DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application submitted on March 26, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because reference character 225 is identified in the detailed description as a “test component”, while the drawings identify reference character 225 as “Testing Component”. The specification and drawings must use consistent terminology for the same reference character. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because reference character 628 is identified in the detailed description as a “computer-readable storage medium”, while the drawings identify reference character 628 as “MACHINE-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM”. The specification and drawings must use consistent terminology for the same reference character. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because reference character 202 is identified in the detailed description as a “pod of containers”, while the drawings identify reference character 202 as “CONTAINER POD”. The specification and drawings must use consistent terminology for the same reference character. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to use consistent terminology in the description and figure in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 605 and 606 have both been used to designate “STATIC MEMORY”. Reference character 605 is used to designate “STATIC MEMORY” in the drawings but reference character 606 is used to designate “static memory” in the specifications.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 615 and 616 have both been used to designate “SIGNAL GENERATION DEVICE”. Reference character 615 is used to designate “SIGNAL GENERATION DEVICE” in the drawings but reference character 616 is used to designate “SIGNAL GENERATION DEVICE” in the specifications.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“monitoring the application by the second container using the code testing tool” should be “monitoring, by the second container using the code testing tool, the application”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benes (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0336123 A1) in view of BS (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0018680 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Benes teaches:
[…] associated with an application within a first container (Benes, Paragraph [0021], "For example, test controller 192C may run in container 160C, which may control tests for applications 170A-B within test container 160A [an application within a first container]." Benes, Paragraph [0016], "Additionally, container system 100 may include one or more test controllers 192C in respective container(s) 160C that are used to control tests on applications 170 in test containers (emphasis added).");
deploying the […] tool to a second container separate from the first container; and (Benes, Paragraph [0021], "For example, test controller 192C [tool] may run in container 160C [deploying the code testing tool to a second container], which may control tests for applications 170A-B within test container 160A [separate from the first container].")
performing, by a processing device, a test of the application within the first container using the […] tool deployed to the second container (Benes, Paragraph [0021], "For example, test controller 192C may run in container 160C [tool deployed to the second container], which may control tests for applications 170A-B within test container 160A [the application within the first container]." Benes, Paragraph [0044-0045], " In an example, the test controller 192 may run a test script 156 that represents a test, which configures the application 170 and its dependencies and executes the application 170 in order to perform the test [performing, by a processing device, a test of the application within the first container using the […] tool deployed to the second container] (emphasis added). Then, the application 170 is run within the test container 160 (block 332). For example, the test controller 192 may execute or run the application 170 within the test container 160 to ensure that the container 160 is configured properly. In an example, if the application fails to run, the container 160 may be stopped or destroyed by the test manager 190. After the application 170 executes, the test controller 192 executes a first test associated with the application 170 inside the test container 160 (blocks 334 and 336). For example, the test controller 192 may execute a first test script 156A (e.g., test_1) inside the test container 160.").
Benes fails to teach:
identifying a code testing tool […]
However, BS teaches:
identifying a code testing tool […] (BS, Paragraph [0034], "At block 206, the testing tool identifier 128 may identify a set of testing tools to be implemented to test the product 140 (emphasis added). The testing tool identifier 128 may identify testing tools for different testing types that may ensure integration with DevOps, third party tools, and application lifecycle management support. The testing tool identifier 128 may identify testing tools that ensure maximum test coverage on the set of devices identified at block 204 (emphasis added).")
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Examiner's Remarks: For purposes of examination under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a “code testing tool” encompasses software that performs testing operations on an application, including a test controller configured to identify, initialize, execute, and monitor testing of an application. The specification itself describes a testing component that identifies testing tools, retrieves them, deploys them to the side-car container, and executes tests using these tools.
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Benes and BS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BS to incorporate the teachings of Benes to have:
identifying a code testing tool […]
The modification would have been obvious because BS teaches identifying testing tools to be implemented for testing a product and selecting testing tools that ensure maximum test coverage (BS, Paragraph [0034]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the testing-tool identification techniques of BS into the containerized testing system of Benes so that the test controller of Benes functions as the identified code testing tool for the application under test, thereby improving testing efficiency and coverage while reducing manual testing-tool selection (BS, Paragraph [0001]).
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Examiner's Remarks: Benes teaches a test controller executing and monitoring testing operations from the second container. BS teaches identifying a code testing tool appropriate for testing an application. The combination therefore renders obvious configuring the test controller of Benes as the identified code testing tool.
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Regarding Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated. Benes fails to teach:
retrieving the code testing tool from a central repository comprising a plurality of code testing tools.
However, BS further teaches:
retrieving the code testing tool from a central repository comprising a plurality of code testing tools (BS, Paragraph [0035], "The user-defined information containing the responses may be used to identify the set of testing tools from a group of previously evaluated testing tools [a plurality of code testing tools]. Data pertaining to the group of previously evaluated testing tools, which may be automation tools, may be stored in the data store 112 [central repository] and the testing tool identifier 128 may access the data in identifying the set of testing tools [retrieving the code testing tool].").
Benes and BS are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BS to incorporate the teachings of Benes to have:
retrieving the code testing tool from a central repository comprising a plurality of code testing tools.
The modification would have been obvious because BS teaches storing data pertaining to a group of previously evaluated testing tools in a data store, wherein the testing tool identifier accesses the stored data to identify a set of testing tools for implementation (BS, Paragraph [0035]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the centralized repository of BS into the containerized testing architecture of Benes to facilitate efficient retrieval and selection of appropriate testing tools while reducing the need to manually identify and configure testing tools for each application, saving time and cost (BS, Paragraph [0001]).
Claims 8 and 11 are system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1 and 4). Therefore, Claims 8 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 1 and 4.
Claims 15 and 18 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1 and 4). Therefore, Claims 15 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 1 and 4.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benes (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0336123 A1) in view of BS (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0018680 A1) and further in view of Biskup (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0117434 A1) and Setty (US Patent No. US 10162740 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated. Benes teaches the claimed “first container”. The combination of Benes and BS fails to teach:
scanning the […] container for information associated with the application within the […] container;
However, Biskup teaches:
scanning the […] container for information associated with the application within the […] container (Biskup, Paragraph [0030], "The base project template is used to define a software container 126 including application code 118 and application dependencies 124." Biskup, Paragraph [0049], "The build management system 128 may include a scanning module 132 for scanning the software container contents to identify any malware or other security vulnerabilities (emphasis added).");
Benes, BS, and Biskup are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teaching of Benes and BS to incorporate the teachings of Biskup to have:
scanning the […] container for information associated with the application within the […] container;
The modification would have been obvious because Biskup teaches scanning software container contents, including application code and dependencies (Biskup, Paragraph [0049-0053]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the container-scanning techniques of Biskup into the containerized testing system of Benes and BS to improve automated analysis of applications within containers prior to identifying an appropriate testing tool, thereby helping to avoid duplicate development efforts and reduce technical costs (Biskup, Paragraph [0002]).
The combination of Benes, BS, and Biskup fails to teach:
determining a test plan in view of the information associated with the application;
and identifying the code testing tool in view of the test plan.
However, Setty teaches:
determining a test plan in view of the information associated with the application (Setty, Col. 6, Lines 61-67, Col. 7, Lines 1-12, "The test case execution module 106a periodically polls the source code management system 102 to identify any changes to the source code. When the module 106a detects source code changes (such as by receiving an identification of a change to source code) [information associated with the application], the module 106a identifies (202) a plurality of computer software test cases for execution using a set of input parameters. The module 106a can identify a plurality of computer software test cases that are (i) associated with the software application under development and (ii) associated with the changed source code [test plan] (emphasis added). For example, the module 106a receives input parameters such as environment and a pointer (e.g., address, URI) to the location of a file that contains a list of test cases to execute (e.g., a .csv file). In some cases, the module 106a receives the input parameters from the source code management system 102 and/or another test automation system at runtime. The test case execution module 106a then retrieves the file containing the list of test cases to execute from, e.g., database 112 or a code repository such as GitHub.");
and identifying the code testing tool in view of the test plan (Setty, Col. 2, Lines 62-67; Col. 3, Lines 1-15, "Any of the above aspects can include one or more of the following features. In some embodiments, the step of identifying a plurality of computer software test cases for execution using a set of input parameters comprises receiving, from a source code management system, an identification of a change to source code associated with a software application under development; identifying a plurality of computer software test cases that are (i) associated with the software application under development and (ii) associated with the changed source code [test plan]; and retrieving, from the source code management system, one or more artifacts associated with the identified computer software test cases for use in selecting the automation testing tool and executing the computer software test case [identifying the code testing tool in view of the test plan]. In some embodiments, the server computing device selects the automation testing tool that executes the computer software test case based upon the one or more artifacts. In some embodiments, the server computing device identifies a test type for the computer software test case based upon the one or more artifacts and maps the test type to one of the plurality of automated testing tools (emphasis added).").
Benes, BS, Biskup, and Setty are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Benes, BS, and Biskup to incorporate the teachings of Setty to have:
determining a test plan in view of the information associated with the application;
and identifying the code testing tool in view of the test plan.
The modification would have been obvious because Setty teaches identifying computer software test cases associated with an application and changed source code, retrieving artifacts associated with those test cases, identifying a test type based on the artifacts, and mapping the identified test type to one of a plurality of automation testing tools (Setty, Col. 3, Lines 8-15; Col. 6, Lines 61-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-30). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the artifact-based test-plan and testing-tool selection techniques of Setty into the containerized testing system of Benes, BS, and Biskup to determine an appropriate test plan from information associated with the application and identify a corresponding testing tool, thereby making the software testing process more integrated with the software development process so that source code can be written, compiled, tested, and deployed to production environments without unnecessary delays (Setty, Col. 1, Lines 17-20).
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Examiner's Remarks: Biskup supplies the application information obtained by scanning the application container. Setty teaches determining a test plan and selecting a testing tool based on application artifacts. The scanned application information of Biskup therefore serves as the application information utilized by Setty.
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Claim 9 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benes (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0336123 A1) in view of BS (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0018680 A1) and further in view of Zhang (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0250074 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated. The combination of Benes and BS fails to teach:
wherein the second container comprises a side-car container accessible by the first container.
However, Zhang teaches:
wherein the second container comprises a side-car container accessible by the first container (Zhang, Paragraph [0056], "In an embodiment, containers in the container environment 200 are organized in one or more container pods 204. Specifically, a container pod 204 may include a test container 206 [first container] and one or more support containers 208 [second container]." Zhang, Paragraph [0100], "As one example, a data sidecar readiness probe may verify that the data sidecar [side-car container] has obtained any specified input data and the input data is available for use by the test container [first container].").
Benes, BS, and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Benes and BS to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to have:
wherein the second container comprises a side-car container accessible by the first container.
The modification would have been obvious because Zhang teaches organizing a test container and one or more support containers, including sidecar containers, within a container pod (Zhang, Paragraphs [0056, 0062]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the sidecar container and container pod architecture of Zhang into the containerized testing system of Benes and BS to organize the application container and the separate testing container within a pod, thereby reducing the manual preparation of test environments and minimizing the time-consuming and error-prone nature of configuring test environments (Zhang, Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated. The combination of Benes and BS fails to teach:
wherein the first and second container are included within a pod of containers.
However, Zhang further teaches:
wherein the first and second container are included within a pod of containers (Zhang, Paragraph [0056], "In an embodiment, containers in the container environment 200 are organized in one or more container pods 204. Specifically, a container pod 204 may include a test container 206 and one or more support containers 208.").
Benes, BS, and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Benes and BS to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to have:
wherein the first and second container are included within a pod of containers.
The modification would have been obvious because Zhang teaches organizing a test container and one or more support containers, including sidecar containers, within a container pod (Zhang, Paragraphs [0056, 0062]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the sidecar container and container pod architecture of Zhang into the containerized testing system of Benes and BS to organize the application container and the separate testing container within a pod, thereby reducing the manual preparation of test environments and minimizing the time-consuming and error-prone nature of configuring test environments (Zhang, Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated. BS teaches the claimed “code testing tool”. Benes further teaches:
executing the application […] (Benes, Paragraph [0044], “In an example, the test controller 192 may run a test script 156 that represents a test, which configures the application 170 and its dependencies and executes the application 170 in order to perform the test.”)
and monitoring the application by the second container using the […] tool (Benes, Paragraph [0021], "For example, test controller 192C [tool] may run in container 160C [second container], which may control tests for applications 170A-B [application] within test container 160A." Benes, Paragraph [0045], “After the application 170 executes, the test controller 192 executes a first test associated with the application 170 inside the test container 160 (blocks 334 and 336) (emphasis added).” Benes, Paragraph [0036], “The test controller [tool] monitors the set of tests executed by the test container (block 210) [monitoring the application by the second container using the […] tool] (emphasis added). For example, the test controller 192 may monitor test execution in the test container 160. In an example, the test controller 192 may monitor when a test script 156 finishes. Additionally, the test controller 192 may monitor tests to determine when testing timeout is reached. For example, a test may die or timeout, or may result in an undesired application 170 behavior, which may cause the container 160 to crash."
The combination of Benes and BS fails to teach:
[…] with test data from the second container;
However, Zhang teaches:
[…] with test data from the second container (Zhang, Paragraph [0071], "In an embodiment, a container pod 300 includes a data container 318. The data container 318 is a support container configured to obtain object data to be used as input to one or more tests performed [test data] in the test container 302 [test data from the second container].");
Benes, BS, and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Benes and BS to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to have:
[…] with test data from the second container;
The modification would have been obvious because Zhang teaches using support containers to obtain object data used as input to tests performed in a test container (Zhang, Paragraphs [0071]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the support-container data-supply techniques of Zhang into the containerized testing system of Benes and BS so that the second container, including the code testing tool, provides test data for execution of the application during testing, thereby reducing time-consuming and error-prone manual preparation of test environments (Zhang, Paragraph [0004]).
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Examiner's Remarks: Zhang is relied upon only for the limitation of providing test data from the second container. Monitoring the application using the code testing tool is taught by the test controller of Benes, which is rendered the claimed code testing tool by the teachings of BS. Therefore, Zhang is not relied upon for the monitoring limitation.
══════════════════════════════════════════════
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 3, 5, and 6). Therefore, Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 3, 5, and 6.
Claims 17 and 19 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 3 and 6). Therefore, Claims 17 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 3 and 6.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benes (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0336123 A1) in view of BS (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0018680 A1) and further in view of Setty (US Patent No. US 10162740 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated. Benes teaches the claimed “first container including the application”. The combination of Benes and BS fails to teach:
in response to successful completion of the test of the application, providing […] the application to a production environment without changes […].
However, Setty teaches:
in response to successful completion of the test of the application, providing […] the application to a production environment without changes […] (Setty, Col. 6, Lines 28-38, "The software deployment system 114 is a computing device that initiates deployment of new builds of application software to, e.g., testing and/or production environments." Setty, Claim 7, "The system of claim 6, wherein the software deployment system deploys the build [providing […] the application to a production environment] when the status of the computer software test case execution indicates that the computer software test case successfully executed [in response to successful completion of the test of the application], and wherein the software deployment system reverts the application under development to an earlier build when the status of the computer software test case execution indicates that the computer software test case did not successfully execute [without changes] (emphasis added).").
Benes, BS, and Setty are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of the testing of software and test management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Benes and BS to incorporate the teachings of Setty to have:
in response to successful completion of the test of the application, providing […] the application to a production environment without changes […].
The modification would have been obvious because Setty teaches determining whether to deploy a build based on the status of computer software test execution and deploying the build when the test case successfully executes (Setty, Col. 7, Lines 46-53). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the automated deployment techniques of Setty into the containerized testing system of Benes and BS to automatically deploy a successfully tested application container to a production environment, thereby making the software testing process more integrated with the software development process so that source code can be written, compiled, tested, and deployed to production environments without unnecessary delays (Setty, Col. 1, Lines 17-20).
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
Bhojan (US 2018/0089068 A1) discloses a method, device, and non-transitory computer readable medium for testing mobile applications in a mobile application testing system is disclosed. The method includes creating at least one Docker container in the mobile application testing system. After creating the at least one docker container, the method identifies a mobile application for testing. The method automatically generates at least one test artifact in response to identifying the mobile application for testing. Thereafter, the method installs the at least one test artifact for the mobile application for testing in the at least one Docker container. Further, the method selects at least one mobile device in response to installing the at least one test artifact for the mobile application for testing in the at least one Docker container. Thereafter, the method executes the at least one test artifact for the at least one selected mobile device in the at least one Docker container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD KAMRUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights