Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on July 3rd, 2024, has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 recite that each “unit” comprises one or more processors. Applicant’s specification only describes there being one processor (Paragraph 0045 and Fig. 11). Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected as being dependent on at least one of the aforementioned claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 multiple services, a monitored service, and a plurality of services. The relationship between these services is unclear. Examiner interprets the limitations as any combination of multiple services and subservices. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “response time” and “each time.” It is unclear if “each time” is a response time itself, or a response time measured at a given time. Examiner interprets “each time” as a time separate from the response time, for example, a collection time at which the response time is taken. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to being dependent on at least one of the aforementioned claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“estimation device configured to estimate…” in Claim 1
“abnormality score calculation unit … configured to calculate… to input …” in Claims 1, 2, and 4
“failure occurrence service estimation unit … configured to estimate…” in Claims 1 and 5
“root-cause estimation unit … configured to estimate …” in Claims 1 and 5
“processing unit … configured to convert … to remove…, extract …, and interpolate …” in Claims 2 and 3
The “estimation device” of Claim 1 is given structure by Paragraphs 0012-0013 and Paragraph 0044-0045, being described as the combined use of all of the units upon the computer.
The “abnormality score calculation unit” of Claims 1, 2, and 4 is given structure by the algorithm of Paragraphs 0020-0021 and the computer system of Paragraph 0045.
The “failure occurrence service estimation unit” of Claims 1 and 5 is given structure by the algorithm of Paragraph 0022 and the computer system of Paragraph 0045.
The “root-cause estimation unit” of Claims 1 and 5 is given structure by the algorithm of Paragraph 0023 and the computer system of Paragraph 0045.
The “processing unit” of Claims 2 and 3 is given structure by the algorithm of Paragraphs 0016-0019 and the computer system of Paragraph 0045.
Since each of the above units are described as instructions on a singular processor as cited above, Examiner interprets the claimed invention as software running on one processor. The “units” of software are not described as anything other than a set of instructions to complete a certain function, and thus are being interpreted as such.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mathematics and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer and perform mere data gathering in relation to the mathematics and mental processes. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform the abstract ideas on a generic computer.
The claimed invention performs math on a computer, in which the operands of the math are metrics related to the performance of a computer. Certain aspects of the invention leave calculations to a multivariate time-series model with describing how a solution is achieved.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 1 recites:
… estimate/estimate … based on the abnormality score (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes) …
… calculate (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process) …
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 1 recites:
An estimation device configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) … a service in which a failure has occurred in a monitored service configured by combining a plurality of services and … a root-cause of the failure (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), the estimation device comprising:
an abnormality score calculation unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) … an abnormality score indicating a degree of deviation from a normal time from a metric obtained by quantifying an activity of each of the plurality of services and a trace in which time information and a call order of processing of each of the plurality of services are recorded (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
a failure occurrence service estimation unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) …
and a root-cause estimation unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) … a root-cause based on an abnormality score of a metric of the service in which the failure has occurred (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims simply state mental processes and mathematics with mere instructions to perform these abstract ideas on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)). The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
a processing unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) convert (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes) the trace into a response time of each of the plurality of services for each time (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), wherein the abnormality score calculation unit is configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) calculate (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process) an abnormality score from a metric and a trace for each time (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the processing unit is configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) remove processing with low importance in failure detection from the trace (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes), extract a response time of each of the plurality of services (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations” are mental processes), and interpolate the response time for a service whose response time cannot be extracted (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes).
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the abnormality score calculation unit is configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) input metrics and traces at a normal time (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) to a multivariate time-series model to learn behavior at a normal time, and input the metrics and the traces to the multivariate time-series model at a time of estimation (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) to calculate (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical calculations are abstract ideas) the abnormality score (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the failure occurrence service estimation unit is configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) estimate a service in which the abnormality score exceeds a predetermined threshold as a service in which a failure occurs (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes), and the root-cause estimation unit is configured to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) obtain an average of abnormality scores (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), formulas/equations and calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process) of metrics in a time period of failure occurrence in the service in which the failure has occurred (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), and estimate the root-cause based on the obtained average value (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes).
Claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 6 recites:
An estimation method for estimating … and estimating … the estimation method comprising (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes) …
All remaining limitations identified as abstract ideas have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 6 recites:
… a service in which a failure has occurred in a monitored service configured by combining a plurality of services … a root-cause of the failure occurrence (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity)
… by a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application):
All remaining limitations identified as additional elements have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Please see the rejection of Claim 1 for the Step 2B analysis.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, wherein execution of the program causes a computer to operate as each unit of the estimation device according to claim 1 (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) as being anticipated by Callot et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,265,446 B1), hereinafter referred to as Callot.
With regards to Claim 1, Callot teaches:
An estimation device (Fig. 11) configured to estimate a service in which a failure has occurred in a monitored service configured by combining a plurality of services (Col. 6, Lines 37-50, multiple applications with micro-services) and estimate a root-cause of the failure (Col. 4, Lines 50-63, root-cause analysis), the estimation device comprising:
an abnormality score calculation unit, *, configured to calculate an abnormality score indicating a degree of deviation (Col. 4, Lines 4-16) from a normal time (Col. 6, Lines 46-60, metrics can be various rates/times) from a metric obtained by quantifying an activity of each of the plurality of services and a trace in which time information and a call order of processing of each of the plurality of services are recorded (Col. 3, Lines 38-56); Note the trace is being interpreted based off of the description in Paragraph 0007 of Applicant’s specification.
a failure occurrence service estimation unit, *, configured to estimate a service in which a failure has occurred based on the abnormality score (Col. 12, Lines 19-54);
and a root-cause estimation unit, *, configured to estimate a root-cause based on an abnormality score of a metric of the service in which the failure has occurred (Col. 4, Lines 50-63, root-cause analysis).
* = comprising one or more processors (Col. 20, Lines 32-46),
With regards to Claim 2, Callot teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Callot further teaches:
a processing unit, *, configured to convert the trace into a response time of each of the plurality of services for each time (Col. 6, Line 46 – Col. 7, Line 11, metrics such as response time can be extracted from timestamped logs; Col.7, Lines 30-39, analysis is restricted to certain metrics and times), wherein the abnormality score calculation unit is configured to calculate an abnormality score from a metric and a trace for each time (Col. 11, Lines 58-63, scores for different times for the metrics).
With regards to Claim 4, Callot teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Callot further teaches:
wherein the abnormality score calculation unit is configured to input metrics and traces at a normal time to a multivariate time-series model to learn behavior at a normal time (Col. 8, Line 50 - Col. 9, Line 6, the model; Col. 10, Lines 24-38, the model indicating normal behavior), and input the metrics and the traces to the multivariate time-series model at a time of estimation to calculate the abnormality score (Col. 11, Lines 5-29; Col. 11, Lines 32-47, the model can be multivariate).
With regards to Claim 5, Callot teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Callot further teaches:
wherein the failure occurrence service estimation unit is configured to estimate a service in which the abnormality score exceeds a predetermined threshold as a service in which a failure occurs (Col. 12, Lines 19-54), and the root-cause estimation unit is configured to obtain an average of abnormality scores of metrics in a time period of failure occurrence in the service in which the failure has occurred (Col. 2, Lines 52-62, average), and estimate the root-cause based on the obtained average value (Col. 4, Lines 50-63, root-cause analysis).
With regards to Claim 6, Callot teaches:
… by a computer (Col. 20, Lines 20-31) …
Callot further teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 6, as cited above with respect to Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 7, Callot teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Callot further teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, wherein execution of the program causes a computer to operate as each unit of the estimation device according to claim 1 (Col. 21, Line 39 – Col. 22, Line 10).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callot in view of McKinney et al. (pandas: powerful Python data analysis toolkit Release 1.2.0), hereinafter referred to as McKinney.
With regards to Claim 3, Callot teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Callot further teaches:
wherein the processing unit is configured to remove processing with low importance in failure detection from the trace (Col.7, Lines 30-39, analysis is restricted to certain metrics and times),
extract a response time (Col. 6, Line 46 – Col. 7, Line 11, metrics such as response time can be extracted from timestamped logs) of each of the plurality of services (Col. 12, Lines 19-40, analyzing multiple services),
the response time for a service (Col. 6, Line 46 – Col. 7, Line 11, metrics such as response time can be extracted from timestamped logs)
Callot does not explicitly teach:
and interpolate … whose response time cannot be extracted.
However, McKinney teaches:
and interpolate … whose response time cannot be extracted (Section 2.10.9 Interpolation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, add the ability to interpolate data, as taught by McKinney, to the data processing device of Callot in order to handle any missing data, such as missing response times, for better analysis (McKinney, Page 529).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fourati et al. (“DOCKERANALYZER : Towards Fine Grained Resource Elasticity for Microservices-Based Applications Deployed with Docker," 2019 20th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies (PDCAT), Australia, 2019, pp. 220-225): teaches using thresholds to analyze anomalies in applications with microservices
Matsuo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0372009 A1): teaches error analysis using a variety of calculations and units
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA K SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-3PM EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/G.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113