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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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.
Regarding independent claims the limitations identify a limit, a bundle, and workload, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: hardware bundle, computer implemented services, hardware resources, processor, and computer readable medium. The additional elements, including providing implemented services based on an updated bungle being an insignificant extra solution activity, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of hardware bundle, computer implemented services, hardware resources, processor, and computer readable medium, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 the limitations of identifying and selection, prior to identifying making a determination, determining based upon a type, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, 10 the limitation of details of a hardware resource and the location of the hardware resources and screening of communications are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5, 6, 8, 15, 20 the limitations of injecting a workload, sending a workload, what a bundle is adapted to do and reporting changes, are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation 16-20 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder of “managed system”, “local subscription manager”, coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification, Fig. 1F [0250] shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 therejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in anapplication for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent orapplication, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Wellum (Pub. No. US 2023/0267010).
Claim 1, 11, Wellum teaches “a method for managing computer implemented services provided by a managed system, the method comprising: identifying, by a local subscription manager, that a subscription limit for a subscription has been reached ([0077] During operation of the resulting computing cluster of physical or virtual computing devices, instances of collection routine(s) installed within each physical or virtual computing device of the computing cluster may monitor various aspects of their operation, and generate portions of observation data that may be assembled together to form more of a complete picture of various aspects of the operation of both individual devices, and of the whole computing cluster. Indications of levels of various aspects of the operation of the computing cluster, and/or of individual devices therein, may be compared to minimum, maximum and/or expected levels that were specified by the customer for those aspects. Notifications may be automatically provided to the customer where a level of an aspect of operation of the computing cluster repeatedly rises to a specified maximum level and/or falls to a specified minimum level as a mechanism to inform the customer that one or more of their specified minimum and/or maximum levels may need to be reconsidered. Alternatively or additionally, notifications may be automatically provided to the customer where the observed level of an aspect of operation of the computing cluster repeatedly deviates by more than a specified degree from an expected level specified by the customer.); identifying, by the local subscription manager, a hardware bundle based on the subscription ([Fig. 15B] 3131 Service data of customer selected resources); identifying, by the local subscription manager, a disruptive workload based on the subscription ([0285] Among the configuration settings recorded within the instance of settings data 3535 for the new computing cluster 2777, there may be specifications of various events where the customer is to be informed that one or more aspects of the new computing cluster 2777 may not be functioning properly. Among such specified events may be instances of a level of performance failing to meet a specified minimum level, instances of a level of performance decreasing to within a specified degree of a specified minimum level, instances of a level of resource consumption exceeding a specified maximum level, and/or instances of a level of resource consumption increasing to within a specified degree of a specified maximum level. Also among the configuration settings may be specified selections of what personnel are to be provided with notices of such events and/or by what form of communication. [0080] Further during operation, it may be that the generated and assembled observation data is used to provide one or more visualizations of aspects of the operation of the computing cluster to the customer. Such visualizations may also include indications of the results of comparing the observation data to specified minimum, maximum and/or expected levels, and/or of comparing the observation data to predictions made by the model most recently used during configuration, as an approach to guiding the customer's attention toward potential issues that may have been identified during operation of the computing cluster.); initiating, by the local subscription manager, performance of the disruptive workload by the hardware bundle to obtain an updated hardware bundle ([0286] In some embodiments, it may be that the receipt of such notices concerning such specified events causes the customer to interact with the configuration device 2500 (either directly, or through a UI device 2900, as depicted) to be provided with a view of observed aspects of the operation of the new computing cluster 2777 that are associated with the event(s) about which they were provided notice. [0287] In some embodiments, it may be that portions of the observation data 3739 concerning the new computing cluster 2777 are used by the configuration device 2500 to update or replace the cluster model 3339 that was last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777. Such updating and/or replacement may be triggered by instances of one or more observed levels of performance and/or observed resource consumption varying from what was predicted or would be predicted by the cluster model 3339 by at least a preselected degree.); and providing, by the local subscription manager, computer implemented services using the updated hardware bundle ([0288] In some of such embodiments in which the cluster model 3339 last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777 is either updated or replaced, it may be that such updating or replacement triggers the configuration device 2500 to transmit a notice to the customer that recommends that the configuration of the new computing cluster 2777 be repeated. This may provide a mechanism by which at least various ones of the checks of the configuration settings for the new computing cluster 2777 are repeated using the now updated or replaced cluster model 3339 to determine whether one or more of those configuration settings should be changed such that the new computing cluster 2777 needs to be redeployed to be given the benefit of improved configuration settings.)”.
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, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum in view of Metsch (Pub. No. US 2022/0124009).
Claim 2, 12, 17 Wellum may not explicitly teach the claim.
Metsch teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the disruptive workload comprises: identifying at least one directly manageable hardware resource of the hardware bundle; identifying at least one indirectly manageable hardware resource of the hardware bundle; and selecting the disruptive workload based on the at least one directly manageable hardware resource and the indirectly manageable hardware resource ([0062] Also, with the use of container pods, tenant boundaries can still exist but in the context of each pod of containers. If each tenant specific pod has a tenant specific pod controller, there will be a shared pod controller that consolidates resource allocation requests to avoid typical resource starvation situations. Further controls may be provided to ensure attestation and trustworthiness of the pod and pod controller. For instance, the orchestrator 460 may provision an attestation verification policy to local pod controllers that perform attestation verification. If an attestation satisfies a policy for a first tenant pod controller but not a second tenant pod controller, then the second pod could be migrated to a different Edge node that does satisfy it. Alternatively, the first pod may be allowed to execute and a different shared pod controller is installed and invoked prior to the second pod executing. [0182] The continuous monitoring uses real-time telemetry that may indicate SLO violations or other hardware or software conditions. Using rules, policies, thresholds, or other guidance, the constraint solver may be used to generate revised rules for a revised resource selection (operation 1414). These revised rules are then used by the assembler function in the redeployment cycle (operation 1416).)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum in order to provide a system that teaches different types of resources. The motivation for applying Metsch teaching with Wellum teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved use of resources. Wellum, Metsch are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 5, 15, 20 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Wellum teaches “the method of claim 2, wherein initiating the performance of the disruptive workload comprises: injecting workload data of the disruptive workload to the directly manageable hardware resource to initiate performance of the disruptive workload by the hardware bundle ([0288] In some of such embodiments in which the cluster model 3339 last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777 is either updated or replaced, it may be that such updating or replacement triggers the configuration device 2500 to transmit a notice to the customer that recommends that the configuration of the new computing cluster 2777 be repeated. This may provide a mechanism by which at least various ones of the checks of the configuration settings for the new computing cluster 2777 are repeated using the now updated or replaced cluster model 3339 to determine whether one or more of those configuration settings should be changed such that the new computing cluster 2777 needs to be redeployed to be given the benefit of improved configuration settings.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum in order to provide a system that teaches different types of resources. The motivation for applying Metsch teaching with Wellum teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved use of resources. Wellum, Metsch are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 9, Wellum may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Metsch teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein an indirectly manageable hardware resource of the hardware bundle is unmanageable by the local subscription manager, and a directly
manageable hardware resource is manageable by the local subscription manager ([0065] In the context of FIG. 5, the pod controller/container manager, container orchestrator, and individual nodes may provide a security enforcement point. However, tenant isolation may be orchestrated where the resources allocated to a tenant are distinct from resources allocated to a second tenant, but Edge owners cooperate to ensure resource allocations are not shared across tenant boundaries. Or, resource allocations could be isolated across tenant boundaries, as tenants could allow “use” via a subscription or transaction/contract basis. In these contexts, virtualization, containerization, enclaves and hardware partitioning schemes may be used by Edge owners to enforce tenancy. Other isolation environments may include: bare metal (dedicated) equipment, virtual machines, containers, virtual machines on containers, or combinations thereof.)”.
Rationale to claim 2 is applied here.
Claim 16, “a managed system, comprising: directly manageable hardware resources; a processor; and a local subscription manager adapted to perform operations for managing computer implemented services provided by the managed system, the operations comprising: identifying that a subscription limit for a subscription has been reached; identifying a hardware bundle based on the subscription; identifying a disruptive workload based on the subscription; initiating performance of the disruptive workload by the hardware bundle to obtain an updated hardware bundle; and providing computer implemented services using the updated hardware bundle” is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected with the same references and citations.
However, may not explicitly teach the other resources.
Metsch teaches “indirectly manageable hardware resources ([0065] In the context of FIG. 5, the pod controller/container manager, container orchestrator, and individual nodes may provide a security enforcement point. However, tenant isolation may be orchestrated where the resources allocated to a tenant are distinct from resources allocated to a second tenant, but Edge owners cooperate to ensure resource allocations are not shared across tenant boundaries. Or, resource allocations could be isolated across tenant boundaries, as tenants could allow “use” via a subscription or transaction/contract basis. In these contexts, virtualization, containerization, enclaves and hardware partitioning schemes may be used by Edge owners to enforce tenancy. Other isolation environments may include: bare metal (dedicated) equipment, virtual machines, containers, virtual machines on containers, or combinations thereof.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum in order to provide a system that teaches different types of resources. The motivation for applying Metsch teaching with Wellum teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved use of resources. Wellum, Metsch are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Metsch in view of Carroll (Pub. No. US 2021/0117561).
Claim 3, 13, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Carroll teaches “the method of claim 2, further comprising: prior to identifying the disruptive workload: making a determination that the hardware bundle does not support direct adjustment of use of the hardware bundle for services under the subscription; and performing the identifying of the disruptive workload based on the determination ([0027] When an access request is made, access request interaction component 158 illustratively handles interactions with ABAC computing system 116 by providing the access request 118, and receiving the response 120. It can provide the response to tenant-specific policy enforcement system 152. Different tenants may choose to handle different responses 120, differently. For instance, one tenant may desire that a response that denies access to an item of content generate an explanatory message indicating why access was denied. Another tenant may desire that the response simply return an error message, or simply not perform the requested access. These are just examples, and tenant-specific policy enforcement system 152 can be configured on a tenant-specific basis, on an application-specific basis, or in other ways. [0028] RBAC component 150 can perform conventional role-based access control or other types of access control. Thus, when an access request is received, access management system 130 can perform a plurality of different types of access control, by way of example.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Carroll with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch in order to provide a system that teaches management of resources. The motivation for applying Carroll teaching with Wellum, Metsch teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved resource control. Wellum, Metsch, Carroll are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch, Carroll teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Carroll with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 4, 14, 19, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Carroll teaches “the method of claim 3, wherein the determination is made based on a type of the directly manageable hardware resource ([0035] Tag type generation component 200 illustratively surfaces an interface that allows an administrative user (through administrative interaction 122) to define certain types or groups of tags. Tag generation component 202 surfaces an interface that allows an administrative user to generate those tags, and tag application component 204 allows an administrative user to apply those tags to the different entities to which they correspond. For instance, component 204 allows an administrative user to apply tags to users, data, resources, environments, devices, etc.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Metsch in view of Jreij (Pub. No. US 2022/0179700).
Claim 6, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations.
Jreij teaches “the method of claim 5, wherein injecting the workload data comprises:
sending the workload data to the directly manageable hardware resource via a sideband
channel between the local subscription manager and the directly manageable
hardware resource ([0075] The compute resources interface (112) may also support sideband communications between the system control processors (114), the processors (106), and/or the processor dedicated memory (104). Consequently, the system control processors (114) may be able to monitor the operations of these other devices to identify the workloads being performed by composed information handling systems using these hardware devices.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Jreij with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch in order to provide a system that teaches sideband communication. The motivation for applying Jreij teaching with Wellum, Metsch teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Wellum, Metsch, Jreij are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch, Jreij teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Jreij with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Metsch in view of Jain (Pub. No. US 2024/0419481).
Claim 7, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations.
Jain teaches “the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the disruptive workload comprises:
identifying a level of reduction in service by the hardware bundle based on the subscription; and selecting, based on the level of reduction in service, a type of the disruptive workload based on the level of reduction ([0015] One or more of the functional blocks of the integrated circuit belong in a different performance category or bin than other functional blocks due to manufacturing variations across semiconductor dies. The multiple functional blocks provide the same functionality, but provide different circuit behavior due to manufacturing variations between them. An example of the different circuit behavior is transistor speed, which can affect the supported maximum operating clock frequency. The hardware, such as circuitry, of a scheduler assigns work blocks to the compute circuits that process the assigned work blocks. In some implementations, the program state of a work block includes an indication that specifies a type of workload performed by the work block. Workloads of work blocks include at least a computation intensive workload and a memory access intensive workload. The scheduler assigns work blocks marked as having a computation intensive workload to functional blocks that provide higher performance with higher performance operating parameters. For example, these functional blocks are from a bin of functional blocks that are capable of operating at a higher operational clock frequency than functional blocks of another lower performance bin. Therefore, these functional blocks provide higher throughput for work blocks having a computation intensive workload.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Jain with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch in order to provide a system that teaches different workloads. The motivation for applying Jain teaching with Wellum, Metsch teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Wellum, Metsch, Jain are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch, Jain teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Jain with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 8, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Wellum teaches “the method of claim 7, wherein the updated hardware bundle is adapted to report changes in workload processing capacity to hardware resources tasked with managing workload governed by the subscription, the reporting of the changes being performed dynamically and responsive to an instance of the disruptive workload performed by the updated hardware bundle ([0348] Further, and as also previously discussed, where the accuracy of previous predictions has proven to not meet the preselected degree accuracy such that the generation of a new cluster model has been triggered (or an existing cluster model has been updated), then a recommendation may be provided to the customer that configuration of the new computing cluster 2777-2 be repeated, thereby providing an opportunity to gain the benefits of the greater accuracy that is likely to be provided by using such a new or updated cluster model (e.g., the new cluster model 3339-2 generated specifically for the new computing cluster 2777-2).)”.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Metsch in view of Molloy (Pub. No. 2020/0364638).
Claim 10, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Molloy teaches “the method of claim 9, wherein the directly manageable hardware resource is upstream of communications of the indirectly manageable hardware resource, and is adapted to at least partially selectively screen the communications from the indirectly manageable hardware
resource to manage functionality of the indirectly manageable hardware resource ([0089] Where the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 can automatically migrate the IT service workloads to the new environment corresponding to the optimized IT portfolio 190, the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 continues with facilitating the IT service 205 to execute the IT service workload as migrated in the new environment. For example, the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 update workload allocation configuration parameter with the IT service with a path information to the new environment, or provide a credential or otherwise facilitate authentication for the IT service to access the new information, as well as redirect any incoming IT service workload to the new environment. [0090] Subsequent to completing an optimization exercise, the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 can monitor performance of the optimized IT services and evaluate how well or poorly the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 perform with the previous exercises. The IT portfolio optimization engine 130 can apply a certain performance threshold value, configured in the IT portfolio policy 131, to determine whether or not a certain optimization exercise can be used in the training data for the IT portfolio forecasting model 135.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Molloy with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch in order to provide a system that teaches details of monitoring. The motivation for applying Molloy teaching with Wellum, Metsch teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Wellum, Metsch, Molloy are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Metsch, Molloy teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Molloy with the teachings of Wellum, Metsch by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199