STRUCTURED STORAGE OF ACCESS DATA

§101 §112

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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments 112th Rejections: 112th rejection cited on 10/16/2025 has been withdrawn based on the amendments. However, based on the amendments new 112th rejected is cited for claims 16-20. 101 Rejections: With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Amended claim 1 recites a computing system that performs structured, policy-driven access data storage management based on metadata group classification and available capacity within structured memory. As amended, the claim is directed to a specific, practical architecture for enforcing real-time data governance constraints on behavioral metadata (i.e., access data) under system-level storage limitations. This practical implementation aligns closely with Example 42 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in which a claim directed to updating patient data across disparate platforms in real time was found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Like the standardization and real-time sharing of patient data in Example 42, the present claim normalizes disparate access events through a hierarchy of metadata classifications and allocates them in real time based on technical memory constraints and predefined usage policies”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites that as set forth in the Office Action, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of mental processes, including identifying access data, selecting a particular metadata group based on a metadata label, choosing a particular access data box based on a mapping and the selected metadata group, and ascertaining the available capacity of the selected access data box. These operations encompass observation, evaluation and judgment that can practically be performed in the human mind. The recitation of “automatically” merely instructs the claimed processor to perform the identified operations and does not, by itself, remove the underlying operations from the mental-process grouping. Although claim 1 additionally recites a metadata groups structure, an access data boxes structure and a mapping structure residing in digital memory, the recitation of computer-implemented structures does not necessarily establish integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application. The amended claims 1, 6 recite “(e) automatically enforcing, based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy defined in the mapping structure, one of: storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box; storing the access data in a different access data box defined as a spillover box in the mapping structure; or denying storage of the access data, wherein the enforcing is performed in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The amended claims 6, 16 recite “wherein the first metadata group is: defined by a metadata group structured residing in digital memory comprising the first metadata group and a second metadata group, wherein the first metadata group is ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy; and selected based on the metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). The amended claim 6 recites “the first access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure, the first access data box is ranked above the second access data box in an access data box hierarchy; and the first access data box is chosen based on a mapping between at least the metadata group and the first access data box” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Moreover, Applicant’s reliance on Example 42 has been considered but does not independently establish patent eligibility. Example 42 addresses a particular technological problem involving the exchange of medical information maintained in different formats across different computer systems. The example recites operations for converting no standardized information into a standardized format and transmitting notifications concerning updated medical records.In contrast, amended claim 1 recites identifying access data, selecting a metadata group, choosing an access data box, ascertaining available capacity and enforcing a capacity usage policy. Although Applicant characterizes the claimed operations as normalization and real-time allocation, the asserted similarity to Example 42 does not, by itself, establish that the claim provides a particular technological improvement.Rather, the claimed combination must be evaluated in light of the specification to determine whether it integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Under Step 2A, Prong One, the Office asserts that the claim recites an abstract idea. While Applicant disagrees, for purposes of argument, the claim is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The system recites specific memory-resident structures-metadata group structures, access data box structures, and a mapping structure containing capacity-aware policy logic-that enable automated enforcement of regulatory, investigative, and retention rules at the time access data is ingested….This approach provides a technical solution to a technical problem: how to enforce compliance and retention policies over high-volume access metadata without overburdening constrained memory systems. Just as in Example 42, the claimed invention improves system operation by converting disparate input (metadata-labeled access attempts) into structured outputs (policy-conforming storage behavior) in real time and across predefined hierarchies”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting specific memory-resident structures that enable automated enforcement of regulatory, investigative, and retention rules. Applicant further asserts that the claimed system provides a technical solution by automatically triaging, selecting, and allocating access data into prioritized containers based on system constraints and policy mappings. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the Office Action, the metadata groups structure, access data boxes structure, and mapping structure generally link the identified judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim broadly recites these structures based on the information they contain and their associated functions, without specifying a particular improvement in the technology. Further, although the claim recites automatically enforcing an available capacity usage policy by storing access data in a selected access data box, storing the access data in a spillover box, or denying storage, these limitations broadly specify storage-placement alternatives based on available capacity and predefined policies which are insignificant extra solution activities. The recitation of “automatically” merely instructs the processor to perform the identified operations and does not, by itself, establish an improvement to computer functionality. The Examiner has considered the additional elements individually and in combination. However, the asserted improvement must be supported by a technical explanation in the specification and reflected in the claimed invention. To the extent that the cited specification passages do not establish such an improvement, the claimed combination merely implements the identified classification and policy-based allocation operations in a computer storage environment and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(f), and 2106.05(h). With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Moreover, under Step 2B, the claim recites an inventive concept that is not well- understood, routine, or conventional. Prior art systems lack any disclosure or suggestion of the claimed memory-mapped metadata group hierarchy, access data box hierarchy, or real-time. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and are therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. The structured architecture, the technical constraints, and the specific operational logic integrate any abstract idea into a practical application and provide significantly more. Claims 6 and 16 are similarly amended and are therefore also patent eligible due to similar rationale, along with claims 2-5, 7-15, and 17-20 due to their dependency from an otherwise allowable base claim. Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is respectfully requested”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are well-understood, routine and convention activities as follows: -“a metadata groups structure residing in the digital memory and defining at least two metadata groups, each metadata group including at least one metadata label”, -“an access data boxes structure residing in the digital memory, defining at least two access data boxes, each access data box implemented as a discrete digital storage container”, -“a mapping structure residing in the digital memory, the mapping structure representing a mapping between the metadata groups structure and the access data boxes structure, the mapping structure including an available capacity usage policy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology. -"(e) automatically enforcing, based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy defined in the mapping structure, one of: storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box; storing the access data in a different access data box defined as a spillover box in the mapping structure; or denying storage of the access data, wherein the enforcing is performed in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is well-understood, routine and conventional activities as storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 6 and 16 recite the same limitations and the same arguments apply to claims 6 and 16 as well. Detailed explanation is provided in the 101 section below. 103 Rejections 103 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments. 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 16-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 recites “automatically enforcing, by the computing system, based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy, with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule”. However, it is unclear what operation is required to constitute the claimed enforcement. In particular, the amended claim no longer expressly recites managing the placement of access data or identifies a particular storage-management action performed as a result of enforcing the recited rule. Consequently, it is unclear whether the limitation requires the computing system to control placement of access data, permit or deny storage, or perform another operation to enforce the specified rule. For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as enforcing the rules based on the capacity and usage policy. Dependent claims 17-20 depend on the independent claims and they are likewise rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons: Claim 1: At Step 1: The claim is directed to a "computing system" and thus directed to a statutory category. At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: - "(a) identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. -“(b) selecting a particular metadata group based on at least the metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement of the metadata label. -“(c) choosing a particular access data box based on at least the mapping and the particular metadata group” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement based on the mapping of the particular metadata group. -“(d) ascertaining an available capacity of the particular access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can determine (ascertain) available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“automatically”, “a digital memory”, “a processor in operable communication with the digital memory, the processor configured to execute access data storage management”, which are a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. - “wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label" is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“a metadata groups structure residing in the digital memory and defining at least two metadata groups, each metadata group including at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“an access data boxes structure residing in the digital memory, defining at least two access data boxes, each access data box implemented as a discrete digital storage container” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“a mapping structure residing in the digital memory, the mapping structure representing a mapping between the metadata groups structure and the access data boxes structure, the mapping structure including an available capacity usage policy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -"(e) automatically enforcing, based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy defined in the mapping structure, one of: storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box; storing the access data in a different access data box defined as a spillover box in the mapping structure; or denying storage of the access data, wherein the enforcing is performed in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. - “wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label" is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“a metadata groups structure residing in the digital memory and defining at least two metadata groups, each metadata group including at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“an access data boxes structure residing in the digital memory, defining at least two access data boxes, each access data box implemented as a discrete digital storage container” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“a mapping structure residing in the digital memory, the mapping structure representing a mapping between the metadata groups structure and the access data boxes structure, the mapping structure including an available capacity usage policy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -"(e) automatically enforcing, based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy defined in the mapping structure, one of, storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box based on the mapping structure and in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule" is well-understood, routine and conventional activities as storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: - “the metadata groups belong to a metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“or the access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. - “the metadata groups belong to a metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“or the access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 3: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; geographic location labels; time interval labels; identity labels; or user agent labels”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; geographic location labels; time interval labels; identity labels; or user agent labels”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 4: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the access data includes at least one of the following: audit trail data; access log data; event log data; antivirus log data; firewall log data; web filter log data; server access log data; proxy log data; activity log data; authentication event data; or resource access event data” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Claim 5: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: - “wherein less than one percent of the access data satisfies any of the following data characterizations: executable code; source code; error log data; or data which was generated by activity other than an attempt to access stored data” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Claim 6 : At Step 1: The claim is directed to a "method" and thus directed to a statutory category. At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: - “identifying, , access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. -“selecting, , a first metadata group for the identified access data” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement from metadata groups based on metadata labels. -“ choosing, , a first access data box from among at least two access data boxes comprising the first access data box and a second access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement. -“ascertaining, , an available capacity of the first particular access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can ascertaining and available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement. -“choosing, a first access data box from among at least two access data boxes comprising the first access data box and a second access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“automatically”, “by the computing system”, “access data storage management method, the method executed by a computing system”, which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. -“wherein: the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the first metadata group is: defined by a metadata group structured residing in digital memory comprising the first metadata group and a second metadata group, wherein the first metadata group is ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy; and selected based on the metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“the first access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure, the first access data box is ranked above the second access data box in an access data box hierarchy; and the first access data box is chosen based on a mapping between at least the metadata group and the first access data box” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“automatically enforcing, by the computing system, based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy defined by the mapping, at least one of: storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the first access data box storing the access data in a different access data box; or denying storage of the access data, wherein the available capacity usage policy enforces access data storage limitations in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule a breach investigation preservation rule or a data retention period rule”, is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein: the stored data being distinct from the access data, the access data defined in reference to the stored data, the stored data associated with at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the first metadata group is: defined by a metadata group structured residing in digital memory comprising the first metadata group and a second metadata group, wherein the first metadata group is ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy; and selected based on the metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the first access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“the first access data box is implemented as a discrete digital storage container defined within a structured access data box memory structure, the first access data box is ranked above the second access data box in an access data box hierarchy; and the first access data box is chosen based on a mapping between at least the metadata group and the first access data box” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“automatically enforcing, by the computing system, based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy defined by the mapping, at least one of: storing at least a portion of access data of the selected metadata group within the first access data box storing the access data in a different access data box; or denying storage of the access data, wherein the available capacity usage policy enforces access data storage limitations in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule a breach investigation preservation rule or a data retention period rule”, is well-understood, routine and conventional activities as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363. Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 7: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“then the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the second access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“and then the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the second access data box” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 8: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein: the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box until the respective access data box has a zero available capacity” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“the method operates to deny placement of access data in any non- respective access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein: the method operates to allow placement of access data of each metadata group in a respective access data box until the respective access data box has a zero available capacity” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“the method operates to deny placement of access data in any non- respective access data box” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 9: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the available capacity is ascertained for only a specified period of time” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. Claim 10: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: - “issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 11: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide. -“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 12: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“and then the method operates to deny placement of access data of the first metadata group in any other access data box” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“the method operates to allow placement of access data of the first metadata group in the first access data box until the first access data box has a zero available capacity” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“and then the method operates to deny placement of access data of the first metadata group in any other access data box” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 13: At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: - “scanning a resource which includes data content” which is a mental process because human mind can look at the data (scanning) which includes data content by evolution and judgment of the data. -“classifying the resource according to the data content” recites a mental process because human mind can classify data by evaluation and judgement. -“identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access the resource” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data by evaluation and judgement. -“selecting a particular metadata group for the identified access data, the selecting based on at least the particular metadata label” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement. -“choosing a particular access data box based on at least the particular metadata group” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement. -“ascertaining the available capacity of the chosen access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can ascertaining and available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as “obtaining data”. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -"based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, allowing or denying placement of at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box" is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“saving a resource sensitivity level in a cache as a particular metadata label associated with the resource” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -"based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy, allowing or denying placement of at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box" is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 14: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the available capacity is measured in at least one of the following: a count of bytes of storage; a percentage; a count of access data events; or a financial measure of storage cost” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein the available capacity is measured in at least one of the following: a count of bytes of storage; a percentage; a count of access data events; or a financial measure of storage cost” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 15: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: - “wherein the available capacity policy is characterized by at least one of the following: access data associated with a given metadata label is only allowed to be stored in an access data box which is also associated with the given metadata label” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“metadata labels are arranged in a metadata label hierarchy; instances of access data are arranged hierarchically; or access data boxes are arranged hierarchically”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein the available capacity policy is characterized by at least one of the following: access data associated with a given metadata label is only allowed to be stored in an access data box which is also associated with the given metadata label” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“metadata labels are arranged in a metadata label hierarchy; instances of access data are arranged hierarchically; or access data boxes are arranged hierarchically”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 16: At Step 1: The claim is directed to a "computer-readable storage device" and thus directed to a statutory category. At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: - "identifying, , access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data” recites a mental process because human mind can identify access data i.e. attempt to access data that is associated with the metadata label by evaluation and judgement of the data. -“selecting, , a first metadata group for the identified access data” recites a mental process because human mind can select a metadata group by evaluation and judgement. -“choosing, a first access data box from among at least two access data boxes comprising the first access data box and a second access data box,wherein the choosing is based on at least the first metadata group being ranked above the second metadata group;” recites a mental process because human mind can choose a particular access data box by evaluation and judgement. -“ascertaining, , an available capacity of the particular access data box” recites a mental process because human mind can ascertaining and available capacity of the particular data box by evaluation and judgement. -“ enforcing,, based on the available capacity and an available capacity usage policy with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule” recites a mental process because human mind can enforce a rule based on the available capacity and usage policy by evaluation and judgment of data. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“automatically”, “by the computing system”, “a computer-readable storage device configured with data and instructions which upon execution by a processor cause a computing system to perform an access data storage management method” which are a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. -“wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the first metadata group is: defined by a metadata group structured residing in digital memory comprising the first metadata group and a second metadata group, wherein the first metadata group is ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy; and is based on the at least the metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the choosing is based on at least the first metadata group being ranked above the second metadata group” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the first metadata group is: defined by a metadata group structured residing in digital memory comprising the first metadata group and a second metadata group, wherein the first metadata group is ranked above the second metadata group in a metadata group hierarchy; and is based on the at least the metadata label” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“wherein the choosing is based on at least the first metadata group being ranked above the second metadata group” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 17: At Step 2A, Prong Two: -“wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time or” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide. -“wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following: issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box remains above a predefined threshold for a predefined period of time or” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". -“issuing a notification when an available capacity of an access data box reaches a predefined threshold” is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 18: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“ wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; or identity labels” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“w wherein the metadata labels include at least one of the following: data sensitivity labels; IP address group labels; or identity labels” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 19: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the first metadata group and second metadata group belong to the metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein the first metadata group and second metadata group belong to the metadata group hierarchy” is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the metadata group hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 20: The claim recites the following additional elements: -“wherein the at least two access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“wherein the at least two access data boxes belong to an access data box hierarchy”, is “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) (technical field of accessing data and storing data in storages according to access rules). -“and the available capacity usage policy allows or denies access data placement based at least in part on the access data box hierarchy” is well-understood, routine and conventional as storing data as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)"iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Prior art considerations Prior arts of record Prahlad teach access data boxes and metadata groups and allowing or denying placement of data in the access data box based on capacity and storage policies in paragraphs [0328, 0344, 0345]. Ein-Gill teaches metadata group labels and selecting metadata groups based on metadata label in paragraphs [0023, 0028]. Prior arts of records do not explicitly teach “(a) automatically identifying access data which represents one or more attempts to access stored data, wherein: the stored data is distinct from the access data; the access data is defined in reference to the stored data; and the stored data is associated with at least one metadata label,(b) automatically selecting a particular metadata group based on at least the metadata label,(c) automatically choosing a particular access data box based on at least the mapping and the particular metadata group, (e) automatically enforcing, based on the available capacity and the available capacity usage policy defined in the mapping structure, one of: storing at least a portion of the access data in the particular access data box; storing the access data in a different access data box defined as a spillover box in the mapping structure; or denving storage of the access data, based on the mapping structure and wherein the enforcing is performed in accordance with at least one of: a regulatory compliance rule; a breach investigation preservation rule; or a data retention policy rule” as recited in claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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. /FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159