DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-5 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0311675; hereinafter “Ham”) in view of Xu et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0257700; hereinafter “Xu”)
Claim 1:
Ham teaches a method comprising:
determining, by an artifact deployment tool, that a first artifact is available for deployment to a target computing environment ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads… an application execution file (e.g., Manifest file) from the development server 120,” wherein the “application development apparatus,” “application” and “device” are the “artifact deployment tool,” “first artifact” and “target computing environment” respectively.);
obtaining, by the artifact deployment tool, a first deployment token representing verification that a first set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied to deploy the first artifact to the target computing environment ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads the authentication token generated based on the list.”);
generating, by the artifact deployment tool, a first deployment request to deploy the first artifact to the target computing environment, wherein the first deployment request comprises the first deployment token ([0015] “an operating method of a device for installing an application for a device includes receiving an application installation request including an application and an authentication token from an application development apparatus.” [0016] “an operating method of an application development apparatus for… transmitting an application installation request including the downloaded authentication token and an application to a device.”);
directing the first deployment request, by the artifact deployment tool, to a deployment service for deploying artifacts to the target computing environment, wherein the deployment service obtains validation of the first deployment token and, responsive to obtaining validation of the first deployment token, deploys the first artifact to the target computing environment ([0080] “The device 100 receiving the application installation request verifies the signature in the authentication token by comparing the value generated based on a server public key with the signature of the authentication token in step 603.” [0081] “Upon successfully verifying the signature, the application identifier, and the device serial number in the authentication token, the device 100 installs the application.” [0092] “The device application manager 800 verifies the signature, the application identifier, and the device serial number in the authentication token, and installs the corresponding application only when the verification is successfully completed,” wherein the “device application manager” is the “deployment service”.).
With further regard to Claim 1, Ham does not teach the following, however, Xu teaches:
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor ([0034] “in the microservices architecture, an application is developed as a collection of services.” [0203] “Each client or server includes… a processor coupled… The processor may be any type of general or specific purpose processor. Each client or server may further include a memory for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor.” [0206] “the memory stores software modules that provide functionality when executed by the processor. The modules include an operating system that provides operating system functionality each client or server. The modules may further include a cloud identity management module for providing cloud identity management functionality, and all other functionality disclosed herein.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham with the method being performed by a processor as taught by Xu since it is well-known to those of common knowledge in the art that the device for performing the deployment method in Ham would be implemented using some form of hardware processor, i.e. the processor taught in Xu.
Claim 2:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1. However, Ham does not teach the following, but Xu teaches,
wherein the target computing environment comprises a private label cloud environment accessible using a first set of identity resources associated with a customer and a second set of identity resources associated with a cloud infrastructure provider ([0022] “Embodiments support secure access for hybrid cloud deployments (i.e., cloud deployments which include a combination of a public cloud and a private cloud).” [0028] “One embodiment further manages access for various users such as customers, partners, employees, etc.” [0049] “For example, an employee moving from engineering to sales can get near instantaneous access to the sales cloud and lose access to the developer cloud. When this change is reflected in on-premise AD 204, cloud application access change is accomplished in near-real-time. Similarly, access to cloud applications managed in IDCS 208 is revoked for users leaving the company.”),
wherein the artifact deployment tool is operated by a requester associated with an identity resource of the second set of identity resources ([0125] “As part of one-time deployment, Cloud Gate 702 is registered with IDCS as an OAuth2 client, enabling it to request OIDC and OAuth2 operations against IDCS. Thereafter, it maintains configuration information about an application's protected and unprotected resources, subject to request matching rules (how to match URLs, e.g., with wild cards, regular expressions, etc.). Cloud Gate 702 can be deployed to protect different applications having different security policies, and the protected applications can be multi-tenant.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham with the cloud environment and identity resources as taught by Xu as this “enables organizations to rapidly develop fast, reliable, and secure services for their new business initiatives” (Xu [0024]) and further to “ensure that sufficient security measures are provided for access of each type of user and not just employees” (Xu [0028]).
Claim 3:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1. However, Ham does not teach the following, but Xu teaches wherein the first set of one or more customer designated conditions comprises:
verification that an approval to deploy the first artifact to the target computing environment, associated with an approval workflow defined by a customer, has been obtained ([0058] “One embodiment may provide the following functionalities:” [0060] “integrate with workflow to facilitate various approvals (e.g., management, IT, human resources, legal, and compliance) needed for applications access.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham with the approval workflow as taught by Xu in order “to enable and support the entire user provisioning life cycle” (Xu [0069]).
Claim 4:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1. However, Ham does not teach the following, but Xu teaches wherein the artifact deployment tool is configured to
(a) determine that an approval to deploy the first artifact to the target computing environment, associated with an approval workflow defined by a customer has been obtained ([0058] “One embodiment may provide the following functionalities:” [0060] “integrate with workflow to facilitate various approvals (e.g., management, IT, human resources, legal, and compliance) needed for applications access.”), and
(b) obtain the first deployment token based at least on the approval ([0085] “The OAuth2 platform service provides token authorization services. It provides a rich API infrastructure for creating and validating access tokens conveying user rights.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham with the approval workflow as taught by Xu in order “to enable and support the entire user provisioning life cycle” (Xu [0069]).
Claim 5:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 4, and Ham further teaches wherein (i) the artifact deployment tool generates the first deployment token, or (ii) an identity service generates the first deployment token and the artifact deployment tool obtains the first deployment token from the identity service ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads the authentication token generated based on the list and an application execution file (e.g., Manifest file) from the development server 120. The dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 generates an application based on the downloaded authentication token and application execution file, and provides the generated application and the authentication token to the device 100 to control the installation of the application.”).
Claim 12:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, and Ham further teaches wherein obtaining the first deployment token comprises:
directing, to a verification service, a token request to obtain the first deployment token, wherein the token request comprises metadata pertaining to the first artifact ([0064] “FIG. 5 illustrates the development server for registering the device serial number list authorized for the application for the device according to a request of the application development apparatus, and generating and transmitting the authentication token and the application execution file based on the list”, wherein the “device serial number list” is the ”metadata pertaining to the first artifact”.);
wherein the verification service (a) receives the token request, (b) verifies, based at least in part on the metadata pertaining to the first artifact, that the first set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied, (c) obtains the first deployment token, and (d) provides the first deployment token to the artifact deployment tool ([0092] “The device application manager 800 installs and executes the corresponding application based on the application and the authentication token provided from the application development apparatus. The device application manager 800 verifies the signature, the application identifier, and the device serial number in the authentication token, and installs the corresponding application only when the verification is successfully completed.” [0104] “In the application development system, the application development apparatus registers the device serial number list authorized for the application for the device, to the development server, which generates and transmits the authentication token based on the list and the application execution file, and the authorized device installs the application based on the authentication token. Therefore, only the device authorized for the application for the device can install the corresponding application, and thus the illegal copies of the application can be prevented.”).
Claim 13:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12. However, Ham does not teach the following, but Xu teaches wherein the verification service verifies at least one of:
an approval to deploy the first artifact to the target computing environment, associated with an approval workflow defined by a customer has been obtained ([0058] “One embodiment may provide the following functionalities:” [0060] “integrate with workflow to facilitate various approvals (e.g., management, IT, human resources, legal, and compliance) needed for applications access.”);
a set of one or more deployment states of the target computing environment designated by the customer are satisfied; or
a change ticket associated with deployment of the first artifact to the target computing environment satisfies a set of one or more ticket verification criteria.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham with the approval workflow as taught by Xu in order “to enable and support the entire user provisioning life cycle” (Xu [0069]).
Claim 14:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 12, and Ham further teaches wherein (a) the verification service generates the first deployment token, or (b) an identity service generates the first deployment token and the verification service obtains the first deployment token from the identity service ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads the authentication token generated based on the list and an application execution file (e.g., Manifest file) from the development server 120. The dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 generates an application based on the downloaded authentication token and application execution file, and provides the generated application and the authentication token to the device 100 to control the installation of the application.”).
Claim 15:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, and Ham further teaches wherein the artifact deployment tool comprises at least one of: a configuration deployment tool, a maintenance management tool, an administrator tool, or a command line interface ([0037] “The application development apparatus 110 is a Personal Computer (PC) installing a dedicated development tool, such as an IDE. The application development apparatus 110 develops an application for the device, and controls to install and test the developed application,” wherein the “application development apparatus,” i.e. “artifact deployment tool,” based on the functionality described above, comprises at least a “configuration deployment tool.”).
Claim 16:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, and Ham teaches further comprising:
subsequent to determining that the first artifact is available for deployment to the target computing environment ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads… an application execution file (e.g., Manifest file) from the development server 120,”):
initiating a process to deploy the first artifact to the target computing environment ([0015] “an operating method of a device for installing an application for a device includes receiving an application installation request including an application and an authentication token from an application development apparatus.” [0016] “an operating method of an application development apparatus for… transmitting an application installation request including the downloaded authentication token and an application to a device.”),
wherein the process comprises:
initiating verification that the first set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied (Fig. 5: Steps 501-505.);
pausing the process while awaiting the first deployment token representing verification that the first set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied (Fig. 5: Step 507 being paused before proceeding to Step 509.);
subsequent to obtaining the first deployment token, resuming the process (Fig. 5: Steps 509-513.),
wherein the process further comprises:
subsequent to resuming the process: generating the first deployment request and directing the first deployment request to the deployment service ([0015] “an operating method of a device for installing an application for a device includes receiving an application installation request including an application and an authentication token from an application development apparatus.” [0016] “an operating method of an application development apparatus for… transmitting an application installation request including the downloaded authentication token and an application to a device.”).
Claim 17:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, and Ham further teaches wherein obtaining the first deployment token comprises:
initiating a first attempt for verification that the first set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied (Fig. 5: Step 501);
receiving a non-validation response indicating that the first set of one or more customer designated conditions are unsatisfied (Fig. 5: Step 503);
subsequent to receiving the non-validation response, initiating a second attempt for verification that the first set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied (Fig. 5: Step 515);
receiving the first deployment token in response to the second attempt (Fig. 5: Steps 517-521.).
Claim 18:
Ham in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, and Ham teaches further comprising:
determining, by the artifact deployment tool, that a second artifact is available for deployment to the target computing environment ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads… an application execution file (e.g., Manifest file) from the development server 120,” wherein the “application development apparatus,” “application” and “device” are the “artifact deployment tool,” “second artifact” and “target computing environment” respectively. The Office further notes that the same processes originally described in the rejection of Claim 1 are equally applicable to deployment of additional software, i.e. a “second artifact”.);
obtaining, by the artifact deployment tool, a second deployment token representing verification that a second set of one or more customer designated conditions are satisfied to deploy the second artifact to the target computing environment ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads the authentication token generated based on the list.”);
generating, by the artifact deployment tool, a second deployment request to deploy the second artifact to the target computing environment, wherein the second deployment request comprises the second deployment token ([0015] “an operating method of a device for installing an application for a device includes receiving an application installation request including an application and an authentication token from an application development apparatus.” [0016] “an operating method of an application development apparatus for… transmitting an application installation request including the downloaded authentication token and an application to a device.”);
directing the second deployment request, by the artifact deployment tool, to the deployment service , wherein the deployment service validates the second deployment token and, responsive to validating the second deployment token, deploys the second artifact to the target computing environment ([0080] “The device 100 receiving the application installation request verifies the signature in the authentication token by comparing the value generated based on a server public key with the signature of the authentication token in step 603.” [0081] “Upon successfully verifying the signature, the application identifier, and the device serial number in the authentication token, the device 100 installs the application.” [0092] “The device application manager 800 verifies the signature, the application identifier, and the device serial number in the authentication token, and installs the corresponding application only when the verification is successfully completed,” wherein the “device application manager” is the “deployment service”.).
wherein the second set of one or more customer designated conditions differs from the first set of one or more customer designated conditions ([0037] “the dedicated development tool of the application development apparatus 110 registers a serial number list of devices authorized for the application for the device, to the development server 120, and downloads the authentication token generated based on the list,” wherein the “second set of one or more customer designated conditions” is associated with a second “device” as compared to the “first set of one or more customer designated conditions” which is interpreted as being associated with a first “device”.);
Claim 19:
With regard to Claim 19, this claim is equivalent in scope to Claim 1 rejected above, merely having a different independent claim type, and as such Claim 19 is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Claim 1.
With further regard to Claim 19, the claim recites additional elements not specifically addressed in the rejection of Claim 1. The Xu reference also anticipates these additional elements of Claim 19, for example, wherein Xu teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations ([0203] “Each client or server includes… a processor coupled to bus for processing information… Each client or server may further include a memory for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor. The memory can be comprised of any combination of random access memory (‘RAM’), read only memory (‘ROM’), static storage such as a magnetic or optical disk, or any other type of computer readable media.” [0206] “the memory stores software modules that provide functionality when executed by the processor… The modules may further include a cloud identity management module for providing cloud identity management functionality, and all other functionality disclosed herein.”).
Claim 20:
With regard to Claim 20, this claim is equivalent in scope to Claim 1 rejected above, merely having a different independent claim type, and as such Claim 20 is rejected under the same grounds and for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Xu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuhan et al. (US Patent 9,438,599; hereinafter “Yuhan”).
Claim 6:
Ham in view of Xu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ham in view of Xu does not teach the following, however, Yuhan teaches wherein the first set of one or more customer designated conditions comprises:
verification that a set of one or more deployment states of the target computing environment designated by a customer are satisfied (Col. 8 ll. 22-33: “The deployment approvals manager 206 is configured to generally approve a deployment… provided that the deployment satisfies one or more rules… once the deployment is approved, the deployment approvals manager 206 authorizes the deployment tool 218 to perform the deployment… by providing the deployment tool 218 with a credential or token… that allows the deployment tool 218 to access the group of resources to perform the deployment.” See Claim 10 of Yuhan: “wherein the at least one rule includes instructions for restricting the deployment to a particular time period, and wherein determining that the deployment request satisfies the one or more criteria in the at least one rule further comprises: determining that the deployment is scheduled to occur within the particular time period; and determining that the deployment satisfies the at least one rule.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham in view of Xu with the deployment state consideration as taught by Yuhan since “Allowing multiple deployments by different deployment tools to a resource at or around the same time can result in that resource operating in an undesirable or unexpected manner” (Yuhan Col. 2 ll. 38-41).
Claim 7:
Ham in view of Xu and Yuhan teaches the method of claim 6. However, Ham in view of Xu does not teach the following, but Yuhan teaches, wherein the set of one or more deployment states of the target computing environment comprises:
a deployment time for deploying the first artifact to the target computing environment is within a time window specified by at least one of: the customer, or a provider of a cloud infrastructure for the target computing environment (Col. 2 ll. 58-61: “The deployment approval system can determine whether to approve or deny a deployment by evaluating the deployment with respect to various rules that are specified in deployment policies,” wherein the “deployment approval system” is “a provider of a cloud infrastructure”. See Claim 10 of Yuhan: “wherein the at least one rule includes instructions for restricting the deployment to a particular time period, and wherein determining that the deployment request satisfies the one or more criteria in the at least one rule further comprises: determining that the deployment is scheduled to occur within the particular time period; and determining that the deployment satisfies the at least one rule.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham in view of Xu with the deployment time window as taught by Yuhan since “Allowing multiple deployments by different deployment tools to a resource at or around the same time can result in that resource operating in an undesirable or unexpected manner” (Yuhan Col. 2 ll. 38-41).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Xu and Yuhan as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Morino et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0298321; hereinafter “Morino”).
Claim 8:
Ham in view of Xu and Yuhan teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as described above. Ham in view of Xu and Yuhan does not teach the following, however, Morino teaches wherein verification that the set of one or more deployment states of the target computing environment are satisfied comprises:
verification that deployment of the first artifact to the target computing environment corresponds to a deployment sequence specified by the customer for deployments to the target computing environment ([0045] “The software specifying unit 21 specifies the destination server 13 as an installation destination, a type of software corresponding to a service to be performed by the destination server 13, and an installation condition accounting for a user request.” [0054] “The installation sequence selecting unit 27 selects the installation sequence satisfying the condition specified by the software specifying unit 21 from among the installation sequence candidates determined by the installation candidate extracting unit 25.” [0055] “if a plurality of sequences is specified, the installation sequence selecting unit 27 may set one in accordance with a predetermined sequence priority (for example, a candidate having a smallest value of installation cost), or may allow the user to specify one.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham in view of Xu and Yuhan with the deployment sequence verification as taught by Morino as this “shortens installation time by minimizing the effect of program restart and service startup” (Morino [0041]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Xu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Watt et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0222052; hereinafter “Watt”).
Claim 9:
Ham in view of Xu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ham in view of Xu does not teach the following, however, Watt teaches wherein the first set of one or more customer designated conditions comprises:
verification that a change ticket associated with deployment of the first artifact to the target computing environment satisfies a set of one or more ticket verification criteria ([0028] “the validating responder 126 may include one or more processes (and/or services) that are configured to determine whether a given deployment object is permitted to be deployed. In some implementations, the validating responder 126 may execute a process 600, which is discussed further below with respect to FIGS. 6A-6B, to determine whether a change ticket associated with the deployment object has been allowed. Additionally or alternatively, in some implementations, the validating responder 126 may perform various additional checks, such as detecting whether a user is authorized to make a change, whether the change is affecting the namespace assigned to the user or has a larger scope, whether the change is affecting a critical resource, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham in view of Xu with the change ticket associated with deployment as taught by Watt as this “is advantageous because it enforces compliance with change policies” (Watt [0072]).
Claim 10:
Ham in view of Xu and Watt teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ham in view of Xu does not teach the following, however, Watt teaches:
wherein the artifact deployment tool selects the set of one or more ticket verification criteria based on a source of the change ticket ([0027] “the mutating responder 124 may include one or more processes (and/or services) that are configured to: (i) detect whether a change ticket has been submitted for a given deployment object by the developer.”),
wherein the source comprises one: a first source identifiable by a first identity resource associated with a customer, or a second source identifiable by a second identity resource associated with a provider of a cloud infrastructure corresponding to the target computing environment ([0017] “when a developer wants to change existing code or deploy new code on the production system 104, the developer may submit a change ticket for the deployment.” [0053] “the Kubernetes diff results for the proposed deployment could be attached to a new change ticket generated, and submitted on behalf of the application team by using the application team's information (e.g., information about a team of developers) that is contained in the deployment interface's 108 own specific configuration.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham in view of Xu with the change ticket criteria as taught by Watt as this “is advantageous because it enforces compliance with change policies” (Watt [0072]).
Claim 11:
Ham in view of Xu and Watt teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Ham in view of Xu does not teach the following, however, Watt teaches wherein the set of one or more ticket verification criteria comprises at least one of:
the change ticket is active; the change ticket is approved; or a current execution time is within an approval change window for the change ticket ([0017] “the change management system 106 may use change tickets to manage and/or control the deployment of code on the production system 104. For example, when a developer wants to change existing code or deploy new code on the production system 104, the developer may submit a change ticket for the deployment. The change ticket may be filed (or submitted) with the change management system 106. Afterwards, the change ticket may be reviewed by a manager (or reviewed automatically). Following the review, the change ticket may be either approved or denied. If the change ticket is approved, the developer is permitted to proceed with the deployment of code onto the production system 104.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Ham in view of Xu with the change ticket criteria as taught by Watt as this “is advantageous because it enforces compliance with change policies” (Watt [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Kohli (US PGPUB 2020/0119920) discloses a computer device configured to install computer applications, including methods and systems for leveraging existing device tokens during application installation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joanne G. Macasiano whose telephone number is (571)270-7749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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.
/JOANNE G MACASIANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights