... a plurality of agent computing machines (such as agent computers or servers, hereinafter referred to simply as an "agent") to perform decentralized processing.”) The citation discloses at the agent A2/second computing device is also a server/second server.
and wherein the third computing device is a third graphics card,
a third AI computing chip,
or a third server. (e.g. FIG. 1A, and [0003]: “The present invention relates to a decentralized processing technique in a grid computing system in which a master computing machine (such as a master computer or server, hereinafter referred to simply as a "master")”) The citation discloses at the master M/third computing device is also a server/third server.
Regarding claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9, so it is also rejected under the same rational
Regarding claim 19, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 20, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 10, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 21, it is an electronic device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9, so it is also rejected under the same rational
Claims 4, 6, 14, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA, and LIU in further view of Pan et al. US Pub. No. US 20180150341 A1 (hereafter Pan)
Regarding claim 4, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprises: sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, a third instruction instructing to prepare a computing resource for executing the target computing task.
However, Pan teaches further comprises: sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, a third instruction instructing to prepare a computing resource for executing the target computing task. (e.g. [0112]: “If an existing environment is available, the routine 1100 proceeds to block 1106, where the resource manager 254 updates the existing execution environment as necessary to prepare the environment for a new task execution. Illustratively, where the resources required at block 1104 do not match the resources currently provisioned to an execution environment, the resource manager 254 may provision the environment with the additionally required resources (and potentially remove access to non-required resources, such as unused drivers, utilities, libraries, etc.). The resource manager 254 may further refresh or “clean” the execution environment, to ensure that changes to the execution environment during a prior task execution to not effect subsequent executions.”) The citation discloses the concept that the resource manager prepares the execution environment/prepare a computing resource, for a new task execution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, a third instruction instructing to prepare a computing resource for executing the target computing task, as taught in Pan’s invention into YOSHIDA and LIU’s invention because the additional feature would ensures the device is ready to handle the tasks without delay or waiting for allocating resources, which helps to improve execution efficiency, reduce idle time, and more reliable performance.
Regarding claim 6, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: obtaining, by the management apparatus, second resource usage information of a second computing task of the second computing device, wherein determining the target computing task comprises determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task based on the first resource usage information and the second resource usage information
However, Pan teaches further comprising: obtaining, by the management apparatus, second resource usage information of a second computing task of the second computing device, (e.g. FIG. 8 and [0090]: “At (3), the scheduler 256 transmits a request to the resource manager 254 for information regarding the availability of compute resources at the coordinator 114, such as the amount of available memory, processor cycles, network bandwidth, etc., is available at the coordinator 114 (or is available for the purposes of executing tasks)......... For example, the coordinator 114 may be current execution a router task within a router task environment 812 and a shadow service task within a shadow service environment 814......... For example, the router task environment 812 may be allocated one gigabyte of RAM and 10 percent of processor cycles, while the shadow service task environment 814 may be allocated two gigabytes of RAM and 5 percent of processor cycles.”) The citation discloses the concept that the scheduler gathers current resource available/resource usage information, of the execution environments when the execution environments execute some tasks, such as a shadow service task, which is allocated an amount of processor and memory/second resource usage information. The shadow service task is executed within the shadow service task environment 812/second computing device.
wherein determining the target computing task comprises determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task based on the first resource usage information and the second resource usage information. (e.g. FIG. 8 and [0090] and [0091]: “At (6), the scheduler 256 processes the work item queue 802 to determine what work items, if any, to dequeue and process.......... As a further example, the scheduler 256 may utilize an availability of compute resources to determine what work items to dequeue, as well as an estimated usage of compute resources to process a queued work item (e.g., an estimated usage of compute resources to dequeue the item, allocate an execution environment to a task called via the work item, and execute the task within the execution environment).”) the citation discloses the scheduler, based on the current resource available/resource usage information, of the execution environments, makes the determination of which work items to dequeue/target computing task. As the resource available is determined based on the resource usage of the router task environment 812/first computing device and shadow service task environment 812/second computing device at [0090], it implies that the determination of which work items to dequeue/target computing task is based on the resource usage of the router task environment 812/first computing device and shadow service task environment 812/second computing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the obtaining, by the management apparatus, second resource usage information of a second computing task of the second computing device, wherein determining the target computing task comprises determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task based on the first resource usage information and the second resource usage information, as taught in Pan’s invention into YOSHIDA and LIU’s invention because the additional feature would ensures the device is ready to handle the tasks without delay or waiting for allocating resources, which helps to improve execution efficiency, reduce idle time, and more reliable performance.
Regarding claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 23, it is an electronic device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 3, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA, and LIU, in further view of Yip et al. US Pub. No. US 20150296051 A1 (hereafter Yip)
Regarding claim 3, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein when a running program of the target computing task is not deployed on the second computing device, the method further comprises: sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, the running program.
However, Yip teaches wherein when a running program of the target computing task is not deployed on the second computing device, (e.g. [0126]: “In embodiments, if the client computing device 110 does not have a particular computer program installed which is required for execution using the resources of the client computing device 110, then the client computing device 110 is configured to transmit a notification to the server device 120.”) The citation discloses the concept when a computer program is not installed/deployed, at the client computing device/second computing device.
the method further comprises: sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, the running program (e.g. [0129] In response to the notification from the client computing device 110, the server device 120 may transmit one or more of: the computer program, an installation file for the computer program, and a link to an installation file for the computer program, an indication that the client computing device 110 can contact an application deployment server 180 in order to obtain the computer program or an installation file for the computer program.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein when a running program of the target computing task is not deployed on the second computing device, the method further comprises: sending, by the management apparatus to the second computing device, the running program, as taught in Yip’s invention into YOSHIDA and LIU’s invention because the deploying or providing the running program of the target computing task would ensure the ability of executing the target computing task, which improves the flexibility and reliability, avoids failures or delays, since the system can dynamically prepare the device to run the task.
Regarding claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 22, it is an electronic device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA, and LIU, in further view of Liberty et al. US Pat. No. US 11537439 B1 (hereafter Liberty)
Regarding claim 5, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein determining the target computing task comprises: determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task when running efficiency of the computing tasks does not meet a first preset condition or when a utilization status of resources that are used to run the plurality of computing tasks and that are in the first computing device does not meet a second preset condition.
However, Liberty teaches wherein determining the target computing task comprises: determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task when running efficiency of the computing tasks does not meet a first preset condition (e.g. 82-Col 14, lines 59 – 66: “Block 915 can include measuring the performance characteristic of the ML training job (e.g., determining a predicated training time or completion time, determining a progress/learning rate, etc.), and determining whether the performance characteristic's value (or a value derived therefrom, such as a predicted time of completion) meets or exceeds (or another comparison for) a threshold value specified by the rule.” and 83-Col 15, lines 4 – 8: “If a worker instance is to be added, at block 920, the operations 900 include adding a second one or more compute instances to the ML training job while the first one or more compute instances continue to execute portions of the ML training job.”) The citation discloses at Col 14, lines 59 – 66 the determination of performance of ML training job meet or exceeds a threshold value, and at Col 15, lines 4 – 8 discloses a worker instance need to add, so it implies that the performance does not meet the threshold/preset condition.
or when a utilization status of resources that are used to run the plurality of computing tasks and that are in the first computing device does not meet a second preset condition. (e.g. 62-Col 11, lines 50 – 57: “Thus, in some embodiments, the training control system 122 can monitor the execution and progress of the current utilized resources (e.g., the small VM), determine that the performance/progress of the ML job is not satisfactory (e.g., is greater than or less than some defined threshold), and add additional resources such as additional virtual machines (to execute additional containers for the ML task) to “scale up” the task.”) The citation discloses the determination of the current utilization resources I not satisfactory, which is less than some defined threshold/does not meet a preset condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein determining the target computing task comprises: determining, by the management apparatus, the target computing task when running efficiency of the plurality of computing tasks does not meet a first preset condition or when a utilization status of resources that are used to run the plurality of computing tasks and that are in the first computing device does not meet a second preset condition, as taught in Liberty’s invention into YOSHIDA and LIU’s invention because this would only allow the system to move tasks for execution when the performance is guaranteed, which helps to avoid unnecessary transfers, balances workloads more effectively, and ensures smoother and faster execution of the tasks.
Regarding claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA, LIU, in further view of Duleba et al. US Pub. No. US 20200341798 A1 (hereafter Duleba)
Regarding claim 7, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, discloses the method of claim 2, and LIU further teaches. and resource information of the first computing device. (e.g. table 1 on Page 5) The citation discloses the table that contains resources requirement for each task.
However, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, fails to teach wherein the first resource usage information comprises running information of a second computing task of the plurality of computing tasks
Duleba teaches wherein the first resource usage information comprises running information of a second computing task of the plurality of computing tasks (e.g. FIG. 3, [0028]: “Additionally, the scheduler 174 may include a buffer 230 for storing workloads 232 received from the clients. The workloads may be queued by the buffer in a first-in-first-out fashion, whereby the workloads may be scheduled by the scheduler in the order that they are received.” and [0029] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example buffer 230. In the example of FIG. 3, workloads Workload_1 Workload_2, Workload_3, Workload_4 through Workload_n are shown.” and [0030]: “The consumption cost may indicate an anticipated consumption level of the workload, such as how many of the virtual machines are anticipated to be consumed in performing the workload. In some examples, the consumption cost may be a number of cores. In other examples, the consumption cost may be an amount of random access memory.”) The citations disclose at FIG. 3, [0028] and [0029] the workloads 232/the plurality of computing tasks, comprises multiple workload (Workload_1 Workload_2, Workload_3, Workload_4 through Workload_n). FIG. 3 and [0030] disclose the number of resources (CPU and memory) that allocated to each workload. For example, workload_2/second computing task, requires 20 Cores and 50 RAM/running information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the first resource usage information comprises running information of a second computing task of the plurality of computing tasks, as taught in Duleba’s invention into YOSHIDA and LIU’s invention because the additional information of the resource information would help the system makes more accurate decisions about when and where to move the tasks, better task distribution, prevents overloading on one device, and improve overall efficiency in executing the application task.
Regarding claim 8, YOSHIDA, in view of LIU, and Duleba, discloses the method of claim 7, and Duleba further teaches wherein the running information is based on one or more of: a quantity of invoking times of the second computing task in unit duration,
an input data amount of the second computing task,
an output data amount of the second computing task,
running duration of invoking the second computing task, (FIG. 3 and [0031]: “In the example of FIG. 3, the priority level indicates a start deadline, which may be an amount of time for the workload to be started.”) The citation discloses the amount of time for the workload to be started/duration of invoking the second computing task.
a consumption amount of a processor for invoking the second computing task, (FIG. 3 and [0030]) The citations disclose the number of resources (CPU and memory) that allocated to each workload. For example, workload_2/second computing task, requires 20 Cores/amount of a processor.
or a consumption amount of memory for invoking the second computing task; (FIG. 3 and [0030]) The citations disclose the number of resources (CPU and memory) that allocated to each workload. For example, workload_2/second computing task, requires 50 RAM/amount of memory.
LIU further teaches and wherein the resource information is based on one or more of: a first rated value and a total consumption amount of memory of the first computing device, (e.g. (e.g. table 1 on Page 5) The citation discloses the table that contains the amount of memory requirement for each task.
bandwidth of a processor memory of the first computing device to transmit data to AI computing memory of the first computing device and a second rated value of the bandwidth,
or bandwidth of the AI computing memory to transmit data to the processor memory and a third rated value of the bandwidth.
Regarding claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 8, so it is also rejected under the same rational
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 11194688 B1: discloses the workload-classification component determines the workload types by a respective resource-utilization model that indicates that shape of the resource-utilization characteristics for the workloads represented by the workload type. The resource-utilization models may indicate amounts of the different types of resources consumed by the representative workloads (e.g., amounts of CPU, storage, memory, networking throughput, GPU, etc.), and or combinations of the different types of resources consumed by the representative workload.
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.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30am - 5:30PM 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, Pierre Vital can be reached on (571) 272-4215. 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.
/Tuan M Nguyen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights