DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Objections
Claims 6,16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-- a composable resource in the composable system -- should be -- [[a]] the composable resource in the composable system -- in claim 6. Similar deficiency exist in claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- the an -- should be -- [[the]] an -- in [0033].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following terms lack proper antecedent basis:
-- the target temperature -- in claim 3 line 4.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “a composition condition” and further recites “composing the composable system according to the composition condition”. It is unclear composition condition is determine the composition criteria i.e. composition occurs when the condition is satisfied or composing condition i.e. composing the system based on composition condition or both.
Claim 1 recites “determining that a composition condition for a composable system is satisfied” and later in claim 2 recites “determining that the composition condition is satisfied includes determining an overheated composable resource in a container of the composable system”. It is unclear if the condition for a composable system is referring to condition of the entire system or condition of a resource in the system or both.
Claim 3 recites “identifying a composable resource having a corresponding temperature lower than the threshold temperature as the target temperature”. It is unclear if the claim is directed to identifying a composable resource with temperature lower than the threshold or resource is identified as a target temperature.
Claim 5 recites “about one-fourth to about three-fourth”. About is not definite.
Claim 9 recites “a target composable resource” without clearly reciting which composable resource is considered as target.
Claims 11 and 20 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Independent claim 1 is directed to “redistributing workload to the resources of a dynamically composing system according to the composition condition upon satisfying composition condition” at a high level of generality. “Redistributing workload” as well as “determining that a composition condition … is satisfied”, are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 11 and 20 recite a controller comprising memory/processor, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
claim elements
i
1. A method for dynamic compute composition comprising:
preamble with intended use
ii
determining that a composition condition for a composable system is satisfied; and
mental process abstract idea
iii
composing the composable system according to the composition condition
mental process abstract idea
iv
to redistribute workloads among two or more composable resources of the composable system.
mental process abstract idea
The overall process described by steps [ii]-[iv] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [ii]-[iv] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [ii] recites “determining that a composition condition for a composable system is satisfied”, which can be performed by human mind with or without the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step [iii] recites “composing the composable system according to the composition condition”, which is also directed to combining system according to a given condition and can be performed by human mind with or without the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 in step [iv] recites “redistribute workloads among two or more composable resources of the composable system”, which is directed to organizing workload among the resources of the system, and can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, steps [ii]-[iv] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 11 and 20 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 20 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “method for dynamic compute composition”, which is directed to a computing method. These are directed to computing method and is neither inventive nor realize/reflect the improvement to the technology and/or technical field. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i] from a generic implementation of the identified abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i] , under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 11 and 20 recites management controller, which is also neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology/technical field.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 11 and 20 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Regarding the method in claim 1, processors, memories as recited in claims 11 and 20, the conventional or generalized function terms by which the computer components are described reasonably indicate that Specification discloses conventional component, and describes the component in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficient well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation in the combination. Additional claim elements recited in step [i] is directed to a method and recites intended purpose of the claim. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 11 and 20 are not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Dependent claim 10 is directed to CPU, GPU, FPGA packaged in a chassis stacked in rack, which is common configuration/components, and is neither inventive / provide improvement nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guim Bernat et al. (US 2018/0285009 A1, hereafter Guim Bernat).
As per claim 1, Guim Bernat teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for dynamic compute composition comprising ([0023] fig. 1 dynamically composable computing system 100):
determining that a composition condition for a composable system is satisfied ([0056] hardware characteristics meeting requirements of an application to be executed on the composite computing node [0037] fig. 3 predefined hardware requirement of an application [0038] orchestrator, determine, according to hardware requirement, composite computing node [0040] meeting the respective required hardware resource characteristic); and
composing the composable system ([0024] resource manager 150, configured to assemble a composite computing node 120) according to the composition condition to redistribute workloads ([0056] assembling, composite computing node, selecting, resources, meeting requirements of application [0027] composite computing node 120, exposed, as resources, to software stack or an application running [0022] rebalance resource allocations and/or migrate service chains to another server or portion of configurable computing resources) among two or more composable resources of the composable system ([0027] composite computing nodes 120, logical servers, computing hardware resources 110, composed, to form logical servers 122).
As per claim 10, Guim Bernat teaches wherein each of the two or more composable resources is a central processing unit, a graphic processing unit, a field programmable gate array, or a storage device that is packaged in one of a plurality of chassis stacked in a rack ([0024] resources 110, composite computing nodes120 virtualized elements, located in different racks [0026] CPUs 112 [0030] FPGA).
Claim 11 recites a management controller for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites a composable system comprising management controller including: a memory storing program instructions; and a processor configured to execute the program instructions to perform elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 12-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0347174 A1, hereafter Song).
As pr claim 2, Guim Bernat teaches determining that the composition condition is satisfied ([0056] hardware characteristics meeting requirements of an application to be executed on the composite computing node [0037] fig. 3 predefined hardware requirement of an application [0038] orchestrator, determine, according to hardware requirement, composite computing node [0040] meeting the respective required hardware resource characteristic) includes determining an overheated composable resource in a container of the composable system ([0020] computing hardware resources of a datacenter, computing hardware resources, respective hardware characteristics [0021] resources, VM, VNF, container), the overheated composable resource having a corresponding temperature higher than or equal to a threshold temperature; and
composing the composable system ([0024] resource manager 150, configured to assemble a composite computing node 120) includes mapping a target composable resource to the container to transfer at least part of current workload of the overheated composable resource to the target composable resource ([0021] enable higher consolidation density of workloads, virtual machine, container [0027] logical server 122, composite computing node, assembled or composed, according to the requirement, grouping of CPU, memory, switch, composed, logical server [0022] migrate service chains to another server/portion [0045] map different memory/storage of the compute sled).
Guim Bernat doesn’t specifically teach the overheated composable resource having a corresponding temperature higher than or equal to a threshold temperature; and transfer at least part of current workload of the overheated composable resource to the target composable resource.
Song, however, teaches the overheated composable resource having a corresponding temperature higher than or equal to a threshold temperature ([0007] temperature values of the servers in datacenter, largest / smallest temperature difference reaches a preset threshold i.e. largest = threshold + smallest ~ threshold); and
transfer at least part of current workload of the overheated composable resource to the target composable resource ([0007] selecting destination server, virtual machine, migrated, selected destination server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Song of migrating a VM from a selected server with temperature beyond a threshold to a destination server with lower temperature with the teachings of Guim Bernat of dynamically composable computing system to improve thermal efficiency and allow the overheated composable resource having a corresponding temperature higher than or equal to a threshold temperature; and transfer at least part of current workload of the overheated composable resource to the target composable resource to the method of Guim Bernat as in the instant invention.
The combination of analogous cited prior art would have been obvious because supplementing the teachings of Guim Bernat of dynamically composable computing system with the teachings of Song of migrating VM from selected server with temperature beyond a threshold to a destination server of lower temperature to yield predictable result of transferring load from overheated resource to a composable resource of lower temperature and is motivated by the improvement in thermal efficiency.
As per claim 3, Song teaches identifying a composable resource having a corresponding temperature lower than the threshold temperature as the target temperature ([0007] selecting a destination server, meets, condition, temperature value of the destination server is less than the largest temperature value).
As per claim 4, Song teaches wherein the threshold temperature is a first threshold temperature ([0007] preset threshold i.e. largest = threshold + smallest ~ threshold); the method further comprising, after determining the overheated composable resource ([0007] server, largest temperature value):
identifying a composable resource having a corresponding temperature lower than or equal to a second threshold temperature as the target composable resource ([0007] destination server, temperature, destination server, less than the largest temperature value; i.e. smallest = largest - threshold ~ another threshold), the second threshold temperature being lower than the first threshold temperature ([0007] smallest = largest - threshold ~ another threshold; largest = threshold + smallest ~ threshold i.e. both largest temperature and smallest are acting as different threshold and smallest is lower than the largest).
As per claim 6, Song teaches wherein the corresponding temperature of a composable resource in the composable system includes:
an ambient temperature of an ambiance surrounding the composable resource detected by a temperature sensor associated with the composable resource ([0009] server, largest temperature, at an air outlet of the server, ambient temperature), or an intrinsic temperature of the composable resource detected by an infrared temperature sensor associated with the composable resource.
As per claim 7, Song teaches wherein the threshold temperature is different for different types of composable resources in the composable system ([0007] temperature value of each server, largest value, smallest value, difference reaches a preset threshold i.e. for the threshold for the two server is different ).
Claim 12 recites elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Sugai (US 2012/0030349 A1).
As per claim 8, Guim Bernat teaches wherein:
determining that the composition condition is satisfied ([0056] assembling, composite computing node, selecting, resources, meeting requirements of application [0027] composite computing node 120, exposed, as resources, to software stack or an application running [0022] rebalance resource allocations and/or migrate service chains to another server or portion of configurable computing resources) includes determining an overloaded composable resource in a container of the composable system ([0020] computing hardware resources of a datacenter, computing hardware resources, respective hardware characteristics [0021] resources, VM, VNF, container), the overloaded composable resource having a total workload greater than or equal to a workload threshold; and
composing the composable system ([0024] resource manager 150, configured to assemble a composite computing node 120) includes mapping a target composable resource to the container to transfer at least part of the total workload of the overloaded composable resource to the target composable resource ([0056] assembling, composite computing node, selecting, resources, meeting requirements of application [0027] composite computing node 120, exposed, as resources, to software stack or an application running [0021] virtual machine , container [0022] rebalance resource allocations and/or migrate service chains to another server or portion of configurable computing resources).
Guim Bernat doesn’t specifically teach overloaded composable resource having a total workload greater than or equal to a workload threshold; transfer at least part of the total workload of the overloaded composable resource to the target composable resource.
Sugai, however, teaches overloaded composable resource having a total workload greater than or equal to a workload threshold ([0074] server, CPU utilization rate higher than the upper limit);
transfer at least part of the total workload of the overloaded composable resource to the target composable resource ([0074] select a destination server, move the VM with the lowest load among the VMs operating on the server with CPU utilization rate above the upper limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sugai of moving a VM with low load of the server with CPU utilization rate higher than the upper limit to a destination server with the teachings of Guim Bernat of dynamically composable computing system to improve efficiency and allow overloaded composable resource having a total workload greater than or equal to a workload threshold; transfer at least part of the total workload of the overloaded composable resource to the target composable resource to the method of Guim Bernat as in the instant invention.
The combination of analogous cited prior art would have been obvious because supplementing the teachings of Guim Bernat of dynamically composable computing system with the teachings of Guim Bernat of moving VM with the lowest load of the server with CPU utilization higher than a threshold to a destination server to yield predictable result of transferring load and is motivated by the improvement in utilization efficiency.
Claim 18 recites elements similar to claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat, in view of Song, and further in view of Sugai, as applied to above claims.
As per claim 9, Guim Bernat teaching: determining that the composition condition is satisfied ([0056] assembling, composite computing node, selecting, resources, meeting requirements of application [0027] composite computing node 120, exposed, as resources, to software stack or an application running [0022] rebalance resource allocations and/or migrate service chains to another server or portion of configurable computing resources) includes determining a light-load composable resource in a container of the composable system, the light-load composable resource having a corresponding temperature lower than a threshold temperature; and
composing the composable system ([0024] resource manager 150, configured to assemble a composite computing node 120) includes unmapping the light-load composable resource from the container ([0027] composite node can be decomposed) and mapping a target composable resource to the container to transfer a current workload of the light-load composable resource to the target composable resource ([0056] assembling, composite computing node, selecting, resources, meeting requirements of application [0027] composite computing node 120, exposed, as resources, to software stack or an application running [0021] virtual machine , container [0022] rebalance resource allocations and/or migrate service chains to another server or portion of configurable computing resources).
Guim Bernat doesn’t specifically teach determining a light-load composable resource in a container of the composable system, the light-load composable resource having a corresponding temperature lower than a threshold temperature; unmapping a light-loaded composable resource; transfer a workload of light-loaded composable resource to the target composable resource.
Song, however, teaches the light-load composable resource having a corresponding temperature lower than a threshold temperature ([0007] temperature value, server, preset threshold, difference between largest temperature value and a smallest temperature [0009] hardware device, use rate of the hardware device).
Guim Bernat and Song, in combination, do not specifically teach determining a light-load composable resource in a container of the composable system; unmapping a light-loaded composable resource; transfer a workload of light-loaded composable resource to the target composable resource.
Sugai, however, teaches determining a light-load composable resource in a container of the composable system ([0073] detects, server, with CPU utilization rate lower than the lower limit);
unmapping a light-loaded composable resource; transfer a workload of light-loaded composable resource to the target composable resource ([0073] select a destination among the servers, move all of the VMs operating on the server with CPU utilization rate below the lower limit to the selected server).
Claim 19 recites elements similar to claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the 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 all of 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195