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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claim terms are unclear and indefinite:
As for claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “a quantum task” within “a provider to perform a quantum task”, “…entitles a quantum task to be given prioritized placement in a queue …”, and “…perform a quantum task, wherein the dedicated access token…” because they are the same label but the use of “a” indicate they are different tasks, thus rendering it unclear if the recitation of “a quantum task” in the different instances of the claim refers to a same quantum task or different quantum tasks. For the purpose of examination, examiner assume they can refer to the same quantum task, and thus, either a prioritized access token or a dedicated access token or a standard access token is issued for the quantum task, and does not require the ability to issue multiple tokens each to a different quantum task.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckey et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0157662), in view of Johnson et al. (US PGPUB 20220358391), in view of Mertes et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0334725).
As for claim 1, Heckey teaches a system comprising:
one or more computing devices of a service provider network, wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to implement a quantum computing service (paragraph 42, “…the quantum computing service is configured to provide…..execution…that uses the particular quantum computing technology…” and paragraph 37, “…from a customer of the quantum computing service….a quantum computing task to be performed…”);
a first edge computing device of the service provider network located at a first location of a first quantum hardware provider (paragraph 37, “…a first quantum hardware provider…configured to execute quantum computing tasks using quantum computers…” in view of paragraph 36, “…the first ….edge computing device located at the respective locations of the selected … quantum hardware provider…”); and
a second edge computing device of the service provider network located at a second location of a second quantum hardware provider (paragraph 37, “…a second quantum hardware provider…configured to execute quantum computing tasks using quantum computers…” in view of paragraph 36, “…the first ….edge computing device located at the respective locations of the selected … quantum hardware provider…”),
wherein the one or more computing devices of the service provider network that implement the quantum computing service (paragraph 36-37) are further configured to:
receive a request for access to quantum computing resources from a customer of the quantum computing service (paragraph 35 and 37, “…receive, from a customer of the quantum computing service….a quantum computing object to be executed…select ….to execute the quantum computing object…”); and
provide, to the customer, access to a quantum processing unit of the first or second quantum hardware provider (paragraph 35-38, “…select at least one of the first or second quantum hardware providers to execute…via the first or second edge computing device located at the respective locations of the selected one or more quantum hardware providers…” Here, Examiner note selecting and executing workload on a device is constructively providing access to the device.).
While Heckey teaches in response to receiving a request to execute quantum workload, generating and providing code for orchestrating execution of quantum tasks (paragraph 6, “…generating particular types of quantum circuits or quantum algorithms…”), Heckey does not explicitly teach provide to the customer, a container comprising executable code for orchestrating execution of quantum tasks
However, Johnson teaches a known method of quantum service provider including provide, to the customer, a container [pre-built container] comprising executable code for orchestrating execution of quantum tasks (paragraph 59, “the runtime container can be a docker container, a kubernetes container, and or a containered container…” and paragraph 49, “…runtime container that manages both classical execution and quantum execution of the computer program…” Examiner note any software code managing execution of the computer program is understood functionally as code for orchestrating execution of quantum tasks.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Heckey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to Quantum computing service management.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Johnson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Johnson to the teachings of Heckey would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such quantum computing service management features into similar systems. Further, applying provide, to the customer, a container [pre-built container] comprising executable code for orchestrating execution of quantum tasks to Heckey with orchestration/management of execution of quantum tasks for a customer stored accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved efficiency in execution of backend quantum runtimes (Johnson, paragraph 4).
Heckey and Johnson do not explicitly teach provide one or more quantum access tokens for gaining access to a quantum processing unit of the first or second quantum hardware provider.
However, Mertes teaches a known method of task execution on cloud computing resources including provide one or more access tokens for gaining access to a resources (paragraph 514, “…assigned one or more tokens indicative of access privileges …to access a subset of the device APIs….needed…” “…token granting access to device APIs that allows the ….agent to create or delete a volume…” See also, e.g., paragraphs 533). Paragraph 526 teaches actions performed by the APIs includes access and manipulation of specific resources, which are understood as access to the resources.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Heckey and Johnson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to resource allocation to workloads in cloud environments.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mertes would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Mertes to the teachings of Heckey and Johnson would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource allocation features into similar systems. Further, applying provide one or more access tokens for gaining access to a resources to Heckey and Johnson with provide, to the customer, access to a quantum processing unit of the first or second quantum hardware provider stored accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved security and access control to different resources (Mertes, paragraph 514).
As for claim 2, Heckey also teaches determining estimated first and second quantum hardware providers performance information and/or calibration information for quantum processing units of the providers (paragraph 96, “…length of time to execute the quantum computing task for each of the first and second quantum hardware providers…”); and provide, to the container provided to the customer, the estimated performance and/or calibration information for the quantum processing units of the first and second quantum hardware providers (paragraph 117, “provided with an estimate of performance of a quantum task/algorithm/circuit…performance….for executing the task/algorithm/circuit…”)
Mertes teaches collect from the first and second hardware provider performance information and/or calibration information for hardware of the first and second hardware providers; and provide the performance and/or calibration information to the orchestrator (paragraph 48, 119, 142, 160). Rationale to combine because it would improve the ability of task execution management system to conduct performance optimization.
As for claim 3, Heckey teaches receive a customer request to execute a quantum task, wherein the customer request specifies one or more characteristics of a quantum processing unit that is to be used to execute the customer’s quantum task (paragraph 121-123);
receive the performance and/or calibration information for the quantum processing units of the first and second quantum hardware providers (paragraph 122-123);
determine, based on the customer requested characteristics and the received performance and/or calibration information for the quantum processing units of the first and second quantum hardware providers, a given one of the quantum processing units that satisfies the customer requested characteristics (paragraph 123); and
request, to the quantum computing service, accessing the given quantum processing unit (paragraph 123).
Johnson also teaches the executable code included in the container (paragraph 49 and 59). Rationale to combine same as claim 1 above.
Mertes teaches request an access token for accessing the given processing unit (paragraph 514, See also, e.g., paragraphs 533 and 526). Rationale to combine same as claim 1 above.
As for claim 4, Heckey also teaches request a compilation service of the quantum computing service perform one or more compilation tasks for generating a compiled version of a quantum task for which execution is to be orchestrated by the executable code of the container (paragraph 123 in view of paragraphs 40-41. Translation of the algorithm/code into a quantum circuit format is understood as a form of compilation); and
receive an at least partially compiled version of the quantum task, wherein said orchestrating, by the executable code of the container, the execution of the quantum tasks includes using the at least partially compiled version of the quantum task in the execution (paragraph 123 in view of paragraph 42).
Johnson also teaches the executable code included in the container (paragraph 49 and 59). Rationale to combine same as claim 1 above.
As for claim 5, Heckey also teaches receive, from a given customer, a request to execute one or more quantum tasks at first or second quantum (paragraph 35 and 37, “…receive, from a customer of the quantum computing service….a quantum computing object to be executed…select ….to execute the quantum computing object…”);
Johnson also a given customer container request to execute one or more quantum tasks. (paragraph 49 and 59). Rationale to combine same as claim 1 above.
Mertes teaches provide to a given customer, the requested access token for executing the one or more tasks (paragraph 514, “…assigned one or more tokens indicative of access privileges …to access a subset of the device APIs….needed…” “…token granting access to device APIs that allows the ….agent to create or delete a volume…” See also, e.g., paragraphs 533). Paragraph 526 teaches actions performed by the APIs includes access and manipulation of specific resources, which are understood as access to the resources.);
provide to a given one of the first or second execution resources an indication that the access token has been issued to the given customer (paragraph 526, and 514. Examiner note current application does not indicate when the indication is provided, nor the purpose of the indication other than reciting the exact same language as the claim itself. See, e.g., paragraph 62. With no indication of the format/nature of the indication. Thus, the claim language is understood broadly as include providing token to the execution resource at any time, and the passing of the token to the resource for any purpose is understood as a form of indication the access token has been issued). Rationale to combine same as claim 1 above.
As for claim 6, Heckey also teaches gaining access to a quantum processing unit of the first or second quantum hardware provider to perform a quantum task (paragraphs 35-38).
Mertes also teaches the token management service is configured to: issue a standard access token for use in gaining access to a processing unit to perform a task, issue a prioritized access token for use in gaining access to a processing unit to perform a task, wherein the prioritized access token entitles a task to be given prioritized placement in a queue for a given processing unit, and issue a dedicated access token for use in gaining access to a processing unit to perform a task, wherein the dedicated access token entitles a customer to exclusive use of a given processing unit (paragraphs 514 and 529. See 35 USC 112 rejection for claim interpretation.). Rationale to combine same as claim 1 above.
As for claim 7, it contain similar limitations as claim 1 above. Thus, it is rejected under the same rationales.
As for claim 8, Heckey also teaches providing, to the container provided to the customer, by the one or more computing devices implementing the quantum computing service, performance and/or calibration information for quantum processing units of quantum hardware providers (paragraph 117, “provided with an estimate of performance of a quantum task/algorithm/circuit…performance….for executing the task/algorithm/circuit…”), wherein at least one of the quantum hardware providers is operated by a third party in relation to the quantum computing service and the customer (paragraph 102. The quantum hardware providers are clearly distinct from each other both logically and physically at different locations. Thus, they are constructively a “third party” in relation to the service itself. See, e.g., Fig. 1).
As for claim 9, Heckey also teaches receiving, by the one or more computing devices implementing the quantum computing service, from the container provided to the customer, a selection of a given quantum processing unit that is to be used to perform a given quantum task (paragraph 166, “provides the translated quantum computing circuit to an edge computing device o…located at a facility of the selected quantum hardware provider…”), wherein providing a quantum access for the given quantum processing unit that is indicated in the selection (paragraph 123).
Mertes teaches one or more access tokens comprise providing a access token for the given processing unit indicated in the selection (paragraph 514, 533, 526). Rationale to combine same as claim 7 above.
As for claim 10, Heckey also teaches program instructions for implementing a quantum task validator configured to validate one or more quantum circuits to be executed as part of performing a quantum task (paragraph 145-146 and 171-172. Examiner note validate as used appears to include selecting a QPU to execute the quantum task. See, e.g., Specification, paragraph 19. Which includes identifying tasks/algorithms/circuits corresponding to the operators and any selection recommendation for QPU to use.);
program instructions for implementing a quantum circuit translator configured to translate the one or more quantum circuits associated with the quantum task from an intermediate representation to a native representation that is particular to a given type of quantum processing unit (paragraph 148-149 and/or 172-173);
compiling a native representation of the quantum circuit into an executable compiled object to be executed by a given quantum processing unit of the given type (paragraph 43, “…performing one or more optimizations to reduce…” Examiner note while applicant uses the word “compilation”, the Specification of present application teaches compilation is merely an optimization of the translated circuit. See, Specification, paragraph 20).
As for claim 11, Heckey also teaches an application programmatic interface (API) configured to: provide a native representation of a given quantum circuit to be executed by a given quantum processing unit to a compilation service of the quantum computing service (paragraph 81, “back-end API transport may enable quantum circuits to be transported….to an edge computing device at a particular quantum hardware provider location where the quantum circuit is to be executed”).
receiving an executable compiled object configured to be executed by the given quantum processing unit from the compilation service of the quantum computing service (paragraph 43).
As for claim 13, Mertes teaches providing, by the one or more computing devices implementing the quantum computing service, to a quantum hardware provider, an indication that the one or more quantum access tokens have been issued to the customer for gaining access to a given one or more quantum processing units of the quantum hardware provider (paragraph 526, and 514. Examiner note current application does not indicate when the indication is provided, nor the purpose of the indication other than reciting the exact same language as the claim itself. See, e.g., paragraph 62. With no indication of the format/nature of the indication. Thus, the claim language is understood broadly as include providing token to the execution resource at any time, and the passing of the token to the resource for any purpose is understood as a form of indication the access token has been issued).
As for claim 14, Mertes also teaches a dedicated access token for use in gaining access to a quantum processing unit to perform a quantum task, wherein the dedicated access token entitles a customer to exclusive use of the quantum processing unit for a dedicated access time window (paragraphs 317, 514 and 529).
As for claim 17, Heckey teaches one or more non-transitory, computer-readable, storage media storing program instructions that, when executed on or across one or more processors (paragraphs 255-256), cause the one or more processors to:
implement a quantum execution orchestration environment (paragraph 42, “…the quantum computing service is configured to provide…..execution…that uses the particular quantum computing technology…” and paragraph 37, “…from a customer of the quantum computing service….a quantum computing task to be performed…”), the quantum execution orchestration environment configured to:
receive, from the customer, a quantum task to be executed using a quantum processing unit of a quantum hardware provider (paragraph 35 and 37, “…receive, from a customer of the quantum computing service….a quantum computing object to be executed…select ….to execute the quantum computing object…”);
receive a quantum access to the quantum hardware provider to gain access to the quantum processing unit (paragraphs 35-38);
orchestrate execution of the quantum task on the quantum processing unit of the quantum hardware provider (paragraphs 35-38).
Johnson also teaches a containerized quantum execution orchestration using computing resources of a customer of a quantum computing service (paragraph 59, “the runtime container can be a docker container, a Kubernetes container, and or a containered container…” and paragraph 49, “…runtime container that manages both classical execution and quantum execution of the computer program…” Examiner note any software code managing execution of the computer program is understood functionally as code for orchestrating execution of quantum tasks.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Heckey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to Quantum computing service management.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Johnson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Johnson to the teachings of Heckey would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such quantum computing service management features into similar systems. Further, applying a containerized quantum execution orchestrator using computing resources of a customer to Heckey with orchestration/management of execution of quantum tasks for a customer stored accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved efficiency in execution of backend quantum runtimes (Johnson, paragraph 4).
Mertes teaches receive, from the computing service an access token to be presented to the hardware provider to gain access to the processing unit (paragraph 514, “…assigned one or more tokens indicative of access privileges …to access a subset of the device APIs….needed…” “…token granting access to device APIs that allows the ….agent to create or delete a volume…” See also, e.g., paragraphs 533); and
orchestrate execution of computing task on the processing unit using the quantum access token received from the computing service ((paragraph 514). This known technique is applicable to the system of Heckey and Johnson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to resource allocation to workloads in cloud environments.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mertes would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Mertes to the teachings of Heckey and Johnson would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such resource allocation features into similar systems. Further, applying provide one or more access tokens for gaining access to a resources and orchestrating execution of task using token to Heckey and Johnson with provide, to the customer, access to a quantum processing unit of the first or second quantum hardware provider stored accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved security and access control to different resources (Mertes, paragraph 514).
As for claim 18, Heckey also teaches one or more of: program instructions for implementing a quantum task validator configured to validate quantum circuits to be executed as part of performing a quantum task (paragraph 145-146 and 171-172. Examiner note validate as used appears to include selecting a QPU to execute the quantum task. See, e.g., Specification, paragraph 19. Which includes identifying tasks/algorithms/circuits corresponding to the operators and any selection recommendation for QPU to use.) or program instructions for implementing a quantum circuit translator configured to translate a quantum circuit associated with a quantum task from an intermediate representation to a native representation particular to a given type of quantum processing unit (paragraph 148-149 and/or 172-173).
As for claim 19, Heckey also teaches program instructions for implementing one or more compilation tasks for compiling a quantum circuit into an executable object configured to be executed by a given quantum processing unit (paragraph 43, “…performing one or more optimizations to reduce…” Examiner note while applicant uses the word “compilation”, the Specification of present application teaches compilation is merely an optimization of the translated circuit. See, Specification, paragraph 20).
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckey et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0157662), in view of Johnson et al. (US PGPUB 20220358391), in view of Mertes et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0334725), further in view of Patel et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0186131).
As for claim 12, Heckey also teaches receiving, by the one or more computing devices implementing the quantum computing service, from the container provided to the customer, a quantum circuit that is to be executed using a given quantum processing unit (paragraph 123).
While Heckey clearly teaches providing, to the container provided to the customer, an at least partially compiled version of the quantum circuit (see, e.g., paragraph 43, 44, etc. showing optimization of compiled circuit. See, Specification paragraph 20 teaching compilation as understood in present application can be understood as optimization.), and that such compilation can be performed at the edge computing device, i.e., the computing devices implementing the quantum computing service (paragraph 177). However, in the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will note Heckey does not explicitly teach the optimization and the translation can be performed by separate entities.
However, Patel teaches a known method of quantum computing execution including providing, by the one or more computing devices implementing the quantum computing service, to the container provided to the customer, an at least partially compiled version of the quantum circuit (paragraph 43-44 teaching compiling of the quantum circuit into a executable compiled object in the form of unitary matrix. In an alternative embodiment, the conversion to a second QASM file corresponding to the trans-compiled quantum circuit can also be reasonably read upon the claimed compiling feature). This known technique is applicable to the system of Heckey, Johnson, and Mertes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to Quantum computing service management.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Patel would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Patel to the teachings of Heckey, Johnson, and Mertes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such quantum computing service management features into similar systems. Further, applying providing, by the one or more computing devices implementing the quantum computing service, to the container provided to the customer, and at least partially compiled version of the quantum circuit to Heckey, Johnson, and Mertes with translating/compiling a quantum task into a quantum circuit for a customer stored accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved efficiency in execution of backend quantum runtimes (Patel, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckey et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0157662), in view of Johnson et al. (US PGPUB 20220358391), in view of Mertes et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0334725), further in view of Patel et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0186131), in view of Krneta et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0153155).
As for Claim 15, while Mertes teaches prioritized access, Heckey, Johnson and Mertes do not explicitly teach prioritized access as part of the token itself.
However, Krneta teaches a known method of quantum computing service including a prioritized access token for use in gaining access to a quantum processing unit to perform a quantum task, wherein the prioritized access token entitles a quantum task to be provided prioritized placement in a queue for the quantum processing unit (paragraph 31). This known technique is applicable to the system of Heckey, Johnson, and Mertes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to Quantum computing service management.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Krneta would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Krneta to the teachings of Heckey, Johnson, and Mertes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such quantum computing service management features into similar systems. Further, applying a prioritized access token for use in gaining access to a quantum processing unit to perform a quantum task, wherein the prioritized access token entitles a quantum task to be provided prioritized placement in a queue for the quantum processing unit to Heckey, Johnson, and Mertes with token based task dispatch to resources accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved management of execution of multiple quantum tasks (Krneta, paragraph 31).
As for claim 16, Mertes also teaches a standard access token for use in gaining access to a quantum processing unit to perform a quantum task (paragraphs 514 and 529).
As for claim 20, Mertes also teaches a dedicated access token for use in gaining access to a quantum processing unit to perform a quantum task, wherein the dedicated access token entitles a customer to exclusive use of the processing unit for a dedicated access time window (paragraphs 317, 514 and 529).
In addition, Krneta also teaches a prioritized access token for use in gaining access to a quantum processing unit to perform a quantum task, wherein the prioritized access token entitles a quantum task to be provided priority placement in a queue for the quantum processing unit (paragraph 31). Rationale for combining same as claim 17 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN X LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 on 5712723759. 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.
/KEVIN X LU/Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199