DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the after-final amendment filed 1/7/26 in which claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 12 were previously canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/7/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered and are found persuasive but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia (US 2022/0374532 A1; published Nov. 24, 2022) in view of Walker (US 2002/0065848 A1; published May 30, 2002), Ginzinger (US 2015/0006957 A1; published Jan. 1, 2015), and Noyes (US 2011/0302506 A1; published Dec. 8, 2011).
Regarding claim 1, Zaharia discloses [a] computer server comprising:
one or more processors; and (see Zaharia ¶ 10)
a memory storing computer executable instructions, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (see Zaharia ¶ 10)
detect initiation of a session by a first computing device of first user to share via the session content of a workspace of the first user with a second user on a second computing device, the first and second computing devices different from the computer server; (Zaharia ¶ 21 (“According to various embodiments, data stored on the system for data storage (e.g., data that may be subject to a data request to access such data) includes tables, views, machine learning models, machine learning tracking data, features (e.g., features used in determining, training, executing models), information pertaining to features, developer workspace documents”), ¶ 26 (“An example of a process for providing data includes: (1) a first user sends a request to the system (e.g., the managed data service) to grant a second user access (e.g., to read) a table”)).
Although Zaharia teaches that “the system determines whether the first user has the requisite permission to grant the second user such permission to access the table,” ¶ 26, Zaharia does not expressly disclose determine a number of workspaces that are being simultaneously accessed by the second user has not reached a predefined number of a plurality of workspaces; (but see Walker ¶ 450 (“In another embodiment of the present invention, it may be desirable to limit users 102 from having multiple simultaneous logins to the system, or from connecting to more than one workspace at a time. In such an embodiment, a presence table may be used. A presence table includes one record for each user 102 who is presently logged into the system.”) (the restriction of only allowing connection to one workspace at a time is interpreted as the claimed predefined number of workspaces)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Walker to limit number of users from connecting to more than one workspace at a time, at least because it may be desirable to limit users from having multiple simultaneous sessions.
Zaharia further discloses:
identify, based at least on the initiation of the session, settings indicative of a plurality of content items of the workspace of the first user; (see Zaharia ¶ 26 (the system determines whether the first user has the requisite permission (“settings”) to grant the second user such permission to access the table))
determine, using the plurality of content items and one or more data access permissions of the second user, a subset of content items to which the second user has permission to access and to limit an amount of the data to which the second user has access, (see Zaharia ¶ 26 (the system determines that the second user has the appropriate/requisite permissions to access the table); see also ¶ 18 (In some embodiments, with respect to non-privilege-enforcing devices (e.g., user systems), the system determines (e.g., computes) a set of data that the user associated with the user system should be able to access/view (e.g., the data that the user has privileges to access, the data that is available for access from a non-privilege-enforcing device, etc.), and access to such data is provided. As an example, the system determines the set of data that the user should be able to access contemporaneously with a data request to access data. If the system (e.g., managed data service) determines that the user (or application or user system) is not to be provided with access to an entire dataset or directory, the system may determine to provide access to certain data (e.g., a filtered subset of stored data), ¶ 28 (“In some embodiments, the system determines to not provide a user (or user system or application running on the system) with access to the location at which the data is stored on the system for data storage (e.g., restrict access of data stored at the system for data storage) in response to determining that an amount of data for which the user does not have access (e.g., the amount of data that the user is authorized to read based on the permissions policy).”)).
Zaharia does not expressly disclose the subset of content items being determined as having to be maintained in a specific geolocation (but see Ginsinger ¶ 130 (“To achieve that the content is stored in the specific country, the invention provides at least one storage component, e.g., the storage component 130 shown in FIG. 1, being located in a specific country, which is one of a plurality of storage properties of the storage component. In one example, the at least one storage component may be located in the U.S.A. That is, the storage property of the storage component indicates that the location is in the U.S.A., and the invention provides a storage component attribute defining that storage property. That is, the storage component attributes defines the storage component being located in the U.S.A. Now, in case the customer has content to be stored under the U.S. jurisdiction, the customer provides metadata for the content to be stored, e.g., as an oSLA, defining that the content necessarily is to be stored in the U.S.A., i.e., under U.S. jurisdiction, and associates the same with the content to be stored. The content together with the metadata then is provided, e.g., by using a computer such as the client computer 110 shown in FIG. 1, to the cloud, e.g., the cloud processor 120 shown in FIG. 1. After receiving the same at the cloud processor, the metadata is translated into a storage instruction. For example, the storage instruction may indicate that the content is to be stored on a storage component located in the U.S.A., e.g., a storage component having a corresponding SSLA.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Ginsinger to provide a storage instruction to store the data in a specific country, at least because doing so would enable maintaining control of the content according to specific jurisdiction controls. See Ginsinger ¶ 129.
Zaharia further discloses:
generate a temporary user-specific database specific to the second user for sharing content of the first user via the session and storing only copies of the subset of content items of the first user [in the specific geolocation] to which the second user has permission to access, (see Zaharia ¶ 18 (If the system (e.g., managed data service) determines that the user (or application or user system) is not to be provided with access to an entire dataset or directory, the system may determine to provide access to certain data (e.g., a filtered subset of stored data) via instantiating a cluster, copying the certain data to the cluster, and providing access to the certain data stored on the cluster. According to various embodiments, in response to determining to provide the user with access to data via an instantiation of a cluster storing the data, the system (e.g., the managed data service, or a metastore layer of the managed data service) determines the data for which the user is authorized to access and/or the data that is responsive to the data request, and the system instantiates the cluster, and the system creates on the cluster a table with the data for which the user is authorized to access and/or the data that is responsive to the data request.)).
Zaharia does not expressly disclose storing the filtered subset of data in the specific geolocation…wherein the temporary user-specific database is maintained in the specific geolocation for a duration of the session and is deleted upon detecting termination of the session (but see Ginzinger ¶ 130 (“Among a plurality of storage components, each having a storage property indicating a location, at least one storage components is determined of which its storage property matches with the storage instruction. That is, a match may be determined in case the location indicated by the storage property and the location indicated in the metadata correspond to each other, are equal or match. The content then is stored in the storage component determined and thus in accordance with the storing requirements for the content. So, it can be ensured that the content is stored at a location within the U.S.A.”); see also Ginzinger ¶ 131 (“In another example, the control of the content is based on “time”—not only does content in the cloud potentially have to be stored in a specific country, but needs to be stored in that location for a particular period of time (e.g., pursuant to retention policies). That is, metadata associated with the content to be stored is provided defining a period of time, i.e., a retention period, during which it is ensured that the content cannot be deleted. In one example, the period of time may indicate five years, which means that the content is to be protected from deletion during this period of time. Based on a storage instruction into which the metadata is translated, a storage component is determined which provides retention protection. The content then is stored, in accordance with the storage instruction, at the storage component determined while setting the period of time for retention protection, i.e., the retention period, at the storage component so as to correspond to the period of time defined in the metadata, i.e., five years. So, it can be ensured that the content is stored such that deletion of the content is prohibited during the period of time.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Ginzinger to temporarily store the data in a specific jurisdiction for a specific period of time, at least because doing so would enable compliance with jurisdiction-specific data retention policies.
Zaharia further discloses:
provide the second user access to the temporary user-specific database [at the specific geolocation] during the session, the temporary user-specific database being accessible only by the second user during the session; and (see Zaharia ¶ 18 (As an example, the system identifies a location at which to create the table (or receives a location at which the cluster determined to create the table), causes the system for data storage to create the table, generates a token (e.g., a temporary token) to access the data at the location at which the table resides on the system for data storage, and provides to the user system the token and a path to the location.)).
Zaharia does not expressly disclose that a specific user is provided access to the table at the specific geolocation (but see Ginzinger ¶ 70 (“To retrieve a document, a request is received at the cloud processor, for example, from a client. The request indicates the document to be retrieved. The cloud processor may then search for the document. That is, the cloud processor needs to identify the storage component at which the document is stored…. If such cloud storage information are found, the at least one storage component at which the document to be retrieved is stored can be identified, for example, by reading corresponding information such as a URL from the cloud storage information. Then, the storage information is accessed to retrieve the document therefrom and provide the same to the client as response to the request. In case, the document metadata are stored in an associated manner with the document at the storage component, the document metadata is retrieved from the storage component and provided to the client as well.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Ginzinger to provide a user access to the data in a specific country if the document is found in a storage component with a storage property indicating the specific country (see Ginzinger ¶ 130), at least because doing so would provide access to the data while also ensuring that storage of the content fulfills certain jurisdiction requirements irrespective of any modification of the data. See Ginzinger ¶ 129.
Zaharia further discloses:
delete the temporary user-specific database upon detecting termination of the session with the second user (see Zaharia ¶ 24 (In some embodiments, the system decommissions the cluster after a predefined threshold period of time, after a threshold period of time has elapsed without a threshold number of data accesses or incoming requests, in response to a triggering event, in response to a cost analysis determination (e.g., a determination to decommission in response to a cost being higher for keeping the data around to read vs. reloading the data at a later time when requested again), based on a user settable value (e.g., a value indicating a user rating of importance for the data to be accessible), based on a past history of access frequency, based on a cost saving function, or based on any other appropriate manner of determining de-provisioning a cluster.) (Zaharia teaches that the cluster is decommissioned after a threshold period of time has elapsed without a threshold number of data accesses which is interpreted as the claimed termination of the session)).
Zaharia does not expressly disclose detecting the initiation of a session via which the content of a workspace is shared with another user. However, Noyes teaches a collaboration server that detects a user starting a new collaboration session. Noyes ¶¶ 50-53. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Noyes to detect the initiation of a collaboration session, at least because doing so would enable a single primary participant to host several secondary participants to create, review, and/or edit documents. Noyes ¶ 6, ¶ 11.
Claims 11 and 20 are method and CRM claims corresponding to claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes, discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Zaharia further discloses wherein the settings include a query indicative of a scope of data associated with the workspace, and wherein in generating the database specific to the second user, the one or more processors are configured to: identify the plurality of content items of the workspace using the query (see ¶ 36 (In connection with mediating a data request, metastore layer 120 determines whether a user (e.g., a user associated with the data request) or application is authorized to access such data (e.g., that the user has requisite permissions to access the data). For example, metastore layer 120 stores (or has access to) a mapping of permissions such as a mapping of user identifiers for permitted users to data, a mapping of user identifiers for permitted users to types of data, a mapping of user identifiers for permitted users to locations of data (e.g., directories, tables, views, tenants, etc.), a mapping of groups of users to data, etc. Metastore layer 120 can use a user identifier associated with a data request (e.g., included in the data request) to query the mapping of permissions in connection with determining whether the user is authorized to access the data corresponding to the data request. If the user or application is authorized to access such data, metastore layer 120 determines an extent of such authorization (e.g., read, write, modify, delete, create, etc.). In response to determining that the user is authorized to access the data stored on data store 140, metastore layer 120 determines the manner by which to provide access to the data.)).
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia, Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Surbey (US 2004/0186750 A1; published Sep. 23, 2004).
Regarding claim 3, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes, discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Zaharia further discloses wherein the initiation of the session includes: the second computing device of the second user receiving a link of the workspace from the first computing device of the first user; and (see ¶ 24 (An example of a process for providing data includes (1) a first user creates a view V (e.g., a view of a table of data, such as a subset of data within the table) which transforms data selected from table T, and the first user grants a second user to select from view V (e.g., to access data comprised in view V).))
the second computing device of the second user activating the link, in detecting the initiation of the session, the one or more processors are configured to detect activation of the link by the second computing device of the second user (see ¶ 24 ((2) a second user sends a data request to the system to request access to data in view V (e.g., to read from view V). For example, the second user sends a request via an application program interface (API) that interfaces with an application on the system such as on a managed data service. As another example, the second user sends the data request to a business intelligence layer (or application running thereon), and managed data service (or a metastore layer of the managed data service) intercepts the data request and mediates the request for data between the second user and the system for data storage.)).
Zaharia does not expressly disclose that the second user receives a link of the workspace from the first user to access the data. However, Surbey teaches a user causing the software to send an invitation to a selected collaborator, the invitation can be an e-mail message that provides the URL of a unique workspace that the software has rendered for each collaborator, the workspace containing only those folders to which that collaborator has been granted access. ¶ 48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Surbey to invite the second user by sending him a URL of the workspace, at least because doing so would enable the first user to selectively invite collaborators.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes and Surbey, discloses the invention of claim 3 as discussed above. Zaharia does not expressly disclose wherein the link includes at least one of a workspace identifier or a session identifier. However, Surbey teaches a user causing the software to send an invitation to a selected collaborator, the invitation can be an e-mail message that provides the URL of a unique workspace that the software has rendered for each collaborator, the workspace containing only those folders to which that collaborator has been granted access. ¶ 48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Surbey to invite the second user by sending him a URL of the workspace, at least because doing so would enable the first user to selectively invite collaborators.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia, Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Pelz (US 11,599,855 B1; published Mar. 7, 2023).
Regarding claim 5, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes, discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Zaharia teaches providing a second user access to a filtered subset of data based on the user’s permissions and contextual metadata but does not expressly disclose wherein the settings include one or more user interface (UI) setting parameters, and the one or more processors are configured to cause display of a first UI on the second computing device of the second user using the one or more UI setting parameters and the database specific to the second user, the first UI displaying data associated with the subset of content items to which the second user has permission to access. However, Pelz teaches parameters defining a workspace and one or more display settings (e.g., colors, size, project order, task order, other unit of work order, etc.), one or more authorized applications, and one or more interaction parameters within a collaboration environment for a given user. See col. 4, l. 50—col. 5, l. 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Pelz to include display settings for the workspace parameters, at least because doing so would enable personalizing the workspace according to the user. Pelz, col. 4, ll. 22—36.
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia, Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes, and Pelz as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Aflalo (US 2014/0136531 A1; published May 15, 2014).
Regarding claim 6, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes, and Pelz, discloses the invention of claim 5 as discussed above. Although Zaharia teaches controlled access to workspace documents by users on their respective computers, Zaharia does not expressly disclose wherein the first UI corresponds to a second UI displayed on the first computing device of the first user, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate the one or more UI setting parameters to define at least one of a layout of the second UI or data associated with the workspace that is displayed by the second UI. However, Aflalo teaches a workspace portal client exposed to a user that includes a UI component which generates a graphical user interface displayable to a user on the client and includes a layout component which in turn determines one or more content items that are presented to the user. ¶¶ 70-72. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Aflalo to include a layout component to determine the display of the content items, at least because doing so would enable contextual display of the documents accessible by the users.
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 7, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes, Pelz, and Aflalo, discloses the invention of claim 6 as discussed above. Zaharia teaches providing a second user access to a filtered subset of data based on the user’s permissions and contextual metadata but does not expressly disclose wherein data displayed by the first UI is similar to data displayed by the second UI except that the data displayed by the first UI is limited to data associated with the subset of content items to which the second user has permission to access and data displayed by the second UI is limited to data to which the first user has permission to access. However, Aflalo teaches a workspace portal client exposed to a user that includes a UI component which generates a graphical user interface displayable to a user on the client and includes a layout component which in turn determines one or more content items that are presented to the user. ¶¶ 70-72. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Aflalo to include a layout component to only display content items accessible by the user, at least because doing so would enable contextual display of the documents.
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia, Walker, Ginzinger, Pelz, and Aflalo as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Noyes.
Regarding claim 8, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes, Pelz, and Aflalo, discloses the invention of claim 6 as discussed above. Zaharia does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a modification to the second UI displayed on the first computing device of the first user; and update the one or more UI setting parameters responsive to detecting the modification to the second UI, the second computing device of the second user updating the first UI displayed thereon responsive to updating the one or more UI setting parameters. However, Noyes teaches adjusting a view of a second workspace window in order to be in substantial conformity with view parameters of a first workspace. See ¶¶ 32, 72. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Noyes to adjust the view parameters of a second workspace in response to detecting the addition of an item to a first workspace, at least because doing so would facilitate collaborating on visual content based upon the exchange of session data objects. Noyes, ¶ 4.
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia, Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes, Pelz, and Aflalo as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Demmer (US 11,310,295 B1; published Apr. 19, 2022).
Regarding claim 9, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, Noyes, Pelz, and Aflalo, discloses the invention of claim 6 as discussed above. Although Zaharia teaches sharing data objects with designated users by giving them access, Zaharia does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause display of a third UI on the second computing device of the second user, the third UI depicting data common to both the first UI and the second UI. However, Demmer teaches a first workspace, a second workspace, and a third workspace that includes a shared workspace with which the user has been granted access. See col. 24, ll. 25—38. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Demmer to provide a third workspace with shared access to a set of objects, at least because doing so would enable sharing particular information with specific users. Demmer, col. 2, ll. 19—47.
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaharia, Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mehrotra (US 2008/0172628 A1; published Jul. 17, 2008).
Regarding claim 21, Zaharia, in view of Walker, Ginzinger, and Noyes, discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Zaharia does not expressly disclose:
wherein the settings comprise one or more user interface (UI) setting parameters comprising defining a layout of a user interface, data items to be displayed, or visual attributes of the user interface; and (but see Pelz col. 4, l. 50—col. 5, l. 12 (teaches parameters defining a workspace and one or more display settings (e.g., colors, size, project order, task order, other unit of work order, etc.), one or more authorized applications, and one or more interaction parameters within a collaboration environment for a given user)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Pelz to include display settings for the workspace parameters, at least because doing so would enable personalizing the workspace according to the user. Pelz, col. 4, ll. 22—36.
Zaharia does not expressly disclose:
a query indicative of a scope of data associated with the workspace, the query comprising one or more criteria selected from project name, customer name, customer identifier, asset identifier, category, geolocation, or time interval (but see Mehrotra ¶ 58 (“FIG. 9E shows an organization module implemented as a hierarchical folder view, and FIG. 9F shows a similar organization module implemented as a keyword hierarchy. The organization module in FIG. 9G contains a list of user-created or system-created queries saved on the computer, each of which defines a workspace and criteria for displaying a set of data objects in a collection view of the user interface. FIG. 9H shows an organization module implemented as a list of user-defined favorite items. In this example, each of the items in the list represents a different data object stored on the computer system 10; however, unlike lists in many previous examples, the list of FIG. 9H includes data objects of different types. Thus, when using the organization module of FIG. 9H to create and maintain semantic relationships, different relationship types may apply to the different items in the module.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zaharia to incorporate the teachings of Mehrotra to create queries that define a workspace and criteria for displaying set of data objects in a collection view of the user interface, at least because doing so would enable expressing more complex relationships between different data objects that are not in the same group or folder hierarchy. See Mehrotra ¶ 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 est.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571)272-4046. 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.
/SHAHID K KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146