DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present application includes:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are being considered on the merits.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 recites A method, comprising: “determining, based on the performance data, a likelihood for a degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to a satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action”. The limitations of “determining…” , are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performance data”, “quality of service”, “rules associated with a remedial action”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Prong 2,
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements “receiving a request to analyze a performance of a containerized application executing on a host machine, the containerized application using one or more resources of the host machine to provide a quality of service”, “ acquiring performance data associated with the containerized application by applying one or more stresses to the one or more resources”, which “receiving … “ , “ acquiring …” , “applying…”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of “performing, by a processing device prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules, the remedial action to prevent the degradation in the quality of service “ 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 elements do 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.
The additional element of “request to analyze a performance of a containerized application executing on a host machine”, “the containerized application”, “resources of the host machine to provide a quality of service”, “performance data”, “stresses to the one or more resources” , “processing device”, “the remedial action to prevent the degradation in the quality of service” , 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 elements do 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.
Under Step 2B,
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations ““receiving … “ , “…acquiring …” , “applying …” are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, claim 1 is not eligible.
Further claim 2 recite the additional element “wherein the request comprises mapping data indicating one or more probes, and further comprising: deploying the one or more probes onto the host machine to monitor the one or more resources.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “deploying”, “probes” , “host machine to monitor the one or more resources” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 3 recite the additional element “wherein applying the one or more stresses to the one or more resources is further based on the one or more probes.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “resources”, “probes” , merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 4 recite the additional element “wherein the performance data is indicative of at least one of a current demand on the one or more resources or a remaining capacity of the one or more resources.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “demand on the one or more resources”, “capacity of the one or more resources” , merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 5 recite the additional element “detecting a change in the quality of service responsive to applying the one or more stresses to the one or more resources..” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “service ”, “ resources” , merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 6 recite the additional element “maintaining, in a data store, a plurality of associations between a plurality of containerized application identifiers and a plurality of probe identifiers.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “data store”, “ containerized application”, “probe” , merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 7 recite the additional element “wherein performing the remedial action comprises at least one of: causing a migration of the containerized application from the host machine to another host machine, or preventing a migration of another containerized application from another host machine to the host machine” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “data store”, “ containerized application”, “probe” , merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 8 recite the additional element “providing a notification indicating a likelihood for a degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to a satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “data store”, “ containerized application”, “probe” , merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 9 recite the additional element “wherein determining the likelihood for the degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules associated with the remedial action is further based on environmental conditions associated with the host machine.” is function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.The limitations of “determining the likelihood …” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " service”, “environmental conditions associated with the host machine.” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claim 10 recite the additional element “wherein the environmental conditions comprise one or more of temperature, electromagnetic interference, pressure, or humidity..” , which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Further, the claim does not contain any additional elements that comprise significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional elements identified above are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) which do not amount to significantly more. The claim is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 11-19:
• Similar analysis as claims 1-10 applies to claims 11-19.
Further claim 11 recites the additional element “A system, comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The “system”, “memory”, “processing device” are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Claim 20:
• Similar analysis as claim 1 applies to claim 20 Further, claim 22 recites A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when execute by a processing device, cause the processing device “, which are computer components. The terms, “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”, “processing device”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”, “processing device” are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0046807, Patil hereinafter) in view of Hyung Won Choi et al. “Enabling Scalable Cloud Infrastructure using Autonomous VM Migration”, Hyung hereinafter, 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications .
As to claim 1, Patil teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a request to analyze a performance of a containerized application executing on a host machine (e.g., Fig. 2, “App 245” within “host 140” and “receives a set of measurement data from a set of resources of the end machine and determines whether a measurement data received from a particular resource has exceeded a threshold” in abstract) the containerized application using one or more resources of the host machine to provide a quality of service (e.g., FIG. 1, para [0053] The MDC modules 146 are responsible for collecting measurement data such as CPU and memory usage and network activity of the GVMs in real time. Each MDC module 146 collects this data at each GVM at regular time intervals automatically, and/or upon occurrence of an event (e.g., receiving a manual request initiated by a user). Each MDC module 146, based on the maximum limit that is defined in the policy, reports a GVM on which the MDC runs, when the MDC determines that one or more of the computing resources are overloaded (i.e., the computing resource has exceeded the level of stress specified for the computing resource in the tolerance policy 120).
Thus, wherein “receiving a manual request initiated by a user”, “collecting measurement data such as CPU and memory usage and network activity of the GVMs in real time” for the “App 245” within “host 140” , therefore receiving a request to analyze a performance of a containerized application executing on a host machine the containerized application using one or more resources of the host machine to provide a quality of service ) ;
acquiring performance data associated with the containerized application by applying one or more stresses to the one or more resources (e.g., para 53, “Each MDC module 146, based on the maximum limit that is defined in the policy, reports a GVM on which the MDC runs, when the MDC determines that one or more of the computing resources are overloaded (i.e., the computing resource has exceeded the level of stress specified for the computing resource in the tolerance policy 120)”;
determining, based on the performance data, a likelihood for a degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to a satisfaction of one or more rules (e.g., para [0007], wherein “an MDC module of a particular VM might have previously reported the VM as a stressed VM to a measurement data monitor of a host machine that hosts the VM. The VM might have done so when the MDC module of the VM determines that the usage of random access memory (RAM) of the VM has exceeded 80% (a threshold defined by a user)”. Thus, “exceeded 80% (a threshold defined by a user)” include the rule , therefore determining, based on the performance data, a likelihood for a degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to a satisfaction of one or more rules).
However, Patil does not teach the one or more rules associated with a remedial action; and performing, by a processing device prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules, the remedial action to prevent the degradation in the quality of service.
Hyung teaches determining, based on performance data, a likelihood , a satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action (e.g., see page 1066, “an important parameter threshold that dictates what constitutes a machine overloaded underutilized. If the overall resource utilization of a physical machine is over a certain fixed threshold, the machine is deemed overloaded and one or more of the VMs may be selected for migration.”, “learning that consults the previous history of migrations to find the one that suits the current situations. CPU utilization was the key resource type for determining Migrations”.
Thus, determining Migrations include the remedial action) ; and performing, by a processing device prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules, the remedial action to prevent degradation in a quality of service (e.g., see page1066, “the previous history of migrations and their results, but more importantly it proactively examines all the possible pairs of thresholds and resource weights to find the one that best suits. The learning process iterates over time to learn from the history, reactions and trainings. If the same situation is ever encountered, an optimal solution will be applied. To demonstrate this new learning approach, we set up an experimental environment and present our results.” and “Figure 3. Learning the best combination of CPU, memory and threshold” and “Figure 4. Effect of resource types. “80% workload” means 80% of total workload is initially assigned to one PC. (a) CPU weight=0, (b) combination of CPU and memory, (c) CPU weight=1.” in page 1068 and 1069. Thus, the “CPU, memory and threshold “, “80% workload” in the one or more rules”. Therefore , “the previous history of migrations and their results, but more importantly it proactively examines all the possible pairs of thresholds and resource weights to find the one that best suits. The learning process iterates over time to learn from
the history, reactions and trainings” include performing, by a processing device prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules, the remedial action to prevent the degradation in the quality of service).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patil with those of Hyung because both references are directed to related systems addressing similar technical problems within the same field and seek to improve system performance, reliability, and efficiency.
Patil et al. disclose A method, comprising: receiving a request to analyze a performance of a containerized application executing on a host machine, the containerized application using one or more resources of the host machine to provide a quality of service; acquiring performance data associated with the containerized application by applying one or more stresses to the one or more resources while Hyung et al. teach determining, based on the performance data, a likelihood for a degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to a satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action; and performing, by a processing device prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules, the remedial action to prevent the degradation in the quality of service.
Incorporating the teachings of Hyung et al. into the system of Patil et al. would have been a predictable and logical modification, yielding improved operational robustness and efficiency without requiring undue experimentation.
Such a combination would merely involve the substitution or integration of known elements performing their established functions, as taught by Hyung et al., into the system of Patil et al., consistent with design incentives and market demands for improved performance and scalability. Moreover, Hyung et al. explicitly recognize benefits to provide “dynamic management of resources, fast and efficient
scheduling of resources.” (see Hyung, VI. CONCLUSIONS) . —that would naturally be desirable in the system of Patil et al.
Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Patil et al. with Hyung et al., and the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their known functions.
As to claim 2, Patil teaches wherein the request comprises mapping data indicating one or more probes, and further comprising: deploying the one or more probes onto the host machine to monitor the one or more resources (e.g., para 53, “The MDC modules 146 are responsible for collecting measurement data such as CPU and memory usage and network activity of the GVMs in real time. Each MDC module 146 collects this data at each GVM at regular time intervals automatically, and/or upon occurrence of an event (e.g., receiving a manual request initiated by a user). Each MDC module 146, based on the maximum limit that is defined in the policy, reports a GVM on which the MDC runs, when the MDC determines that one or more of the computing resources are overloaded (i.e., the computing resource has exceeded the level of stress specified for the computing resource in the tolerance policy 120).”) .
As to claim 3, Patil teaches wherein applying the one or more stresses to the one or more resources is further based on the one or more probes (e.g., para 53, “each MDC module 146, based on the maximum limit that is defined in the policy, reports a GVM on which the MDC runs, when the MDC determines that one or more of the computing resources are overloaded (i.e., the computing resource has exceeded the level of stress specified for the computing resource in the tolerance policy 120).”.
As to claim 4., Patil teaches wherein the performance data is indicative of at least one of a current demand on the one or more resources or a remaining capacity of the one or more resources (e.g., para 5, “the MDC module may receive updated measurement data from a previously overloaded resource of a stressed machine informing the MDC module that the resource is not overloaded anymore. After receiving the updated data, the MDC module of some embodiments notifies the measurement data monitor of the change in status of the DCN (i.e., MDC module informs the measurement data monitor that the DCN should not be considered as a stressed DCN anymore).”) .
As to claim 5, Patil teaches detecting a change in the quality of service responsive to applying the one or more stresses to the one or more resources (e.g., para 5, “e.g., para 5, “the MDC module may receive updated measurement data from a previously overloaded resource of a stressed machine informing the MDC module that the resource is not overloaded anymore. After receiving the updated data, the MDC module of some embodiments notifies the measurement data monitor of the change in status of the DCN (i.e., MDC module informs the measurement data monitor that the DCN should not be considered as a stressed DCN anymore).”) .
.
As to claim 6, Patil teaches maintaining, in a data store, a plurality of associations between a plurality of containerized application identifiers and a plurality of probe identifiers ( e.g., see FIG. 2, para [0071] After receiving a notification from the MDC module 146, the MD monitor 160 sends a notification to the security agent 240 to inform the security appliance 250. The MD monitor 160 also tags the GVM, from which the notification is received, as a stressed GVM. The MD monitor of some embodiments tags the GVM by adding the information of the GVM (e.g., GVM's IP address or any other unique VM ID) to a particular dynamic container for which a particular security policy is defined. For example, the security policy can be defined as, no new incoming network connection request for the distributed application should be serviced by the network elements that belong to the particular container, or no scheduled security scan can be performed on the network elements that belong to the particular container.).
As to claim 7, Patil does not teach, wherein performing the remedial action comprises at least one of: causing a migration of the containerized application from the host machine to another host machine. However, Hyung teaches wherein performing the remedial action comprises at least one of: causing a migration of the containerized application from the host machine to another host machine (e.g., see Figure 1, page 1067, “active VMs should be autonomously migrated” and “Dynamic Migration Framework”, “SBUML interface provides a bridge between the host machine and the guest VMs for checkpointing. Monitoring modules periodically collect utilization statistics for both host and guest machines. The learning module of the master PC checks if any machine is overloaded. If any machine is overloaded, a VM is selected for migration. Migration modules move the selected VM to the target PC.”), or preventing a migration of another containerized application from another host machine to the host machine.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Patil by adopting the teachings of Hyung to provide “dynamic management of resources, fast and efficient scheduling of resources.” (see Hyung, VI. CONCLUSIONS) .
As to claim 8, Patil teaches further wherein performing the remedial action comprises:providing a notification indicating a likelihood for a degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to a satisfaction of one or more rules (see rejection of claim 1 above.) However, Patil does not teach the satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action. Hyung teaches the satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action (e.g., see rejection of claim1 above.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Patil by adopting the teachings of Hyung to provide “dynamic management of resources, fast and efficient scheduling of resources.” (see Hyung, VI. CONCLUSIONS) .
As to claim 9, Patil teaches further wherein determining the likelihood for the degradation in the quality of service occurring prior to the satisfaction of the one or more rules
However, Patil does not teach the one or more rules associated with the remedial action. Hyung teaches the satisfaction of one or more rules associated with a remedial action (e.g., see rejection of claim1 above.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Patil by adopting the teachings of Hyung to provide “dynamic management of resources, fast and efficient scheduling of resources.” (see Hyung, VI. CONCLUSIONS) .
As to claim 10, Patil teaches wherein the environmental conditions comprise one or more of temperature, electromagnetic interference, pressure (e.g., para 6, “when the MDC module receives measurement data that exceeds a first threshold amount from a DCN and tags the DCN as a stressed DCN, the MDC module uses a second threshold amount, that is different from the first threshold amount, to untag the DCN as a stressed DCN. The second threshold amount, in some embodiments, is calculated based on the value of the first threshold amount, which is received from a user (in a tolerance policy defined by the user). The calculated threshold amount for untagging a DCN as a stressed DCN, in some embodiments, is less than the threshold amount for tagging the DCN as a stressed DCN.”) , or humidity.
As to claim 11, see rejection of claim 1 above. Patil teaches further a system, comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory ( see FIG. 9).
As to claims 12-19, see rejection of claims 1-10 above.
As to claim 20, see rejection of claim 1 above. Patil teaches further a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when execute by a processing device ( see FIG. 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lang et al. (US 2020/0257612) disclose Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for validating software functionality. In some implementations, data indicating a configuration of a first server environment running a third-party installation of a first version of an application is obtained. A second server environment is generated and is configured to run the first version of the application. The second server environment can be configured to use a set of configuration settings for the first server environment that are indicated by the data for the first server environment. An installer for a second version of the application to transition the second server environment to the second version of the application is run. Capabilities of the second version of the application are evaluated using a series of tests for the application on the second server environment .
Srivastava et al. (US 2019/0227957) discloses Techniques are disclosed for filtering input/output (I/O) requests in a virtualized computing environment. In some embodiments, a system stores first data in a page of memory, where after the first data is stored in the page of memory, the page of memory is free for allocation to a first memory consumer (e.g., an I/O filter instantiated in a virtualization layer of the virtualized computing environment) and a second memory consumer. The first memory consumer retains a reference to the page of memory. The first memory consumer receives a data request from a virtual computing instance. Based on the data request, the first memory consumer retrieves the first data using the reference to the page of memory. After retrieving the first data, the system returns the first data to the virtual computing instance. While the first memory consumer has the reference to the page of memory, the page of memory can be allocated to the second memory consumer without notifying the first memory consumer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights