DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This Office action is in response to communications dated 6/2/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites “…retrieving, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determining utilization of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detecting a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implementing a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload” (independent claim 1, lines 2-16).
The Examiner is uncertain if the recitation of “…retrieving, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determining utilizations of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume…” means any of the following possible interpretations:
“utilizations of the storage volumes” of “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” are determined based on retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” and comparison of the retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” to “a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume” of the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits”;
“utilizations of the storage volumes” of “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” are determined based on retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” and comparison of the retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” to “a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume” of some set of storage volumes; or
some other possible interpretation.
For the sake of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the recitation of “…retrieving, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determining utilization of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detecting a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implementing a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload” of independent claim 1 to read
“…retrieving, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determining utilization of the storage volumes with QoS limits based on a comparison of the IOPS limits of the storage volumes with QoS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits; detecting a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload to the storage volumes with QoS limits from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding the threshold utilization value exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload to the storage volumes with QoS limits from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding the threshold utilization value exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implementing a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload.”
Dependent claims 2-7, which ultimately depend from independent claim 1, are rejected for carrying the same deficiencies.
Claims 8-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claim 8 recites “…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilization of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storge volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload” (independent claim 8, lines 4-18).
The Examiner is uncertain if the recitation of “…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilizations of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume…” means any of the following possible interpretations:
“utilizations of the storage volumes” of “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” are determined based on retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” and comparison of the retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” to “a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume” of the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits”;
“utilizations of the storage volumes” of “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” are determined based on retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” and comparison of the retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” to “a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume” of some set of storage volumes; or
some other possible interpretation.
For the sake of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the recitation of “…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilization of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storge volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload” of independent claim 8 to read
“…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilization of the storage volumes with QoS limits based on a comparison of the IOPS limits of the storage volumes with QoS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload to the storage volumes with QoS limits from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding the threshold utilization value exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload to the storage volumes with QoS limits from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding the threshold utilization value exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload.”
Dependent claims 9-14, which ultimately depend from independent claim 8, are rejected for carrying the same deficiencies.
Claims 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claim 15 recites “…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilization of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storge volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload” (independent claim 15, lines 5-19).
The Examiner is uncertain if the recitation of “…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilizations of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume…” means any of the following possible interpretations:
“utilizations of the storage volumes” of “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” are determined based on retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” and comparison of the retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” to “a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume” of the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits”;
“utilizations of the storage volumes” of “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” are determined based on retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” and comparison of the retrieved IOPS limits for the “storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits” to “a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume” of some set of storage volumes; or
some other possible interpretation.
For the sake of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the recitation of “…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilization of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storge volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload” of independent claim 15 to read
“…retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilization of the storage volumes with QoS limits based on a comparison of the IOPS limits of the storage volumes with QoS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload to the storage volumes with QoS limits from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding the threshold utilization value exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload to the storage volumes with QoS limits from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume of the storage volumes with QoS limits that has utilization exceeding the threshold utilization value exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload.”
Dependent claims 16-20, which ultimately depend from independent claim 15, are rejected for carrying the same deficiencies.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,604 (“Nossenson”). The following tables, in which similarities between claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application and claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of Nossenson are highlighted in bold, and accompanying reasoning illustrate that claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of Nossenson:
Instant Application, Claim 1
Nossenson, Claims 1-2
1. A method executed by one or more processors, comprising: retrieving, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determining utilizations of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detecting a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implementing a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload.
1. A method, comprising: retrieving, by a processor, from a data structure, latency associated with a plurality of storage pools, and a total number of I/O requests (IOPS) directed towards storage volumes associated with each storage pool, the data structure identifies each shared resource of a networked storage system including the plurality of storage pools, each storage pool having a storage capacity to store data using the storage volumes, wherein the storage volumes comprise volumes with and without quality of service (QOS) limits, wherein the retrieved latency indicates a delay in processing I/O requests and is based on a delay associated with storage volumes of each storage pool without assigned QoS limits; determining, by the processor, a storage pool utilization has reached a threshold value, the utilization based on a total number of IOPS directed towards the storage pool and a predicted IOPS limit, the predicted IOPS limit based on a maximum allowed latency determined from a relationship on the retrieved latency and the total number of IOPS directed towards storage volumes; detecting, by the processor, a bully workload based on a numerical value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage pool and a rising step function; and implementing, by the processor, a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on a victim workload.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the processor, the victim workload based on a numerical value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage pool and the rising step function.
Claims 1-2 of Nossenson do not appear to explicitly claim “the first value being higher than the second value”; however, the Examiner notes that the corrective action implemented to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload means that a first IOPS value associated with the bully workload must be greater than (i.e., higher than) a second IOPS value associated with the victim workload. It would have been obvious that a first IOPS value associated with the bully workload must be greater than (i.e., higher than) a second IOPS value associated with the victim workload because a workload with a greater IOPS value would by definition be a bully workload, and a workload with a lesser IOPS value would by definition be a victim workload.
Instant Application, Claim 8
Nossenson, Claims 8-9
8. A non-transitory, machine readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions comprising machine executable code, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to: retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilizations of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload.
8. A non-transitory, machine readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions comprising machine executable code, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to: retrieve from a data structure latency associated with a plurality of storage pools, and a total number of I/O requests (IOPS) directed towards storage volumes associated with each storage pool, the data structure identifies each shared resource of a networked storage system including the plurality of storage pools, each storage pool having a storage capacity to store data using the storage volumes, wherein the storage volumes comprise volumes with and without quality of service (QOS) limits, wherein the retrieved latency indicates a delay in processing I/O requests and is based on a delay associated with storage volumes of each storage pool without assigned QoS limits; determine a storage pool utilization has reached a threshold value, the utilization based on a total number of IOPS directed towards the storage pool and a predicted IOPS limit, the predicted IOPS limit based on a maximum allowed latency determined from a relationship based on the retrieved latency and the total number of IOPS directed towards storage volumes; detect a bully workload based on a numerical value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage pool and a rising step function; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on a victim workload.
9. The non-transitory, machine readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the machine executable code further causes the machine to: identify the victim workload based on a numerical value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage pool and the rising step function.
Claims 8-9 of Nossenson do not appear to explicitly claim “the first value being higher than the second value”; however, the Examiner notes that the corrective action implemented to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload means that a first IOPS value associated with the bully workload must be greater than (i.e., higher than) a second IOPS value associated with the victim workload. It would have been obvious that a first IOPS value associated with the bully workload must be greater than (i.e., higher than) a second IOPS value associated with the victim workload because a workload with a greater IOPS value would by definition be a bully workload, and a workload with a lesser IOPS value would by definition be a victim workload.
Instant Application, Claim 15
Nossenson, Claims 15-16
15. A system, comprising: a memory containing machine readable medium comprising machine executable code having stored thereon instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory to execute the machine executable code to: retrieve, from a data structure, input/output per second (IOPS) limits for storage volumes with quality of service (QoS) limits; determine utilizations of the storage volumes based on the IOPS limits and a total IOPS directed towards each storage volume; detect a bully workload and a victim workload associated with a storage volume with utilization exceeding a threshold utilization value, wherein the bully workload is identified based on a first value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage volumes from a starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using a function, and wherein the victim workload is identified based on a second value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage volumes from the starting moment when the utilization of the storage volume exceeds the threshold utilization value using the function, the first value being higher than the second value; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload.
15. A system, comprising: a memory containing machine readable medium comprising machine executable code having stored thereon instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory to execute the machine executable code to: retrieve from a data structure latency associated with a plurality of storage pools, and a total number of I/O requests (IOPS) directed towards storage volumes associated with each storage pool, the data structure identifies each shared resource of a networked storage system including the plurality of storage pools, each storage pool having a storage capacity to store data using the storage volumes, wherein the storage volumes comprise volumes with and without quality of service (QOS) limits, wherein the retrieved latency indicates a delay in processing I/O requests and is based on a delay associated with storage volumes of each storage pool without assigned QoS limits; determine a storage pool utilization has reached a threshold value, the utilization based on a total number of IOPS directed towards the storage pool and a predicted IOPS limit, the predicted IOPS limit based on a maximum allowed latency determined from a relationship based on the retrieved latency and the total number of IOPS directed towards storage volumes; detect a bully workload based on a numerical value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the bully workload for the storage pool and a rising step function; and implement a corrective action to reduce an impact of the bully workload on a victim workload.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the machine executable code further causes the processor to: identify the victim workload based on a numerical value determined from a total number of IOPS issued by the victim workload for the storage pool and the rising step function.
Claims 15-16 of Nossenson do not appear to explicitly claim “the first value being higher than the second value”; however, the Examiner notes that the corrective action implemented to reduce an impact of the bully workload on the victim workload means that a first IOPS value associated with the bully workload must be greater than (i.e., higher than) a second IOPS value associated with the victim workload. It would have been obvious that a first IOPS value associated with the bully workload must be greater than (i.e., higher than) a second IOPS value associated with the victim workload because a workload with a greater IOPS value would by definition be a bully workload, and a workload with a lesser IOPS value would by definition be a victim workload.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and is not relied upon for any rejection but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 11,740,796: teaches storing data among tiers of storage volumes within a storage system based on classification of the data associated with frequency of I/O operations for accessing the data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel C. Chappell whose telephone number is (571)272-5003. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800, Eastern.
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, Jared I. Rutz can be reached at (571)272-5535. 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.
Daniel C. Chappell
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2135
/Daniel C. Chappell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights