DETAILED ACTION
The communication is in response to the application filed on 9/26/2023 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1,8, and 17 are independent form.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (series of steps) and therefore is a process which is one the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 8-16 are directed to a computer program product and therefore a manufacture which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 17-20 are directed to a system and therefore is a machine which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1,8 and 17 recite the limitation “generating a compute resource allocation limit parameter for controlling a total amount of compute resources consumed by a set of virtual machines over a combination of a source host environment and a target host environment;” and “adjusting an allocation of compute resources for the set of virtual machines according to the compute resource allocation limit parameter;” These limitations are processes that, under the under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. In within the claim “generating a compute resource allocation limit parameter” and “adjusting an allocation of compute resources” encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper draw a sketch diagram that include a set of virtual machines and within that diagram the user is able set a limit of compute resource, and based on that analysis the user can then adjust, and control the allocation of compute resources, based on observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then its falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas the concepts performed in the minds including an observations, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Step 2B, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements “migrating the set of virtual machines from the source host environment to the target host environment.” This limitation amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The “processor”, “computer program product”, “virtual machines”, “host environment”, “target “host environment” these are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “generating” “migrating” is consider mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “processor”, “computer program product”, “virtual machines”, “host environment”, “target host environment” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recite the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating (Mere instructions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) the compute resource allocation limit parameter (This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))); is based at least in part on a set of service license agreement details corresponding to a licensed amount of compute resources.” (This additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Dependent claim 3 recite the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising parsing a service license agreement to extract the set of service license agreement details from the service license agreement via an NLP algorithm. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components such as the NLP algorithm performing a basic function which the courts indicated not sufficient to show an improvement. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)) (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 4 recite the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising generating a set of options for adjusting the allocation of compute resources for the set of virtual machines.” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 5 recite the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating (Mere instructions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on manually defining a limit for compute resource consumption for a subset of the set of virtual machines.” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 6 recite the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating (Mere instructions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on minimum requirements for each virtual machine of the set of virtual machines.” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 7 recite the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating (Mere instructions (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on a proportional reduction of allocation of compute resources for each virtual machine of the set of virtual machines.” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 9 recite the limitation “The computer program product of claim 8, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 10 recite the limitation “The computer program product of claim 8, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
As per claim 11, it has similar limitation as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitation as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitation as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitation as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitation as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitation as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitation as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitation as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitation as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293)
As per claim 1 Tino discloses:
generating a compute resource allocation limit parameter for controlling a total amount of compute resources consumed by a set of virtual machines over a combination of a source host environment and a target host environment; [0022] “Virtualization hypervisors 120 may manage virtualized resources in aggregate by defining entitlements to and limits on the consumption of virtualized infrastructure by virtual machines 140 or software processes belonging to a single defined group, although those virtual machines 140 may span multiple computational hosts”
adjusting an allocation of compute resources for the set of virtual machines according to the compute resource allocation limit parameter; [0045] “If the infrastructure manager decides to make a change to the entitlement or limit rules for a workload 130, the infrastructure manager may use the computer user interface 360 to input changes to the action agent 330. In addition to accepting user inputs to change resource allocations and entitlements, the action agent 330 may automatically analyze projections and make decisions about resource allocations and entitlements in much the same way as the infrastructure manager described above. In some embodiments, the action agent 330 may be configured to execute entitlement and limit rule changes without manual intervention by the infrastructure manager. Once the action is verified, the entitlement rule or limit rule configuration change may be effected by the action agent 330 communicating with the virtualization hypervisor 120 responsible for the changed resources over the computer network 170 via a defined interface”
Tino does not explicitly disclose “migrating the set of virtual machines from the source host environment to the target host environment.”
However, Tsirkin does disclose “migrating the set of virtual machines from the source host environment to the target host environment.” [0043] Migration modules 118 and 128 may also communicate with each other to migrate one or more VMs from the source host machine to the target host machine.”
Tino and Tsirkin are combinable because they are similar in managing virtual machines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino and the teaching of Tsirkin to generate a compute resource allocation limit parameter to control the resources consumed by the virtual machines while adjusting the allocations of the compute resource based on the limit parameter then to migrate the set of virtual machines from a source host environment to a target host environment. Motivation to combine would be to enhance the migration of the set virtual machine from a source host environment to a target host environment based on the compute resource limit parameter.
As per claim 8, it has similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Segmuller (US 2011/0296429 A1)
As per claim 2, Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 1 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on a set of service license agreement details corresponding to a licensed amount of compute resources.”
However, Segmuller disclose “…on a set of service license agreement details corresponding to a licensed amount of compute resources” [0036] “These license entitlements and license rules are taken into account, for gathering sufficient information about the infrastructure being managed so as to be able to compute the current license usage.” [0053] “The resource manager 110 (and or the licensing constraint management module 112) accounts for the license entitlements and license rules and gathers sufficient information about the infrastructure being managed so as to be able to compute the current license usage.”
Tino, Tsirkin and Segmuller are combinable because they are in similar fields by managing virtual machines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching of Segmuller to generate a compute resource allocation limit parameter based on a set of service license agreement details corresponding to a licensed amount of compute resources. Motivation to combine would be to distinctly compute resource based on the service license agreement.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitation as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitation as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Segmuller (US 2011/0296429 A1), in view of Dave et al. (US 20180331928)
As per claim 3 Tino, Tsirkin, and Segmuller disclose a method of claim 2 detailed above.
Tino, Tsirkin and Segmuller does not explicitly disclose “further comprising parsing a service license agreement to extract the set of service license agreement details from the service license agreement via an NLP algorithm.”
However, Dave disclose the use of the NLP [0068] “Additionally, or alternatively, resource analysis platform 220 may receive text or a document (e.g., a contract agreement, a license agreement, etc.), and may process the text or the document using natural language processing, text analysis, computational linguistics,”
Tino, Tsirkin, Segmuller and Dave are combinable because they are in similar which is managing resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, with the teaching of Segmuller, and the teaching of Dave to extract the set of service license agreement details from the service license agreement with the use of an NLP. Motivation to combine would be properly analyze the service license agreement via an NLP.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitation as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitation as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 4, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Beveridge et al. (US 20180260251 A1).
As per claim 4 Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 1 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “further comprising generating a set of options for adjusting the allocation of compute resources for the set of virtual machines.”
However, Beveridge does disclose ““further comprising generating a set of options for adjusting the allocation of compute resources for the set of virtual machines.” [0162] “FIG. 35 illustrates 4 different choices that a resource consumer may select from when faced with the need for allocating computational resources to run additional virtual machines.”
Tino and Beveridge are combinable because they are in similar fields by managing resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching Beveridge to have a set of options for adjusting the allocation of compute resource of the set virtual machines. Motivation to combine would be to have full control based on the options that is given, to then adjust the allocation of the compute resources of the set virtual machines.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitation as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitation as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Shakari (US 2014/0082201).
As per claim 5 Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 1 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on manually defining a limit for compute resource consumption for a subset of the set of virtual machines.”
However, Shakari disclose [0003] “…resource allocation in a distributed computer system by manually adjusting low-level controls, such as shares, limits, and reservations, to manage the resources allocated to VMs…”
Tino and Shakari are combinable because they are in similar fields by managing resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching Shakari to manually defining the limit of the compute resource consumption for a subset of virtual machines. Motivation to combine would be to precisely limit the compute resource consumption for a subset of the virtual machines manually.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitation as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Greene et al (US 20100100877 A1)
As per claim 6 Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 1 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on minimum requirements for each virtual machine of the set of virtual machines.”
However, Greene disclose “based at least in part on minimum requirements for each virtual machine of the set of virtual machines.” [0035] “The resource specification can, for example, include minimum and maximum resource requirements for the virtual machines. The resource specification can thus result in a reduction of the total resources reserved by the virtual machines in a cluster.”
Takahashi and Greene are combinable because they are in similar fields by managing virtual machines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching of Greene to generate compute resource allocation limit parameter based on the minimum requirement for each virtual machine. Motivation to combine would be to retain the minimum requirement of the of each virtual machine based on compute resource allocation limit parameter.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitation as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 2022/0405137 A1).
As per claim 7 Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 1 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the compute resource allocation limit parameter is based at least in part on a proportional reduction of allocation of compute resources for each virtual machine of the set of virtual machines.”
However, Srinivasan disclose based at least in part on a proportional reduction of allocation of compute resources for each virtual machine of the set of virtual machines. [0027] “…. balances execution duration with compute resource allocation to reduce consumption metrics (e.g., achieve efficiency).”
Tino and Srinivasan are combinable because they are in similar fields by managing resource of a virtual machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching of Srinivasan to proportional reduce of the allocation of compute resources for each virtual machine. Motivation to combine would be to properly balance the resource of the virtual machines.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitation as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tino (US 2017/0295224), in view of Tsirkin (US 2014/0245293), in view of Madduri et al (WO 2012000850 A1).
As per claim 9 Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 8 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system.”
However, Madduri disclose wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system. “the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer”
Tino, Tsirkin and Madduri are combinable because they are similar fields by managing resource.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching of Madduri to have the stored program instruction in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system and within the stored program to transfer the instruction over a network from a remote data processing system. Motivation to combine would be properly transfer the instruction over a network.
As per claim 10 Tino and Tsirkin disclose a method of claim 8 detailed above.
Tino and Tsirkin does not explicitly disclose “wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising:
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use.”
However, Madduri disclose:
wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising:
[col 7 lines 11-14] “present invention provides a computer program product wherein the program code is stored on the computer recordable storage medium in a data processing system, and wherein the program code is downloaded over a network from a remote data processing system to the data processing system.”
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and
program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use.
[col 2 line 24-30, col 3 line 3] “A request for resources in the network data processing system is received. The request comprises requested values for a plurality of attributes for the resources in the network data processing system. In response to receiving the request, potential resources in the network data processing system are identified.”, “The request is evaluated…. plurality of attributes in the potential resources relative to an ideal allocation of the potential resources…” [col 17 lines 30-32] “Metering and pricing provide cost tracking as resources and are utilized within the cloud computing environment, and billing or invoicing for consumption of these resources.”
Tino, Tsirkin and Madduri are combinable because they are similar fields by managing resource.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claim inventions to modify the teaching of Tino, with the teaching of Tsirkin, and the teaching of Madduri to have the stored program instruction in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system and within the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system to then generate an invoice of the meter used and the meter the request. Motivation to combine would be properly use the remote data processing system to generate an invoice based on the metered use and the meter use based on the request.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Govindan; Sunil (US 20240378088 A1) disclose dynamically allocate compute resources to workloads to accommodate resource requirements of a tenant in a more efficient and cost-effective manner, especially in scenarios where compute resource availability is elastic in nature.
SASTRY; Ann Marie (US 20230388248 A1) disclose a method for dynamically allocating server resources includes receiving a request from a client system.
RHIM; Young-Yik (US 20220277140 A1) disclose an invention that provide relevant laws and detailed explanation by analyzing the legal risk in a legal document having a structure such as legal clauses, terms and conditions and contracts
Longo; Austino (US 20220276907 A1) disclose an instruction that cause a processor to use the real-time performance metrics and the inertial parameter to determine whether to transfer responsibility for a compute process on a first storage server node to a second storage server node.
Bursell; Michael (US 9251115 B2) disclose a virtual machines, virtualization servers, and other physical resources in a cloud computing environment may be dynamically configured based on the resource usage data for the virtual machines and resource capacity data for the physical resources in the cloud system.
TAKAHASHI; Ryo (US 20140149984 A1) disclose instruction for running an application, and reserve a computer resource for running each of virtual machines corresponding to applications which are running instruction targets, in response to the generation of the running instruction.
Parikh; Aashish (US 20140059228 A1) disclose system and method also includes computing improved resource allocation of the distributed computer system using a modified version of the current snapshot of the distributed computer system and outputting the current resource allocation and the improved resource allocation for the resource allocation diagnosis.
Gong; Changbin (US 8307362 B1) disclose a system described herein provides techniques for controlling the provisioning of users' virtual machines among clusters based on determined requirements obtained from users' service level agreements (SLAs) and in accordance with an optimized allocation of resources to service the processes corresponding to the virtual machines.
UCHIDA; SATOSHI (US 20090183168 A1) disclose a resource state monitoring unit which measures a capacity and/or a usage of a computer resource(s) to be managed (referred to below as "managing resource(s)") and an allocation adjustment unit which determines a new amount of allocating resource(s) by using at least one item of information among either of capacity and usage of the managing resource.
KANEKO; Satoshi (US 20210081229 A1) disclose a management data includes data representing, for each of a plurality of virtual machines, attributes and cost of the virtual machine, and at least resource consumption out of resource consumption and resource usage rate of each of a plurality of types of calculation resources allocated to the virtual machine.
KOH; Kwang Won (US 20100162259 A1) A computing system for virtualization-based resource management includes a plurality of physical machines, a plurality of virtual machines and a management virtual machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ASHMEED ACHILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am -4pm.
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 at (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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights