Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication and claim amendment
filed on 03/12/2026; Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended; Claim 2 was cancelled; Claims 1, 8, and 1 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 3-9 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-9 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1; Step (a1) recites that the admissionview data includes "at least one of: header information ..., host information ..., and verbs request information ...," in reciting the three items in the alternative such that one or more may be absent (lines 11-14). Step (a2) then recites "at least one of: the header information, the host information, and the verbs request information." (lines 16-17). The definite article "the" preceding each item in step (a2) presupposes that each item was previously recited as affirmatively present, which is inconsistent with the alternative recitation in step (a1). Applicant is invited to amend step (a2) to recite the items in the same alternative form introduced in step (a1) (e.g., "at least one of a header information, a host information, and a verbs request information"). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, claims 8 and 9 are objected to under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claim in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an authentication processor configured to authenticate ..;” “an authorization processor configured to determine..;” “an access processor configured to control..” recited in claim 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claim 8 is 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 claim(s) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8; claim 8 recites the limitation “an authentication processor,” “authorization processor,” and “access processor” in lines 8, 29, 37, respectively (emphasis added). However, the specification does not define or discuss these limitations. At most, on pages 3, 5 and 26-27, and figures 6-7, the specification mentions “authentication unit 1001,” “authorization unit 1002,” “access control unit 1003,” and “processor 11000” [i.e., CPU]. However, nowhere does the specification mentions “authentication processor,” “authorization processor,” and “access processor.” The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant point out where in the specification support for these limitations can be found, and provide a detailed explanation. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Regarding claim 8; claim 8
Regarding claim 8; claim 8 recites the limitations “an authentication processor configured to authenticate ..;” “an authorization processor configured to determine..;” “an access processor configured to control..” The aforementioned claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification fails to provide corresponding structures for the claimed means-plus functions. At most, on pages 3, 5 and 26-27, and figures 6-7, the specification mentions “authentication unit 1001,” “authorization unit 1002,” “access control unit 1003,” and “processor 11000” [i.e., CPU]. Nowhere does the specification discuss corresponding structures for the claimed limitations “authentication processor,” “authorization processor,” and “access processor.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajananan et al. (“Gajananan,” US 2021/0397712) in view of Watanabe et. al. (“Watanabe,” US 2022/9342965).
Regarding claim 1, Gajananan teaches a method for controlling execution of an event stream-based container workload in a cloud environment, which is implemented by a computing device including one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable by the processors (Gajanan: pars. [0006], [0024], [0077; pars. [0032, [0033]; pars. [0024], [0046], [0044]) , the method comprising:
an authentication step for a user account making a workload request at a Kubernetes application programming interface (API) server by using a webhook server par. [0044], "A user may initiate a request to create or update or delete a k8s resource via a client tool (kubectl, Helm etc.). When a request reaches the k8s API server"; par. [0075], "The method is executed by an admission control webhook in a cluster"; par. [0135], "implement it as a custom logic in a mutating admission webhook"), the authentication step having a sequence comprising:
intercepting admissionview data, via the webhook server, requested to the API server, said admissionview data including at least one of: header information about a request for the admissionview data, host information for requesting the admissionview data, and verbs request information about one or more resources specified in the admissionview data (Gajananan: par. [0136], "the built-in cluster-side enforcement mechanism encapsulated in a mutating admission webhook intercepts requests received by k8s API server"; par. [0045], "A custom admission webhook may process the incoming request sent by the k8s API server”; ,par. [0153], the request data including verbs request information about resources ("Incoming k8s API request / Resource (name, kind, namespace) / Operation: CREATE, UPDATE, DELETE" FIG. 11; par. [0153] "A request carries information (name type, kind, namespace etc.) regarding the resource to be created or updated or deleted");
extracting identification information from the admissionview data, said identification information including at least one of: the header information, the host information, and the verbs request information (Gajananan: par. [0156], "our approach checks if an operation is of type: CREATE or UPDATE"; par. [0102], "Check the name of the resource (e.g., sh.helm.release.v1.ac-test-app1.v1s) in the admission request" [0102]; FIG. 11); and
confirming whether the extracted identification information is registered in a user policy module (Gajananan: par. 0078, "check if the resource creation request corresponds to the specific deployment configuration ... by checking against the release secret in the cluster"; par. [0113], "checking the owner references"; "verdict: ALLOW or REJECT" FIG. 11); and
an authorization step for the authenticated user account, the authorization step having a sequence comprising (Gajananan: par. [0044], "After authentication and authorization steps, a request is intercepted by admission controller" [0044]; FIG. 2, authorization 214B)):
an access control step of controlling access to the Kubernetes resources the admission view data requested to the Kubernetes API server based on a result of [[the authorization step]] (Gajananan: par. [0066], par. [0068], [0133];"prevents both deployment of unauthorized workloads as well as resource changes"; FIG. 12 R6 ALLOW / R7 REJECT).)
Gajananan does not explicitly disclose determining whether the authenticated user account has permission to execute the requested operation based on a security role and a security level set in the authenticated user account; and verifying the admission view data by determining whether the user account has authority to execute verbs for the one or more resources specified in the admissionview data sequentially after successful authentication on the user account.
However, in an analogous art, Wanatabe discloses
determining whether the authenticated user account has permission to execute the requested operation based on a security role and a security level set in the authenticated user account (Watanabe: par. [0065], "The Admission Controller 120 ... examines the request to determine who is making the request ... can determine the role, rolebinding, and/or permission(s) being utilized in the request"; par.[0087], "Authorization is determined based on the Role or ClusterRole and the RoleBinding or ClusterRoleBinding assigned to the user submitting the request"; par. [0022], "A RBAC Role or ClusterRole contains rules that represent a set of permissions"; par. [0080], example role "pod-reader"; par. [0082], "admin"/"edit"/"view" roles; par. [0044], par. [0058], "A Role-Binding grants permissions within a specific namespace whereas a Cluster-Role-Binding grants that access cluster-wide. ... a Role-Binding can reference a Cluster-Role and bind that Cluster-Role to the namespace of the Role-Binding); and
verifying the admission view data by determining whether the user account has authority to execute verbs for the one or more resources specified in the admissionview data sequentially after successful authentication on the user account (Watanabe: par. [0076], "the user is authenticated by the Admission Controller 120, and authenticated as a particular Service Account"; par. [0051], verbs "create, get, list, watch, update, patch, escalate, and delete ... act on an individual resource or a collection of resources" [0051]; example verbs: ["get", "watch", "list"] on resource pods [0080])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Watanabe with the method and system of Gajananan to include determining whether the authenticated user account has permission to execute the requested operation based on a security role and a security level set in the authenticated user account; and verifying the admission view data by determining whether the user account has authority to execute verbs for the one or more resources specified in the admissionview data sequentially after successful authentication on the user account, and “based on a result of the authorization step. One would have been motivated to incorporate Watanabe's role-based and binding-scope authorization determination and verb-on-resource authority determination into the admission-webhook request screening of Gajananan, in order to improve security by restricting requests to the actions authorized for the requester's role and access scope, as taught by Watanabe (Watanabe: par. [0019]). The combination is the use of a known authorization technique (Watanabe's RBAC role/binding/verb determination) to improve a similar admission-control system (Gajananan's webhook) in the same way it improves Watanabe's, yielding the predictable result of admission-time access control restricted to authorized roles and scopes. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–421 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gajananan and Watanabe teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Gajananan and Watanabe further teaches , wherein the authorization step includes confirming whether the execution authority of the requested admission view data is given to the user account by using role-based access control (RBAC), attribute-based access control (ABAC), and webhook (Watanabe: par. [0046], "they configure the authorization modules that should be used in the API server, for example, Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) mode, Role-based access control (RBAC) mode, and Webhook mode" ).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gajananan and Watanabe teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Gajananan and Watanabe further teaches, wherein the authentication step includes determining whether the user account is a valid user account by using a unit including at least one of a client certificate of the user account, a bearer token, an authentication proxy, and http basic authentication (Wanatabe: par. [0055]: service accounts "are tied to a set of credentials stored as Secrets ... A Secret is an object that contains a small amount of sensitive data such as a password, a token, or a key. A service account also provides an identity for processes that run in a Pod.").
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gajananan and Watanabe teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Gajananan and Watanabe further teaches wherein the access control step includes:
permitting execution of the requested admission view data by allowing the user account to access the Kubernetes API server when the execution authority of the admissionview data is given to the user account (Gajananan , FIG. 12, R6 "Return verdict 'ALLOW'"; par. [0079] "create a resource requested by the resource creation request in the cluster"; [0154] "In case of 'ALLOW'")); and
denying the access of the user account to the Kubernetes API server when the execution authority of the admissionview data is not given to the user account (Gajananan: FIG. 12, R7 "Return Verdict 'REJECT'"; [0133] "prevents both deployment of unauthorized workloads as well as resource changes"; [0136] "verdict (Allow or Reject)").
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to an apparatus for controlling execution of an event stream-based container workload in a cloud environment, which is implemented by a computing device (Gajananan: fig. 1, pars. 0030-0034) including one or more processors (Gajananan: fig. 1, pars. 0030-0034) and one or more memories (Ali: (Gajananan: fig. 1, pars. 0030-0034) for storing instructions executable in the processors associated with the method claimed in claim 1; claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Gajananan: pars. 0188- 0189) that stores instructions for allowing a computing device (Gajananan: fig. 1, pars. 0030-0034) to perform steps associated with the method claimed in claim 1; claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajananan et al. (“Gajananan,” US 2021/0397712) in view of Watanabe et. al. (“Watanabe,” US 2022/9342965), and Yin et al. (“Yin,” US 9,398,171), further in view of Yamato (“Yamato,” US 2017/0353428).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gajananan and Watanabe of teaches the method of claim 3. Gajananan and Watanabe do not explicitly disclose “a first determination step of determining whether an IP address and a service port number of the user account are pre-registered host information by confirming whether the .. in the user policy module; “a second determination step of determining whether the IP address of the user account …after the first determination step;” and “a third determination step of the determining whether the user account has authority to execute verbs for resources … satisfies preset determination criteria as results of the first determination step and the second determination step.”
However, in an analogous art, Yin discloses a first determination step of determining whether an IP address and a service port number of the user account are pre-registered host information by confirming whether the IP address and the service port number of the user account are registered in the user policy module (Yin: Col. 16, line 29-43, As further shown in FIG. 7B, and by reference number 730, mobile device 205 may now fetch the redirected host name, using traffic information, for a toll-free data service by sending another HTTPS request, via campaign enforcement device 230. The request includes a URL with a network address “8.27.149.254” and a port identifier of “433.” Further, assume that the date of the request is “5/1/2014.” As further shown, assume that campaign enforcement device 230 receives the request and the URL with the network address and port identifier. As shown by reference number 740, assume that campaign enforcement device 230 compares the received network address and port identifier to a list of stored network addresses and port identifiers, and determines that the received network address and port identifier matches a stored network address and a stored port identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yin with the method and system of Gajananan and Watanabe to include a first determination step of determining whether an IP address and a service port number of the user account are pre-registered host information by confirming whether the IP address and the service port number of the user account are registered in the user policy module . One would have been motivated to provide efficient resource utilization and faster detection of authorized traffic (Yin: Col. 15, lines 59-63).
The combination of Gajananan, Watanabe, and Yin discloses the Kubernetes API server and confirming whether the IP address and the service port number of the user account are registered in the user policy module. The combination does not explicitly “a second determination step of determining whether the IP address of the user account is an IP address accessible to the Kubernetes API server after the first determination step.”
However, in an analogous art, Yamato discloses a second determination step of determining whether the IP address of the user account is an IP address accessible to a server (Yamato: par. 0104, To check infrastructure connection, the mobile terminal 100 refers to the device monitor DB 122 and checks whether the device 200 indicated by the infrastructure-connection IP address received by NFC communication is reachable. If the device 200 is found to be reachable, the mobile terminal 100 communicates with the device 200 via a network by using this IP address, and then executes processing, such as sending a processing instruction and print data to the device 200 and receiving scanning result data from the device 200 by using the established communication channel)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamato with the method and system of Gajananan, Watanabe and Yin to include a second determination step of determining whether the IP address of the user account is an IP address accessible to the Kubernetes API server. One would have been motivated to provide the connecting unit connects to the connecting device by using a connecting method which is specified based on the trying result concerning the connecting device. Direct wireless connection, such as wireless fidelity (WiFi) direct (Yamato: abstract, par. 0004).
Having established the prerequisite checks through Yin (IP/port registration) and Yamato (IP accessibility), the combination naturally leads to performing Gajananan 's verb authorization check after these validations succeed. The sequential nature of these checks flows logically from network security practices where basic connectivity and registration must be verified before checking specific permissions. Therefore, the combination of Gajananan, Watanabe, Yin, and Yamato teaches a third determination step of determining whether the user account has authority to execute verbs for resources specified in the Admission view data. This specifically demonstrates determining whether a user has authority to execute a verb ("list") for a specific resource. This teaches how authorization is performed based on roles that determine which verbs a user can execute on resources when the user account satisfies preset determination criteria as results of the first determination step and the second determination step (Yin: Col. 16, line 29-43, Yamato: par. 0104).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gajananan, Watanabe, Yin, and Yamato teaches the method of claim 4. The combination of Gajananan, Watanabe, Yin, and Yamato further teaches, wherein the first determination step includes grasping the security role and the security level set in the user account (Watanabe: pars. [0022], [0080]; See also pars. [0058], [0023], [0044]) by comparing the IP address and the service port number of the user account with access authority set for each namespace (Yin: Col. 16, lines 29-43, Watanabe: pars. [0023]; [0042]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 CANH LE whose telephone number is (571)270-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 6:00AM to 3:30PM other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luu Pham, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Canh Le/
Examiner, Art Unit 2439
My 29th, 2026
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights