Remarks
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The claims include subject matter that does not have any effect on the scope thereof. For example, claim 1 states that the sample “is associated with a base operating system, wherein the base operating system includes one or more of the following: a first base operating system and/or a second base operating system…”. The claim then provides 2 possibilities later: “in the event that the base operating system correspond with the first base operating system, the missing stub library corresponds with a first missing stub library” and “wherein in the event that the base operating system correspond with the second base operating system, the missing stub library corresponds with a second missing stub library”. However, none of this defines the invention in any fashion. This is just saying that different OSes have different libraries, which is not Applicant’s invention. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that Mac and Windows, for example, use their own libraries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges “As discussed during the interview, the applied references fail to teach or render obvious” what appears to be a large portion of amended claim 1. However, this is incorrect. The interview did not discuss this amendment whatsoever. Please see the office action appendix dated 6/4/2026 and the interview summary of the same date, which show the entirely different amendment discussed. Applicant is respectfully requested to refrain from making erroneous allegations about what was discussed in interviews.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 includes a variety of acronyms added to the receive limitation (e.g., OS, iOS, MacOS). However, the first time an acronym is used in the claims, it must be fully specified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein the sample is associated with a base operating system, wherein the base operating system includes one or more of the following: a first base operating system and/or a second base operating system, wherein the base operating system includes one or more of the following: Windows OS, Android OS, iOS, MacOS, and/or Linux”. However, the application as originally filed does not provide any support for the base operating system including more than one OS. Thus, the application as originally filed does not have support for this limitation with respect to “or more” and “and” but only has basis for the base OS being a single OS. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 states “in the event that the base operating system correspond with the first base operating system, the missing stub library corresponds with a first missing stub library” and “wherein in the event that the base operating system correspond with the second base operating system, the missing stub library corresponds with a second missing stub library”. However, the application as originally filed does not include basis for both of these for the same sample. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the event that the base operating system correspond with the first base operating system" in the prefetch limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the event that the base operating system correspond with the second base operating system" in the prefetch limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 1 includes a step reading “execute the sample in an emulation environment … wherein the executing the sample in the emulation environment comprises” a variety of steps, ending with “execute the sample in the emulation environment”. However, this executing of the sample in the emulation environment must then include all of the steps mentioned for such executing, which ends with “execute the sample in the emulation environment”, which must also include all of the steps. This includes infinite recursion, and is therefore indefinite. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0187740 in view of Alpern (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0047974) and Bumbershoot (Bumbershoot Software, “Working with DLLs on Windows, Mac, and Linux”, 4/7/2019, 11 pages, obtained from https://bumbershootsoft.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/working-with-dlls-on-windows-mac-and-linux/).
Regarding Claim 1,
Marinescu discloses a system comprising:
A hardware processor configured to (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 24-27 and associated figures, and all below citations that describe steps performed thereby; processing unit, for example);
Receive a sample for emulation for malware detection that is missing one or more expected libraries, wherein the sample is associated with a base operating system, wherein the base operating system includes one or more of the following: a first base operating system and/or a second base operating system, wherein the base operating system includes one or more of the following: Windows OS, Android OS, iOS, MacOS, and/or Linux (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 2-10, 29, 33, 37, and associated figures; receiving possible malware that needs a DLL and is associated with Windows (e.g., in using a Win32 OS and libraries therein), for example); and
Execute the sample in an emulation environment using one or more stub libraries that are automatically generated to use in place of the one or more expected libraries, wherein the one or more stub libraries facilitate execution of the sample in the emulation environment, and wherein the executing of the sample in the emulation environment comprises to (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; executing, emulating, simulating, in a virtual environment using stub DLLs used in place of real DLLs, for example):
Identify required libraries that are not part of the base operating system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; determine DLL that needs a stub DLL, for example);
Generate the one or more stub libraries, wherein the one or more stub libraries correspond with the required libraries, wherein the generating of the one or more stub libraries comprises to (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; stub DLL, for example):
Determine that a stub library of the one or more stub libraries is missing (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; stub DLL, for example; if stub DLL is needed, for example); and
In response to a determination that the stub is missing, prefetch the missing stub library, wherein in the event that the base operating system correspond with the first base operating system, the missing stub library corresponds with a first missing stub library (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; loading, copying, etc., stub DLL, either by pre-fetching or by generating the copy as needed, for example);
Install the one or more stub libraries inside the emulation environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; installing the stub DLL, for example); and
Execute the sample in the emulation environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; executing, emulating, simulating, in a virtual environment using stub DLLs used in place of real DLLs, for example);
A memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 24-29 and associated figures, claims 15-35, and all above and below citations that describe steps that may be within these instructions; any memory/storage/medium that may provide any instructions to a processor, for example);
But does not explicitly disclose that identifying required libraries that are not part of a base operating system is performed by scanning an import table associated with the sample and does not appear to explicitly disclose in the event that the base operating system correspond with the second base operating system, the missing stub library corresponds with a second missing stub library.
Alpern, however, discloses scan an import table associated with the sample to identify required libraries that are not part of a base operating system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 356-373, 402-414, and associated figures; checking import table for DLLs that should be loaded, suppressing loading such, and loading stub DLLs instead, for example); and
An event that the base operating system corresponds with the second base operating system (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 10, 14, 15, 54, 235, 558 and associated figures; Windows and Linux, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the library determination and loading techniques of Alpern into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu in order to allow the system to easily determine DLLs for which stubs may be required, to use already-known specifications of libraries, to allow for suppressing libraries that should be loaded, and/or to increase security in the system.
Bumbershoot, however, discloses that, when the base OS corresponds with the second base OS, the missing stub library corresponds with a second missing stub library (Exemplary Citations: for example, entire document, for example, sections regarding OSes and their associated libraries (e.g., Making and Using Shared Objects on Linux, Finding Libraries at Build Time, Making and Using Dynamic Libraries on macOS, When Dylibs May Be Loaded, Special Dylib Directories, Making and Using Dynamically Linked Libraries on Windows, etc., as examples); OSes and associated libraries (e.g., Linux and SOs, macOS and Dylibs, Windows and DLLs), for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the OSes and libraries of Bumbershoot into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern in order to allow the system to protect multiple additional operating systems, to allow for dealing with additional types of libraries, and/or because different operating systems already include these different libraries.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is a method claim that corresponds to system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is a medium claim that corresponds to system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 2,
Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Marinescu discloses that the emulation environment comprises a virtual machine instance (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; virtual machine with virtual processing unit, virtual address space, I/O emulator, etc., for example).
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is a method claim that corresponds to system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is a product claim that corresponds to system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 3,
Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Marinescu discloses that the emulation environment comprises a virtual machine instance for a Windows operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; as above in Microsoft Win, for example).
Regarding Claim 7,
Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Marinescu discloses that the sample comprises an executable file (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; executable file, for example).
Regarding Claim 8,
Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot discloses the system of claim 1, in addition, Marinescu discloses that the sample comprises an executable file that is missing at least one or more libraries that are a dependency for execution (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 2-10, 29, 33, 37, and associated figures; possible malware that needs a DLL, for example).
Claims 4-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu in view of Alpern, Bumbershoot, and BlackBerry (BlackBerry, “Malware Analysis with Dynamic Binary Instrumentation Frameworks”, 4/5/2021, 17 pages, acquired from https://blogs.blackberry.com/en/2021/04/malware-analysis-with-dynamic-binary-instrumentation-frameworks).
Regarding Claim 4,
Marinescu discloses that the emulation environment comprises a virtual machine instance for an operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the operating system environment comprises a Linux operating system environment.
BlackBerry, however, discloses that the operating system environment comprises a Linux operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Page 1, Linux, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware analysis techniques of BlackBerry into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to protect additional operating systems, to allow for operation on additional operating systems, to allow for better control of application monitoring, to allow for injection of code into programs to be monitored, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 5,
Marinescu discloses that the emulation environment comprises a virtual machine instance for an operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the operating system environment comprises an Apple macOS (OSX) or iOS operating system environment.
BlackBerry, however, discloses that the operating system environment comprises an Apple macOS (OSX) or iOS operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Page 1, iOS, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware analysis techniques of BlackBerry into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to protect additional operating systems, to allow for operation on additional operating systems, to allow for better control of application monitoring, to allow for injection of code into programs to be monitored, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 6,
Marinescu discloses that the emulation environment comprises a virtual machine instance for an operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the operating system environment comprises an Android operating system environment.
BlackBerry, however, discloses that the operating system environment comprises an Android operating system environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Page 1, Android, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware analysis techniques of BlackBerry into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to protect additional operating systems, to allow for operation on additional operating systems, to allow for better control of application monitoring, to allow for injection of code into programs to be monitored, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 9,
Marinescu discloses that the sample comprises a Windows executable file (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the executable file is a PE file.
BlackBerry, however, discloses that the sample comprises a Windows PE file (Exemplary Citations: for example, Page 1; Scripting with Frida-Python section, pages 8-9; Windows PE files, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware analysis techniques of BlackBerry into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to protect additional operating systems, to allow for operation on additional operating systems, to allow for better control of application monitoring, to allow for injection of code into programs to be monitored, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 10,
Marinescu discloses that the sample comprise a Windows executable file that is missing at least one or more libraries that are a dependency for execution (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 2-12, 22, 24-27, 29, 33-35, 37-57, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose that the executable file is a PE file.
BlackBerry, however, discloses that the sample comprises a Windows PE file (Exemplary Citations: for example, Page 1; Scripting with Frida-Python section, pages 8-9; Windows PE files, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware analysis techniques of BlackBerry into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to protect additional operating systems, to allow for operation on additional operating systems, to allow for better control of application monitoring, to allow for injection of code into programs to be monitored, and/or to increase security in the system.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu in view of Alpern, Bumbershoot, and Salsamendi (U.S. Patent 10,152,597).
Regarding Claim 11,
Marinescu discloses that the hardware processor is further configured to:
Receive a plurality of malware samples (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 2-10, 29, 33, 37, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose deduplicate the plurality of malware samples.
Salsamendi, however, discloses receive a plurality of malware samples (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 13, line 15 to Column 16, line 28; and associated figures; receiving multiple samples, for example); and
Deduplicate the plurality of malware samples (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 13, line 15 to Column 16, line 28; and associated figures; deduplicating, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware deduplicating techniques of Salsamendi into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to detect repacked malware in order to better and more easily detect malware, to reduce computational burden by detecting duplicate malware prior to analysis of such, to provide for more efficient malware detection, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 12,
Marinescu discloses that the hardware processor is further configured to:
Receive a plurality of malware samples (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 2-10, 29, 33, 37, and associated figures);
Output a first malware sample (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures); and
Execute the first malware sample in the emulation environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures);
But does not explicitly disclose deduplicate the plurality of malware samples to.
Receive a plurality of malware samples (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 13, line 15 to Column 16, line 28; and associated figures);
Deduplicate the plurality of malware samples to output a first malware sample (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 13, line 15 to Column 16, line 28; and associated figures); and
Execute the first malware sample in the emulation environment (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Column 8, line 8 to Column 10, line 62; dynamic analysis, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the malware deduplicating techniques of Salsamendi into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to detect repacked malware in order to better and more easily detect malware, to reduce computational burden by detecting duplicate malware prior to analysis of such, to provide for more efficient malware detection, and/or to increase security in the system.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu in view of Alpern, Bumbershoot, and Cohen (U.S. Patent 10,102,374).
Regarding Claim 13,
Marinescu discloses that the hardware processor is further configured to terminate an entire process (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; Windows processors are configured to terminate processes, for example).
Cohen also discloses that the hardware processor is further configured to terminate an entire process (Exemplary Citations: for example, Column 2, line 63 to Column 3, line 35; Column 15, lines 1-19; Column 19, lines 18-23; Column 27, lines 19-47; Column 27, line 60 to Column 28, line 22; and associated figures; terminate process, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the remediation techniques of Cohen into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to generate and adhere to a remediation plan when encountering malware, to allow for explicit termination of offending code, to ensure that all portions of code that need to be terminated are terminated, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 14,
Marinescu discloses that the hardware processor is further configured to terminate a thread associated with a stub library call (Exemplary Citations: for example, Paragraphs 9-12, 22, 24-27, 33-35, 38-57, and associated figures; Windows processors are configured to terminate threads, for example).
Cohen also discloses that the hardware processor is further configured to terminate a thread associated with a stub library call (Exemplary Citations: for example, Column 2, line 63 to Column 3, line 35; Column 15, lines 1-19; Column 19, lines 18-23; Column 27, lines 19-47; Column 27, line 60 to Column 28, line 48; and associated figures; terminate thread associated with malicious activity, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the remediation techniques of Cohen into the proactive computer virus protection system of Marinescu as modified by Alpern and Bumbershoot in order to allow the system to generate and adhere to a remediation plan when encountering malware, to allow for explicit termination of offending code, to ensure that all portions of code that need to be terminated are terminated, and/or to increase security in the system.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights