DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 September 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission was received on 03 September 2026. It is noted that the pages are not numbered sequentially, but rather the numbering is restarted for each section, and therefore the page numbers on page 1 do not match those of the subsequent pages. For convenience, Applicant’s numbering will be used for reference throughout this Office action.
The amendments to the specification do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii) that replacement paragraphs must include markings showing all changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph, where underlining is to be used to show added text and strikethrough or double brackets are to be used to show deleted text. The replacement paragraphs for at least paragraphs 0027 and 0052 do not clearly reflect the changes previously made and do not correctly reflect the 21 February 2025 versions of the paragraphs. Paragraph 0027 appears to include markings other than those set forth in 37 CFR 1.121(b), such as dashes and pluses. All of the replacement paragraphs appear to include changes (added and/or deleted text) that are not clearly marked as required. The amendments to the specification have NOT been entered because the actual amendments are not clear. None of the amendments are entered because entry-in-part would only confuse the record. Applicant is again hereby required to resubmit the amendments to the specification in a manner fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(b). The objections to the disclosure for informalities, the objection to the amendment filed 12 September 2022 under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) as introducing new matter, and the objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter are maintained as set forth below.
By the above submission, Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the various objections to the specification, Applicant generally argues that the replacement paragraphs are presented with appropriate amendment markings (pages 1-2 of the present remarks). However, as noted above, the paragraphs still include unclear markings and do not clearly reflect the changes made relative to the previous version of the paragraphs, and have therefore not been entered. Applicant is required to resubmit the amendments to the specification in a manner compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(b).
It is also noted that although Applicant has acknowledged the new matter objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) and the objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter (page 1 of the present remarks), it does not appear that Applicant has otherwise addressed or responded to these objections. As per 37 CFR 1.111(b), Applicant must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement, Applicant generally asserts that the specification describes various steps such as monitoring whether a user opens a file and communicating counters, accumulating information among subscribers, and determining whether a file format should be treated as obsolete based on the counter and a threshold (page 3 of the present remarks, no evidence cited). However, first, it is noted that Applicant has not provided any citations to the specification in support of where such features are described. More significantly, Applicant has not addressed the actual limitations at issue in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), namely the updating of the policy. It is maintained that there appears to be no clear description of updating the policy, and therefore, there is not clear written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, Applicant argues that the claims do not attempt to claim an abstract absence of activity without context but rather the claims allegedly distinguish between alternative user responses to a particular security notification (pages 4-5 of the present remarks). However, the claims do not clearly recite that the opening or avoidance of opening is explicitly in response to the notification. Further, this does not address the issues raised with respect to the language of “intentionally avoiding” opening the file. If it is intended that the action of determining whether the file is opened or not within a particular time frame in response to the receipt of the notification, then it is recommended that the claim be amended to explicitly state such a time frame or response, as long as such features are supported by the specification. Additionally, as noted below, there are many additional remaining issues of indefiniteness that have not clearly been addressed.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tadic et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0018464, in view of Manadhata et al, US Patent 8621233, and with particular reference to independent Claim 1, Applicant generally argues that while Tadic discloses identifying or managing an obsolete format, this is different from observing whether users open or intentionally avoid files, aggregating observations across multiple devices, and using the resulting counter to update a security policy governing subsequent security treatment of the format (pages 6-8 of the present remarks, no particular evidence cited). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., updating a security policy governing subsequent security treatment of the format) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Manadhata was relied upon for teaching that the remote server collects information from a plurality of users at a plurality of computer devices (see column 10, lines 5-22; Figure 1; and column 3, line 36-column 4, line 62, as previously cited). Further, Applicant has not provided any evidence or explanation of why Tadic is considered not to teach the other features noted; Applicant has only provided a conclusory allegation of a difference without reference to any particular disclosures in Tadic or any particular language in the claims.
Applicant also generally argues that the file or malware analysis in Manadhata does not teach the claimed use of distributed user response telemetry as the input to an obsolete format counter that controls a security policy update (page 8 of the present remarks, no evidence cited). Again, Applicant has not provided any evidence or explanation of why Manadhata is considered not to teach the features noted; Applicant has only provided a conclusory allegation of a difference without reference to any particular disclosures in Manadhata or any particular language in the claims.
Applicant further argues that no explanation was provided of why one of ordinary skill would modify the references (pages 8-9 of the present remarks). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation was found in the combined teachings of the references, namely Tadic’s discussion of mitigating obsolescence (Tadic, paragraph 0042, as previously cited) in combination with Manadhata’s discussion of preventing malicious actions by quarantining (Manadhata, column 10, lines 17-22, as previously cited).
Applicant again alleges that the proposed combination would still lack the sequence of monitoring user interaction, adjusting and aggregating an obsolete counter across multiple computer devices, applying a threshold to the aggregating information, updating a security policy responsive to the threshold, and enforcing the updated policy against the file (page 9 of the present remarks, no evidence cited). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., enforcing an updated policy) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, once again, Applicant has not provided any evidence or explanation of why the cited art is considered not to teach the features noted.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Specification
As noted in the previous Office actions, the amendments to the specification filed 21 February 2025 were not fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(b) and have not been entered, and must be resubmitted in a manner fully compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b). As noted above, the present amendments to the specification are also not fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(b) and have not been entered, and because of the numerous unclear markings and/or omissions from the paragraphs, they have not been considered further. The objection to the disclosure for informalities; the objection to the amendment filed 12 September 2022 under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) as introducing new matter; and the objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter are NOT withdrawn, because the amendments were not entered as detailed above and in the Office actions mailed 27 March 2025 and 03 June 2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes minor grammatical and other errors. For example, in paragraph 0024, line 38 (see page 3 of the 21 February 2025 response), there is no generic description provided for “FORTIDDOS”. It is noted that the proposed amendment of “FORTI Distributed Denial of Service” (see page 4 of the 21 February 2025 response) does not clearly provide a generic description of what this product does. In paragraph 0027, line 41 (see page 5 of the response filed 13 March 2023), it appears that “format” may be intended to read “formats”; it is noted that the proposed amendment (see pages 4-5 of the 21 February 2025 response) appears to remove earlier amendments made and does not clearly reflect the most recent version of the paragraph. In paragraph 0052, lines 5 and 9 (see page 5 of the response filed 13 March 2023), it appears that the reference to “operation monitoring module 607” should instead use reference character 605; it is noted that the proposed amendment changes references to “obsolete counter module 607” to also use reference character 605, which appears to be inconsistent with the drawings (see page 6 of the 21 February 2025 response). Further, the proposed amendment does not appear to reflect earlier amendments to the paragraph. In paragraph 0060, lines 3-10 (see the specification as originally filed), it appears that the list could be clarified by separating the list items by semicolons, as it appears that certain list items may include internal commas. The proposed amendment appears to add nested parentheses, which also makes the list further unclear. It appears that there may be intended to be four list items: hard disk drives, solid state drives, optical discs, and RAID storage. These items should be more clearly delineated.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The amendment filed 12 September 2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “an obsolete file database”, “a file format corresponding to a target application”, and “an obsolete file format that has been replaced with a current file format and without security patch support” (see amended paragraph 0007, pages 2-3 of the 12 September 2022 response).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
It is again noted that, if the previously proposed amendment to paragraph 0007 (page 2 of the 21 February 2025 response) were resubmitted and entered, this objection would be overcome.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Independent Claims 1 and 14 were previously amended to recite “wherein the security policy is updated response to [sic] the obsolete counter surpassing a threshold at the remote server”, noting that the present amendments only correct the grammar of “response to” to read “responsive to”. Although the specification generally discloses a security policy, there is not clear description of updating a security policy. Therefore, there is not clear antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in the specification. For further detail, see below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failure to comply with the written description requirement and the rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite are NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 14 were previously amended to recite “wherein the security policy is updated response to [sic] the obsolete counter surpassing a threshold at the remote server”, and it is noted that the present amendments only correct the grammar of “response to” to read “responsive to”. Although the specification generally discloses a security policy (see paragraph 0051) and generally discloses determining a format is obsolete if the counter is over a threshold (e.g. paragraph 0052), there is not clear description of updating the policy and no clear mention of taking any action responsive to the counter surpassing a threshold. Applicant has also still not pointed out in the present response where the amended claims are supported. Therefore, there is not clear written description of the claimed subject matter in the specification. See also MPEP § 2163.04.
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a user… intentionally avoids opening the specific file” in lines 22-24 and “the user intentionally avoiding opening the specific file” in lines 29-30. The use of the terms “intentionally” and “avoids” are unclear, because the intent of the user is a subjective state of mind, and because avoiding opening may still result in the file being opened (i.e. the user can attempt to avoid it but it could still happen). It is not clear how to determine whether the user attempted to avoid opening the file, in contrast to determining whether the file is opened or not within a particular time frame, for example. See also MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “a threshold” in line 44. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the threshold count in line 38 or a distinct threshold. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the file” in lines 4-5. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the specific file or a different file.
Claim 3 recites “the computer” in lines 4 and 5-6. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims; for example, it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to one of the plurality of computer devices recited in Claim 1 or a different computer. Claim 3 further recites “a network to which the computer is connected” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the data communication network or a distinct network. The claim additionally recites “the file” in line 4. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the specific file or a different file.
Claim 6 recites “the file” in line 3. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the specific file.
Claim 8 recites “when an embedded file is determined to exist: determining, by the security device, a file format of the embedded file; determining, by the security device, whether the file format of the embedded file is obsolete” in lines 5-9. These steps are not connected by a conjunction (e.g. “and” or “or”) and therefore it is not clear whether both steps are required or if they are alternatives. The claim further recites “determining the specific file format is obsolete” in lines 10-11. However, this immediately follows determining whether the file format of the embedded file is obsolete, so it is unclear why this refers to determining a different file format (the specific file format) is obsolete. Claim 8 additionally recites “security action” in line 12. The lack of an article or other descriptor (e.g. “a”, “the”, “said”) makes it unclear whether this is intended to refer to a previously recited security action or a distinct security action. The claim also recites “the file” in line 12. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the specific file recited in Claim 1 or to the embedded file recited in Claim 8.
Claim 9 recites “the file format” in lines 2-3. Because there are plural formats recited in Claim 1, it is not clear to which of these formats this limitation is intended to refer. Claim 9 further recites “a remote server” in line 6. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same server as in Claim 1 or a distinct remote server.
Claim 12 recites “the file” in line 4. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the specific file or a distinct file.
Claim 13 recites “a threshold” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this threshold is the same as the threshold count in Claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “the network packets” in line 10. There is not clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim further recites “a user… intentionally avoids opening the specific file” in lines 23-25 and “the user intentionally avoiding opening the specific file” in lines 30-31. The use of the terms “intentionally” and “avoids” are unclear, because the intent of the user is a subjective state of mind, and because avoiding opening may still result in the file being opened (i.e. the user can attempt to avoid it but it could still happen). It is not clear how to determine whether the user attempted to avoid opening the file, in contrast to determining whether the file is opened or not within a particular time frame, for example. See also MPEP § 2173.05(b). The claim further recites “a threshold” in line 45. It is not clear whether “a threshold” is intended to refer to the threshold count in line 39 or a distinct threshold. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite
Claim 15 recites “a network interface” in line 15. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the same interface recited in line 6 or to a distinct interface. The claim further recites “the obsolete file database” in lines 24-25. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the obsolete file format database. The claim additionally recites “the user… intentionally avoiding opening the specific file” in lines 30-32 and “the user intentionally avoiding opening the specific file” in lines 37-38. The use of the terms “intentionally” and “avoiding” are unclear, because the intent of the user is a subjective state of mind, and because avoiding opening may still result in the file being opened (i.e. the user can attempt to avoid it but it could still happen). It is not clear how to determine whether the user attempted to avoid opening the file, in contrast to determining whether the file is opened or not within a particular time frame, for example. See also MPEP § 2173.05(b). The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite
Claims not specifically referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadic et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0018464, in view of Manadhata et al, US Patent 8621233.
In reference to Claim 1, Tadic discloses a method that includes storing indications of obsolete file formats in a database (paragraph 0053); a security device capturing a file received through network packets on a network interface on a computer (Figure 3, step 302; paragraph 0033, receive files); determining a file format of the file based on a file extension and whether the format is obsolete by looking up in the database (Figure 3, step 304; paragraph 0034, determine type of file such as by extension matching; see also paragraph 0053); and responsive to the format being obsolete (Figure 3, step 310; paragraph 0042, determine how to mitigate or remedy vulnerability from obsolescence) notifying a user, monitoring actions of opening or avoiding opening the specific file, adjusting a counter where a threshold determines whether the format is obsolete, and taking a security action in response to the threshold, where a security policy is updated in response to the counter surpassing the threshold (paragraph 0042, mitigation and remedy actions; paragraph 0066, counter, and see also paragraph 0065, owner type of a supporting program is considered, i.e. whether the file is or can be opened; paragraph 0049, rules, i.e. policy; paragraph 0042, updating to be less vulnerable to obsolescence). However, Tadic does not explicitly disclose preventing storage of the file or collecting information from users.
Manadhata discloses a method that includes preventing storage of files determined to be dangerous or malicious based on file attributes or descriptions (column 10, lines 5-22; see also column 5, lines 27-42 for further details of path and file attributes including type), and further discloses a remote server collecting information from a plurality of users at a plurality of computer devices (column 10, lines 5-22; see also Figure 1 and column 3, line 36-column 4, line 62, where the security server receives information from endpoints). In combination with the teachings of Tadic, this would suggest quarantining or preventing storage of dangerous files, such as those with obsolete formats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tadic to include the storage prevention or quarantining as well as collecting information from users, as taught by Manadhata, in order to prevent a file from performing malicious actions (see Tadic, paragraph 0042, mitigating obsolescence, and Manadhata, column 10, lines 17-22, preventing malicious actions by quarantining).
In reference to Claims 2-4, Tadic and Manadhata further disclose an antivirus application scanning files, a network security device intercepting files, or an add-on to a browser (Tadic, Figures 1 and 2, system 100, vulnerabilities system 104/204; see also paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0033; see also Manadhata throughout, discussing detection of malware).
In reference to Claims 6 and 7, Tadic and Manadhata further disclose determining the format based on an extension, file structure, header, or magic bytes (Tadic, paragraphs 0034-0035, extensions, magic bytes, rules for determining object type).
In reference to Claims 8, 12, and 13, Tadic and Manadhata further disclose determining a file format of an embedded file and whether the format of the embedded file is obsolete, and performing an action on the embedded file if the format is obsolete (Tadic, Figure 3, step 304; paragraph 0034; Figure 3, step 310; paragraph 0042; see also Manadhata, column 10, lines 5-22) as well as monitoring and counting the actions (see Tadic, paragraph 0066).
In reference to Claim 9, Tadic and Manadhata further disclose checking the format in an obsolete file format list or requesting a remote server to check the format (see Tadic, paragraph 0008; see also paragraphs 0034 and 0053).
In reference to Claim 11, Tadic and Manadhata further disclose sending a warning, quarantining the file, converting the file to a new format, deleting the file, or blocking transmission of the file (see Tadic, paragraph 0042, mitigation and remedy actions include converting object; see also Manadhata, column 10, lines 5-22).
Claim 14 is directed to a software implementation of the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
