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
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4,7,15 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keezhuridathil et al. (US 2024/0193274 A1), in view of Carrigan et al. (US 2025/0315278 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keezhuridathil discloses a system for generating real-time visualizations of cloud application characteristics (dynamic evaluation of group policy requirements for deploying a group of applications) by managing network connections (network configurations) and data flows during cloud application deployment (Keezhuridathil [Abstract;0009-0010] an automated cloud management system is provided to manage policies and network configurations in an application platform by selectively testing an application contained within an application group and designated for deployment to the application platform, visualizing whether the application meets the requirement of each policy associated with the application group) the system comprising:
receiving a first cloud application for network deployment on a first cloud computing
network (Keezhuridathil [0023;0050], after preparing an application designated for deployment to a cloud platform, an authentication module 110 receives a request to upload and deploy the application onto the platform from an authenticated user);
determining a first application category (an application group) for the first cloud application (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2, [0058], at step 220, a plurality of application groups are established and defined. Each application group is defined according to a rule which determines whether a particular application is contained in that application group);
retrieving a plurality of network requirements (group policy) for the first cloud application based on the first application category (application group) (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2A [0058-0063], in steps 220-237, application groups are associated/assigned to different group policies used to deploy and manage the applications in each group. At 237, the set of application groups are added to or associated with each partial definition to form a full definition of each policy, as applicable to the policy group. The full definitions are combined to generate a full definition for the policy group as a whole);
wherein respective performance metrics (each policy associated with the application group) for each of the plurality of network requirements are aggregated according to predetermined aggregation weights to determine whether to deploy the first cloud application to the first cloud computing network (Keezhuridathil [0009] automatically configuring the application platform, by a processor, according to the configuration file for each of the plurality of policy groups. According to the resulting configuration of the application platform, an admission controller of the application platform selectively tests/weighs an application designated for deployment to the application platform, based on containment of the application within an application group, to determine whether it meets the predetermined performance requirement of each policy associated with the application group in the configuration file);
retrieving a first network requirement (security policy), from the plurality of network requirements (group policy), for the first cloud application (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2A, [0066], at 240, application admission controller 130) may retrieve and automatically apply to any uploaded applications, one or more security policies which were fully defined during the iterations of 230. The security policies are implemented such that, for any application identified by a particular application group meet the security requirements. The system (e.g., application admission controller 130) will test any security policy that includes that application group in its group inclusion list (or omits it from its group exclusion list, as applicable) against that application. Preferably, the full definitions are also independently stored for later retrieval);
determining a first rule set (set of security policies) for the first network requirement (group policy) (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2A [0058-0063], in steps 220-237, application groups are associated/assigned to different group policies used to deploy and manage the applications in each group. At 237, the set of application groups are added to or associated with each partial definition to form a full definition of each policy, as applicable to the policy group. The full definitions are combined to generate a full definition for the policy group as a whole);
wherein the first rule set (initial set security policies) comprises a first required data feed (initial configuration of security policies), of a plurality of required data feeds (group policy includes security policies), and a first required data load (Testing the initial set of security policies) (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2A, [0043;0055] an initial set of security policies are provided that are used to test a group of applications that prepared for deployment);
determining a first aggregation weight (importance of a policy) corresponding to a first performance metric for the first network requirement (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2B, [0016; 0023] weighing the importance of security policies to the system as a whole compared to other policies in the application group policy);
modifying the first required data load (modifying security when a new application group is added) based on the first aggregation weight (based on the importance of the security policy in the application group policy) to generate a first modified rule set (Keezhuridathil, [0016; 0067] It is likely that new application groups will sometimes need to be added to the system, and the security policies will need to be updated accordingly. FIG. 2B illustrates a method to update the configuration of security policies in an application platform responsive to the addition of a new application group);
processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set to determine the first performance metric (Keezhuridathil [0009] automatically configuring the application platform, by a processor, according to the configuration file for each of the plurality of policy groups. According to the resulting configuration of the application platform, an admission controller of the application platform selectively tests an application designated for deployment to the application platform, based on containment of the application within an application group, to determine whether it meets the requirement of each policy associated with the application group in the configuration file).
Keezhuridathil did not explicitly disclose generating for display, in a user interface, a first visualization of a first cloud application characteristic for the first cloud application based on the first performance metric simultaneously with respective visualizations for other cloud application characteristics for the first cloud application.
Carrigan discloses generating for display, in a user interface, a first visualization of a first cloud application characteristic for the first cloud application based on the first performance metric simultaneously with respective visualizations for other cloud application characteristics for the first cloud application (Carrigan [0301] FIG. 5O shows a user interface 5090-b, which is analogous to the user interface 5090-a shown in FIG. 5M, but shows the plurality of applications grouped by category (e.g., instead of as a single list of applications). For example, the user interface 5090-b groups the mail application 5092 and the messaging application 5094 together in a “Messaging” category, groups the first news application 5096 and a second news application 5120 in a “News” category, and groups the doorbell applications 5098 and a home application 5134 together in a “Home” category. The user interface 5090-b also includes an affordance 5112 (e.g., which, when activated by a user input 5150, accepts and/or confirms the current configuration of applications and/or categories in the user interface 5090-b), and an affordance 5114 (e.g., which, when activated by a user input 5148, ceases to display the user interface 5090-b and/or ceases to configure the computer system 100 to display summary content).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for providing policies for controlling traffic generated by a group of applications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Carrigan into the invention of Keezhuridathil. The motivation would have been to determine that a first notification includes first content meeting relevance criteria and a second notification includes second content meeting the relevance criteria, concurrently displaying the first and second notifications within a user interface object, Carrigan [Abstract].
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan the method of claim 2, wherein processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set to determine whether to deploy the first cloud application to the first cloud computing network further comprises:
determining the first performance metric by processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set (determine whether performance of an application meets the predetermined performance requirement a policy); and weighting the first performance metric based on the first aggregation weight to determine a first weighted performance metric (weighing the importance of security policies) (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2B, [0009;0016; 0023;0067] an application admission controller of an application platform may selectively test/weigh an application designated for deployment to the application platform, based on a determination whether it meets the predetermined performance requirement of each/aggregated policy associated with the application group in the configuration file. The importance of security policies of applications deployed in the system, may be weighed and the users of the applications. It is likely that new application groups will sometimes need to be added to the system, and the security policies will need to be updated accordingly. FIG. 2B illustrates a method to update the configuration of security policies in an application platform responsive to the addition of a new application group).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose method of claim 2, wherein processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set to determine whether to deploy the first cloud application to the first cloud computing network further comprises: determining the first performance metric by processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set (group policy applied to an application group) (Keezhuridathil [0009] an application platform is automatically configured by a processor, according to a configuration file for each of the plurality of policy groups. According to the resulting configuration of the application platform, an admission controller of the application platform selectively tests/weighs performance an application designated for deployment to the application platform, based on containment of the application within an application group, to determine whether the performance meets the predetermined performance requirement of each policy associated with the application group in the configuration file);
determining a first field in a first visualization corresponding to the first network requirement; and populating the first field in the first visualization with the first performance metric (Carrigan [0009;0301] an admission controller of the application platform selectively tests/weighs performance an application designated for deployment to the application platform, based on containment of the application within an application group, to determine whether the performance meets the predetermined performance requirement of each policy associated with the application group in the configuration file. The result of an application’s performance may be displayed as indicated in fig. 5O which shows a user interface 5090-b, which is analogous to the user interface 5090-a shown in FIG. 5M, but shows the plurality of applications grouped by category (e.g., instead of as a single list of applications). For example, the user interface 5090-b groups the mail application 5092 and the messaging application 5094 together in a “Messaging” category, groups the first news application 5096 and a second news application 5120 in a “News” category, and groups the doorbell applications 5098 and a home application 5134 together in a “Home” category. The user interface 5090-b also includes an affordance 5112 (e.g., which, when activated by a user input 5150, accepts and/or confirms the current configuration of applications and/or categories in the user interface 5090-b), and an affordance 5114 (e.g., which, when activated by a user input 5148, ceases to display the user interface 5090-b and/or ceases to configure the computer system 100 to display summary content).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein retrieving the plurality of network requirements (application group policy) for the first cloud application based on the first application category (each application group) further comprises (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2, [0058], at step 220, a plurality of application groups are established and defined. Each application group is defined according to a rule which determines whether a particular application is contained in that application group):
determining a first application characteristic corresponding to the first application category (Keezhuridathil, fig. 2, [0068], at step 220 a plurality of application groups are established and defined. Each application group is defined according to a rule that group applications with similar characteristics into the same group and managed with a group policy); and
determining the plurality of network requirements (group policies) based on the first application characteristic (application group) (Keezhuridathil, [0011] an application platform, an admission controller of the application platform selectively tests an application designated for deployment to the application platform, based on containment/characteristics of the application within an application group, to determine whether it meets the requirement of each policy associated with the application group in the configuration file).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 1,
Regarding claim 16, Keezhuridathil discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media, comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations (Keezhuridathil [0101] discloses a device 300 may perform operations based on the processor 320 executing software instructions stored by a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as the memory 330 and/or the storage component 340) comprising:
The rest of the limitations of claim 16 are rejected with rational similar to that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keezhuridathil et al. (US 2024/0193274 A1), in view of Carrigan et al. (US 2025/0315278 A1), further in view of Bragstad et al. (US 2017/0187796 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set to determine whether to deploy the first cloud application to the first cloud computing network further comprises: but did not explicitly disclose determining the first performance metric by processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set; determining a threshold metric for deploying the first cloud application; and comparing the first performance metric to the threshold metric.
Bragstad discloses determining the first performance metric by processing the first cloud application (performance of a streaming application) using the first modified rule set (optimizing the performance of the stream application); determining a threshold metric for deploying the first cloud application; and comparing the first performance metric to the threshold metric (comparing current performance of the streaming application to at least one defined performance threshold) (Bragstad, figs. 5 & 11, [0055;0076, claim 2], a streams manager monitors the performance of a streaming application by comparing current performance of the streaming application to at least one defined performance threshold, determining an operator in the flow graph is under-performing and can be optimized, sending a request to a cloud manager to provision at least one virtual machine. Fig. 11 discloses security encryption being used or available to be used at the physical location where the streaming application is been deployed and if the application meets the security requirements).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keezhuridathil, Carrigan and Bragstad because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for providing policies for controlling traffic generated by a group of applications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Bragstad into the invention of Keezhuridathil and Carrigan. The motivation would have been a streams manager or the cloud manager can then determine a preferred virtual machine of the candidates to deploy the operator based on the physical location attributes. The streams manager then modifies the flow graph so one or more operators of the streaming application are deployed to a preferred virtual machine determined according to the physical location attributes of the preferred virtual machine, Bragstad [Abstract].
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keezhuridathil et al. (US 2024/0193274 A1), in view of Carrigan et al. (US 2025/0315278 A1), further in view of Chawla et al. (US 2024/0095111 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan the method of claim 2, wherein processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set to determine whether to deploy the first cloud application to the first cloud computing network further comprises: determining a first weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting the first performance metric based on the first aggregation weight; determining a second weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting a second performance metric based on a second aggregation weight; and generating an aggregated performance metric based on aggregating the first weighted performance metric and the second weighted performance metric.
Chawla discloses determining a first weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting the first performance metric based on the first aggregation weight; determining a second weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting a second performance metric based on a second aggregation weight; and generating an aggregated performance metric based on aggregating the first weighted performance metric and the second weighted performance metric (Chawla [0090] an application assessor 325 may determine or identify the performance metrics 440 of an application 340 of one or more versions 435. The application assessor 325 may categorize, arrange, and otherwise group the performance metrics 440 by versions 435. The aggregated performance metrics 440 may include a first subset of the performance metrics 440A for the first version 435A of the application 340 and a second subset of the performance metrics 440B for the second version 435B of the application 340. The application assessor 325 may identify the version 435 with which the performance metrics 440 is associated based on the version identifier indicated in the metadata. The application assessor 325 may identify which version 435 (e.g., the first version 435A) is an upgrade to the application 435 relative to a previous version 435 (e.g., the second version 435B) based on the version identifier of the metadata).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keezhuridathil, Carrigan and Chawla because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for detecting the performance different applications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Chawla into the invention of Keezhuridathil and Carrigan. The motivation would have been to determine, based at least on the failure, the first performance metrics, and the second performance metrics, that an upgrade to the application to the first version from the second version is a cause of the failure in the session. The device may store an association between the first version of the application and the determination that the upgrade is the cause of the failure in the session, Chawla [Abstract].
Regarding claim 6, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein processing the first cloud application using the first modified rule set to determine whether to deploy the first cloud application to the first cloud computing network further comprises: but did not explicitly disclose determining a first weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting the first performance metric based on the first aggregation weight; determining a second weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting a second performance metric based on a second aggregation weight and generating for display, in a user interface, a first visualization comprising the first weighted performance metric and the second weighted performance metric.
Chawla discloses determining a first weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting the first performance metric based on the first aggregation weight; determining a second weighted performance metric for the first cloud application based on weighting a second performance metric based on a second aggregation weight (Chawla [0090] an application assessor 325 may determine or identify the performance metrics 440 of an application 340 of one or more versions 435. The application assessor 325 may categorize, arrange, and otherwise group the performance metrics 440 by versions 435. The aggregated performance metrics 440 may include a first subset of the performance metrics 440A for the first version 435A of the application 340 and a second subset of the performance metrics 440B for the second version 435B of the application 340. The application assessor 325 may identify the version 435 with which the performance metrics 440 is associated based on the version identifier indicated in the metadata. The application assessor 325 may identify which version 435 (e.g., the first version 435A) is an upgrade to the application 435 relative to a previous version 435 (e.g., the second version 435B) based on the version identifier of the metadata); and
generating for display, in a user interface, a first visualization comprising the first weighted performance metric and the second weighted performance metric (Chawla [0111] discloses an administrative device 315 for presentation via the user interface 480. A graphical user interface (GUI) of an application for managing machines 310 running on the administrative device 315. Upon receipt, the administrative device 315 may display or provide the analytics information via the user interface 480. Using the user interface 480, the user (e.g., the network administrator of the network 170) of the administrative device 315 may navigate various portions of the analytics information. Examples of the user interface 480 displaying the analytics information may be found on FIGS. 7A-C).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 5.
Regarding claim(s) 19 and 20, the claim is rejected with rational similar to that of claim(s) 5 and 6, respectively.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keezhuridathil et al. (US 2024/0193274 A1), in view of Carrigan et al. (US 2025/0315278 A1), further in view of Shimogawa (US 2022/0222164 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein modifying the first required data load based on the first aggregation weight to generate the first modified rule set further comprises:
But did not explicitly disclose determining a first amount corresponding to the first required data load; determining a reduction to the first amount based on the first aggregation weight; and generating the first modified rule set based on the reduction to the first amount.
Shimogawa discloses determining a first amount corresponding to the first required data load; determining a reduction to the first amount based on the first aggregation weight; and generating the first modified rule set based on the reduction to the first amount (Shimogawa, [0036] an application will perform normally when it is operation at a first required load amount . In order to monitor whether the application is operating normally, an often used method cause a monitoring program to monitor the state of the application when feed with the required normal load and allowing the operator to refer to visualized performance information to reduce the operation load of the operator).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keezhuridathil, Carrigan and Shimogawa because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for detecting the performance different applications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Shimogawa into the invention of Keezhuridathil and Carrigan. The motivation would have been to acquire a current value of a load of the system and a record value of a load requested to collect the logs for the plurality of items; when a total of the current value and the record value exceeds a threshold, determining a log collection target item from the plurality of items based on access counts of logs accessed for performance monitoring among the logs collected for the plurality of items; and collecting a log for the determined log collection target item, Shimogawa [Abstract].
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keezhuridathil et al. (US 2024/0193274 A1), in view of Carrigan et al. (US 2025/0315278 A1), further in view of Adarsh et al. (US 2017/0024396 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein generating the first modified rule set further comprises: but did not explicitly disclose determining a first priority of the first required data feed; determining a threshold priority based on the first aggregation weight; and determining to modify the first required data feed to a second required data feed when generating the first modified rule set based on comparing the first priority to the threshold priority.
Adarsha discloses determining a first priority (scoring each performance feature) of the first required data feed (Adarsha [Abstract; 0010] performance data for a plurality of cloud-based application deployment configurations is received. A database is generated, the database including associations of the configurations with a plurality of performance features, and including an association of a performance score to each feature. That is, the score of each performance feature indicates the first required priority placed on the feature that is feed into the system and stored in a database);
determining a threshold priority based on the first aggregation weight (Adarsha, fig.3, [Abstract; 0010] a database is generated, that includes associations of the configurations with a plurality of performance features, and including an association of a performance score to each feature, where the score of each performance feature indicates the first required priority placed on the feature that is feed into the system and stored in a database. A recommendation of a first configuration for cloud-based deployment of the application is determined based upon performance scores from the database, where the recommendation represents threshold priority based on the first aggregation weight. The determined recommendation is then sent to a computing device for display and/or to initiate execution of the application according to the recommendation); and
determining to modify the first required data feed (modify the requirements) to a second required data feed (updated requirements) when generating the first modified rule set based on comparing the first priority to the threshold priority (Adarsha, fig.7B, [0041] computing device 104 may provide a display via the display apparatus 120 (FIG. 1), to modify the requirements that were previously received by system 102. In an example, the modification may take place as a result of the recommendations 702. A user to supply a change, update, or other modification 714 for one of the original requirements 602 (e.g., changing “total cost should not exceed $1000” to “total cost should not exceed $2000”). The first computing device may then in turn send, and system 102 may receive, the modification 714. Responsive to receipt of the modification 714, system 102 may determine a second or updated recommendation and send the send the second or updated recommendation to the first computing device for display).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Keezhuridathil, Carrigan and Adarsha because these teachings are from the same field of endeavor with respect to disclosing techniques for detecting the performance different applications.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the strategies by Adarsha into the invention of Keezhuridathil and Carrigan. The motivation would have been to use performance data for a plurality of cloud-based application deployment configurations is received to generate a database including associations of the configurations with a plurality of performance features, and including an association of a performance score to each feature. A set of performance requirements for cloud-based deployment of a first application is received. A recommendation of a first configuration for cloud-based deployment of the first application is determined based upon performance scores from the database, Adarsha [Abstract]
Regarding claim 10, Keezhuridathil, and Carrigan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein generating the first modified rule set further comprises: determining a first priority of the first required data feed (Adarsha [Abstract; 0010] performance data for a plurality of cloud-based application deployment configurations is received. A database is generated, the database including associations of the configurations with a plurality of performance features, and including an association of a performance score to each feature. That is, the score of each performance feature indicates the first required priority placed on the feature that is feed into the system and stored in a database);
determining a plurality of data feeds (plurality of performance features) available based on the first priority (Adarsha, fig.3, [Abstract; 0010] a database is generated, that includes associations of the configurations with a plurality of performance features, and including an association of a performance score to each feature, where the score of each performance feature indicates the first required priority placed on the feature that is feed into the system and stored in a database. A recommendation of a first configuration for cloud-based deployment of the application is determined based upon performance scores from the database, where the recommendation represents threshold priority based on the first aggregation weight. The determined recommendation is then sent to a computing device for display and/or to initiate execution of the application according to the recommendation); and
determining to modify the first required data feed to a second required data feed when generating the first modified rule set based on the first required data feed not being available based on the first priority (Adarsha, fig.7B, [0041] computing device 104 may provide a display via the display apparatus 120 (FIG. 1), to modify the requirements that were previously received by system 102. In an example, the modification may take place as a result of the recommendations 702. A user to supply a change, update, or other modification 714 for one of the original requirements 602 (e.g., changing “total cost should not exceed $1000” to “total cost should not exceed $2000”). The first computing device may then in turn send, and system 102 may receive, the modification 714. Responsive to receipt of the modification 714, system 102 may determine a second or updated recommendation and send the send the second or updated recommendation to the first computing device for display).
The motivation to combine is similar to that of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11 – 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXON F DABIPI whose telephone number is (571)270-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/D.F.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/GLENFORD J MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights