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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-25 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-25 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 20 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 11, and 20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-25 are directed to collecting data and resource allocation. Specifically, the claims recite receiving, at a first instance of a resource reclamation service, a lifecycle event for a tenancy of a cloud computing environment, wherein the first instance is deployed at a first region of a plurality of regions of a cloud environment;
identifying, at the first instance, a subset of the plurality of regions to which computing resources of the tenancy are deployed, the subset of the plurality of regions including the first region and a second region; initiating and executing, by the first instance deployed at the first region, a multi-region reclamation process for reclaiming the computing resources of the tenancy from the subset of the plurality of regions, wherein executing the multi-region reclamation process comprises:executing a first subset of operations associated with reclaiming a first subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the first region, the first subset of operations comprising:identifying, at the first instance, the first subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the first region; and executing, at the first instance, a first set of reclamation actions associated with reclaiming the first subset of the computing resources of the tenancy;executing a second subset of operations associated with reclaiming a second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the second region, the second subset of operations transmitting, from the first instance to a second instance of the resource reclamation service, cross-region notification of the lifecycle event, wherein the second instance is deployed at the second region; in response to receiving the cross-region notification of the lifecycle event at the second instance, identifying, at the second instance, the second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the second region; which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of executing, at the second instance, a second set of reclamation actions associated with reclaiming the second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of collecting data and resource allocation. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of executing, at the second instance, a second set of reclamation actions associated with reclaiming the second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of collecting data and resource allocation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19, 21-25 further describe the abstract idea of collecting data and resource allocation. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 11-12, 19, 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cropper (U.S. Patent App Pub 20170054617) in view of Yemini (U.S. Patent 9852011)
Regarding claim 1,
Cropper teaches computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a first instance of a resource reclamation service, a lifecycle event for a tenancy of a cloud computing environment, wherein the first instance is deployed at a first region of a plurality of regions of a cloud environment;(See paragraphs 12, 14, Cropper teaches cloud environment tenancy)
identifying, at the first instance, a subset of the plurality of regions to which computing resources of the tenancy are deployed, the subset of the plurality of regions including the first region and a second region; (See paragraphs 12, 14, Cropper teaches multiple instances and hosts)
transmitting, from the first instance to a second instance of the resource reclamation service, a cross-region notification of the lifecycle event, wherein the second instance is deployed at the second region; (See paragraphs 55, 56, Cropper teaches reclamation service)
in response to receiving the cross-region notification of the lifecycle event at the second instance, identifying, at the second instance,the second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the second region; and (See paragraphs 14, 55/57, Cropper teaches reclamation service)
executing, at the second instance, a second set of reclamation actions associated with reclaiming the second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy. (See paragraphs 55, 56, 57, Cropper teaches reclamation service for subset of resources and redeployed)
Cropper does not explicitly teach but Yemini teaches initiating and executing, by the first instance deployed at the first region, a multi-region reclamation process for reclaiming the computing resources of the tenancy from the subset of the plurality of regions, wherein executing the multi-region reclamation process comprises:
executing a first subset of operations associated with reclaiming a first subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the first region, the first subset of operations comprising: (See figures 5-7, column 3 line 59 – column 4 line 55, Yemeni teaches reclaiming resources from one domain and allocating it to another domain)
identifying, at the first instance, the first subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the first region; and executing, at the first instance, a first set of reclamation actions associated with reclaiming the first subset of the computing resources of the tenancy; (See figures 5-7, column 4 line 15 – column 4 line 55, Yemeni teaches identifying a subset of resources for reclamation)
executing a second subset of operations associated with reclaiming a second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the second region, the second subset of operations (See figures 5-7, column 4 line 15 – column 4 line 55, Yemeni teaches identifying a subset of resources for reclamation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Yemeni with Cropper because both deal with allocation of resources. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Yemeni into Cropper is that Yemeni allows an administrator to use software to set proactive automation policies to optimize or improve performance and resource utilization, detect and resolve operational problems and performance bottlenecks, allocate priorities and usage charges to different applications, and plan capacity expansions, while avoiding inefficiencies of over-provisioning private cloud infrastructures, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Yemeni)
Regarding claim 2,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:based on a cross region notification of the lifecycle event; transmitting, from the first instance to the first instance, the indication of the lifecycle event;( (See paragraphs 55, 56, 57, Cropper)
identifying, the second instance, a second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy deployed at the second region (See paragraphs 55, 56, 57, Cropper)
Regarding claim 10,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of regions in the cloud environment includes a third region;the computing resources of the tenancy are not deployed to the third region; and the first instance is configured to not transmit the cross-region notification of the lifecycle event to a third instance of the resource reclamation service deployed at the third region. (See paragraphs 55, 56, 57, Cropper teaches reclamation service for subset of resources different instances and areas)
Claims 11-12, 19 list all the same elements of claims 1-2, 10, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-2, 10 applies equally as well to claims 11-12, 19.
Claim 20 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein executing the multi- region reclamation process comprises: reclaiming a first resource, of the first subset of the computing resources in the first region,wherein the cross-region notification identifies the first resource as having been reclaimed in connection with the lifecycle event;responsive at least in part to the cross-region notification identifying the first resource as having been reclaimed in connection with the lifecycle event:reclaiming a second resource, of the second subset of the computing resources in the second region, and transmitting, from the second instance to the first instance of the resource reclamation service, a notification that the second instance has been successfully reclaimed in connection with the lifecycle event; (See paragraphs 55, 56, Cropper teaches reclamation service)
Yemeni further teaches responsive at least in part to the notification that the second instance has been successfully reclaimed in connection with the lifecycle event:reclaiming a third resource in the first region in connection with the lifecycle event. (See fig 4-5, column 12 line 58 – column 13 line 26, Yemeni) (See motivation to combine for claim 1 (claim 20))
Regarding claim 22,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, at the first instance of the resource reclamation service, a first dependency indicating that reclamation of a first resource in the first region is dependent on reclamation of a second resource in the second region; transmitting the cross-region notification to the second instance of the resource reclamation service responsive at least in part to determining the first dependency, wherein the cross- region notification identifies at least one of the first resource or the second resource; (See paragraphs 55-57, Cropper teaches reclamation service)
Yemeni further teaches determining, at the second instance, a second dependency indicating that reclamation of a third resource in the second region is dependent on reclamation of a fourth resource in the first region; transmitting, from the second instance to the first instance, a second cross-region notification responsive at least in part to determining the second dependency, wherein the second cross-region notification identifies at least one of the third resource or the fourth resource. (See motivation to combine for claim 1(See fig 4-5, column 13 lines 10-45, Yemeni)
Regarding claim 23,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first subset of operations comprises: reversibly suspending the first subset of the computing resources, wherein reversibly suspending the first subset of the computing resources comprises storing a state of the first subset of the computing resources to a first storage medium, and releasing a first set of hardware components associated with the first subset of the computing resources; (See paragraphs 55-57, Cropper teaches reclamation service)
Yemeni further teaches determining that a time elapsed since storing the state of the first subset of the computing resources meets a threshold;responsive to determining that the time elapsed since storing the state of the first subset of the computing resources meets the threshold: transferring the state of the first subset of the computing resources from the first storage medium to a second storage medium. (See fig 4-5, column 25 lines 1-26, Yemeni) (See motivation to combine for claim 1 (claim 20))
Regarding claim 24,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating and executing the multi-region reclamation process responsive to determining that a subscription has ended for the tenancy. (See paragraphs 55-57, Cropper)
Regarding claim 25,
Cropper and Yemeni teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1. wherein the lifecycle event comprises a non-payment for a subscription associated with the tenancy; wherein the multi-region reclamation process for reclaiming the computing resources of the tenancy from the subset of the plurality of regions comprises: determining that a time elapsed since storing the computing resources in the one or more hot storage media meets the threshold time period;(See fig 3, paragraphs 58, 77, Cropper)
Yemeni further teaches reversibly suspending the tenancy while maintaining the computing resources in one or more hot storage media for a threshold time period; transferring the computing resources to one or more cold storage media responsive to determining that the time elapsed since storing the computing resources in the one or more hot storage media meets the threshold time period. (See fig 4-5, column 12 line 58 – column 13 line 26, Yemeni) (See motivation to combine for claim 1 (claim 20))
Claim(s) 3-5, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cropper (U.S. Patent App Pub 20170054617) in view of Yemini (U.S. Patent 9852011) in view of Chharbra (U.S. Patent App Pub 20160050119).
Regarding claim 3,
Cropper, Yemeni, Chharbra teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting, from the second instance to the first instance, a first report indicating a success or a failure of the second set of reclamation actions.(See paragraphs 32, 45, table 2, Chharbra)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Chharbra with Cropper and Yemini because both deal with resource allocation. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Chharbra into Cropper and Yemini is that Chharbra teaches a congestion in the network is avoided due to over utilization in the network and results in better service predictability through the network. The network administrator can configure the network bandwidth using the mechanism in reserve direction, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Chharbra)
Regarding claim 4,
Cropper, Yemeni, Chharbra teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising:transmitting, from the first instance to the second instance, a second report indicating a success or a failure of the first set of reclamation actions. (See paragraphs 32, 45, table 2, Chharbra)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Chharbra with Cropper and Yemini because both deal with resource allocation. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Chharbra into Cropper and Yemini is that Chharbra teaches a congestion in the network is avoided due to over utilization in the network and results in better service predictability through the network. The network administrator can configure the network bandwidth using the mechanism in reserve direction, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Chharbra)
Regarding claim 5,
Cropper, Yemeni, Chharbra teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: transmitting, from the first instance to a subscription management server, a third report indicating a success or a failure of reclamation actions for the computing resources of the tenancy. (See paragraphs 32, 33, 45, table 2, Chharbra)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Chharbra with Cropper and Yemini because both deal with resource allocation. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Chharbra into Cropper and Yemini is that Chharbra teaches a congestion in the network is avoided due to over utilization in the network and results in better service predictability through the network. The network administrator can configure the network bandwidth using the mechanism in reserve direction, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], Chharbra)
Claims 13-15 list all the same elements of claims 3-5, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 3-5 applies equally as well to claims 13-15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of collecting data and resource allocation which is grouped within Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to collecting data and resource allocation does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “hardware processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable media” perform(s) the steps or functions of executing, at the second instance, a second set of reclamation actions associated with reclaiming the second subset of the computing resources of the tenancy. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to collecting data and resource allocation does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “hardware processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable media” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of collecting data and resource allocation collecting data and resource allocation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Stefanov, U.S. Patent App 20180145884, teaches methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture to provide lifecycle management of custom resources in a cloud computing environment are disclosed. Example methods disclosed herein for custom resource lifecycle management include accepting, with an extensibility service implemented by a virtual appliance, a resource definition and a lifecycle definition for a custom resource to be executed in a cloud computing environment. Disclosed example methods also include managing, with a lifecycle manager implemented by the virtual appliance, a lifecycle of the custom resource based on a state machine implemented according to the lifecycle definition for the custom resource. Disclosed example methods further include providing, with a catalog implemented by the virtual appliance, a catalog item for the custom resource, the catalog item based on the resource definition for the custom resource.
2. Madduri, U.S. Patent App 20170250922, teaches in general, the embodiments of the present invention provide an approach for rebalancing/reallocating cloud resource capacities between resource pools that provide variable customer assurances and delivery penalties when assurances are not met. The variables that are considered hereunder include, overall ‘reservations’, total current capacity, remaining capacity against unused reservations and penalties that apply for failing to satisfy ‘reservation’ commitments. The approach uses a rate of capacity consumption to calculate the risk of consuming the available capacity in each resource pool (e.g., resource pools allocated to satisfy different levels of service with different SLA failure penalties). Based on the relative available capacity in each pool (as determined by the pool rate of consumption), resources are reallocated to maximize revenue (e.g., reduce financial penalty) across a resource pool set.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444