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 .
Response to Amendments
Arguments are rendered moot in view of new rejections made in response to applicant’s amendments.
In response to Applicant amendments to claims 1, 16, 19, the 101 rejection has withdrawn.
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 1-13, 16, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8601064 B1) in view of Shraim (US 20180012184 A1) in view of Dunn (US 20190260780 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liao teaches a computerized system for detection of unauthorized access comprising:
a sender message system adapted to create and transmit an outbound electronic message (Col 3 lines 19-40, Fig. 2: email client 201 sends spam email);
a gateway system in communications with the sender message system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer- readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the gateway system to (Col 3 lines 19-40, Fig. 2: SMPT Gateway 202):
determine a number of outbound electronic messages sent by the sender message system (Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.);
receive an undeliverable response from a recipient message system associated with the outbound electronic message (Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.);
increase an undeliverable counter by one (Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time. For example, assuming that in a one hour period the email source sent 100 different emails of which 80 include at least one invalid recipient address, the message failed count in that example is 80. Identifying invalid recipient email addresses is advantageous in that an invalid recipient email address is a key symptom of a directory harvest or bounce-source attack.);
determine an undeliverable percentage according to the undeliverable counter and the number of outbound electronic messages sent (Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.);
calculate a historical undeliverable response value (Col 6: the ratio of recipient failed count versus total message count for a particular email source.);
generate and store a potential breach warning according to the undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit, the undeliverable percentage exceeding a predetermined percentage limit, the undeliverable counter exceeding the historical undeliverable response value (Col 6: if the ratio of recipient failed count versus total message count for a particular email source is relatively high, an email from the particular email source is likely to be malicious.),
the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, an IP address associated with the outbound electronic message being invalid and any combination thereof (Col 8 lines 29-36: Bounced emails and their sources are added to the historical statistics, from which the bounce ratio (number of bounce messages/number of total messages) for a given IP address may be computed. If the bounce ratio is greater than a certain threshold, it may be presumed that the domain is under bounce attack from this IP address.); and,
determine unauthorized access to the sender message system based upon the pattern of undeliverable responses (Claim 1. Col 7 lines 3-9: (e) An email client may be classified as a bounce-source (i.e., a legitimate site being used by a malicious source to bounce emails from) when the ratio of bounced emails over the number of total emails received from the email client (bounce ratio) is greater than a threshold value.);
Liao does not explicitly disclose the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications.
Shraim teaches the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications (Para [0198]: Registering domains or email addresses found in bounce messages from suspected scammers can act as a honeypot to capture incoming traffic, analyze threat data, and plant tracking indicators.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao with the teachings of Shraim to include the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications in order to monitor the email from suspicion activity using plant tracking beacon to catch the scammers.
Liao in view of Shraim does not explicitly disclose transmitting the potential breach warning to a user and automatically implementing, by the gateway system, at least one security measure selected from the group consisting of: locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, requiring a password reset for the sender account, and requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account.
Dunn teaches transmitting the potential breach warning to a user (Para [0045]: the user interface has windows to present alerts and events.) and automatically implementing, by the gateway system, at least one security measure selected from the group consisting of: locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, requiring a password reset for the sender account, and requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account (Fig. 7. Para [0125]: The autonomous response module has held the message before delivery due to suspicious content or attachments. Held emails can be reprocessed and released by an operator after investigation.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim with the teachings of Dunn to include transmitting the potential breach warning to a user and automatically implementing, by the gateway system, at least one security measure selected from the group consisting of: locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, requiring a password reset for the sender account, and requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account in order to prevent suspicions email from spreading inside the network.
Regarding claim 2, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gateway system is adapted to generate the bait address (Shraim Para [0206]: generate new bait email addresses corresponding to the intended recipient.).
Regarding claim 3, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the outbound electronic message is a first outbound electronic message, and the gateway system is a first gateway system adapted to transmit the bait address to a second gateway system wherein the second gateway system is adapted to generate a second gateway system potential breach warning according to a second outbound electronic message being addressed to the bait address (Shraim Claim 37. Claims 41-42).
Regarding claim 4, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the first gateway system is associated with a first sender domain and the second gateway system is associated with a second sender domain (Shraim Claim 37. Claims 41-42).
Regarding claim 5, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gateway system is adapted to modify a website associated with a sender domain to add the bait address to the website (Shraim Para [0086]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gateway system is adapted to assign criteria to the bait address including that the bait address has not been used prior to its publication (Shraim Para [0206]: generate new bait email addresses corresponding to the intended recipient.).
Regarding claim 7, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the bait address includes a subdomain (Liao Col 3: the spam has an originator email address of the intended spam victim, which is "user@spam-target.com").
Regarding claim 8, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the gateway system is adapted to transmit the bait address to a third party email listing (Shraim Para [0198]: Registering domains or email addresses found in bounce messages from suspected scammers can act as a honeypot to capture incoming traffic, analyze threat data, and plant tracking indicators.).
Regarding claim 9, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user is taken from the group consisting of administrator, sender, recipient, third party, reputation administrator, and any combination (Liao Fig.2)
Regarding claim 10, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gateway system is adapted to modify the outbound electronic message to add a potential spam indicator according to the undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit (Liao Col 4 lines 60-67, Col 7 : the email gateway having an anti-spam 110 (see FIGS. 1 and 4. The heuristics engine may reject emails from particular source email addresses based on policies of the domain protected by the email gateway. While, a probability model may be employed in conjunction with the heuristic rules to predict whether an email is spam.).
Regarding claim 11, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the gateway system is adapted to take action from the group consisting of locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, deleting the outbound electronic message, requiring a password reset for the sender account, requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account, scanning the sender message system, requiring a change in security question for the sender account, verifying security and privacy settings of the sender account and any combination thereof according to the undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit, the undeliverable percentage exceeding a predetermined percentage limit, the undeliverable counter exceeding the historical undeliverable response value, the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, and any combination thereof (Dunn Fig. 7. Para [0125]: The autonomous response module has held the message before delivery due to suspicious content or attachments. Held emails can be reprocessed and released by an operator after investigation.).
Regarding claim 12, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the undeliverable response is an invalid domain (Liao Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.)
Regarding claim 13, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the undeliverable response is an invalid address (Liao Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.).
Regarding claim 16, Liao teaches a computerized system for detection of unauthorized access comprising:
a sender message system adapted to create and transmit an outbound electronic message (Col 3 lines 19-40, Fig. 2: email client 201 sends spam email);
gateway system comprising at least one processor and anon-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the gateway system to intercept an outbound electronic message transmitted from a sender message system and (Col 3 lines 19-40, Fig. 2: SMPT Gateway 202):
receive an undeliverable response from a recipient message system associated with the outbound electronic message (Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.);
generate a potential breach warning according to an undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit, an undeliverable percentage exceeding a predetermined percentage limit, an undeliverable counter exceeding a historical undeliverable response value, the outbound electronic message being addressed to a bait address, an IP address associated with the outbound electronic message being invalid and any combination thereof (Col 6, Col 8 lines 29-36: if the ratio of recipient failed count versus total message count for a particular email source is relatively high, an email from the particular email source is likely to be malicious. Bounced emails and their sources are added to the historical statistics, from which the bounce ratio (number of bounce messages/number of total messages) for a given IP address may be computed. If the bounce ratio is greater than a certain threshold, it may be presumed that the domain is under bounce attack from this IP address.);
determine unauthorized access to the sender message system based upon the pattern of undeliverable responses (Col 7 lines 3-9: (e) An email client may be classified as a bounce-source (i.e., a legitimate site being used by a malicious source to bounce emails from) when the ratio of bounced emails over the number of total emails received from the email client (bounce ratio) is greater than a threshold value.); and,
according to the undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit, the undeliverable percentage exceeding a predetermined percentage limit, the undeliverable counter exceeding the historical undeliverable response value, the outbound electronic message being addressed to a bait address, and any combination thereof (Col 6- Col7: if the ratio of recipient failed count versus total message count for a particular email source is relatively high, an email from the particular email source is likely to be malicious. ).
Liao does not explicitly disclose the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications.
Shraim teaches the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications (Para [0198]: Registering domains or email addresses found in bounce messages from suspected scammers can act as a honeypot to capture incoming traffic, analyze threat data, and plant tracking indicators.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao with the teachings of Shraim to include the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications in order to monitor the email from suspicion activity using plant tracking beacon to catch the scammers.
Liao in view of Shraim does not explicitly disclose (perform an action) according the potential breach warning and determination of unauthorized access to the sender's system, taking action from the group consisting of sending a warning to a user, locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, deleting the outbound electronic message, requiring a password reset for the sender account, requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account, scanning the sender message system, requiring a change in security question for the sender account, verifying security and privacy settings of the sender account and any combination thereof.
Dunn teaches transmitting (perform an action) according the potential breach warning and determination of unauthorized access to the sender's system (Para [0045]: the user interface has windows to present alerts and events.), taking action from the group consisting of sending a warning to a user, locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, deleting the outbound electronic message, requiring a password reset for the sender account, requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account, scanning the sender message system, requiring a change in security question for the sender account, verifying security and privacy settings of the sender account and any combination thereof (Fig. 7. Para [0125]: The autonomous response module has held the message before delivery due to suspicious content or attachments. Held emails can be reprocessed and released by an operator after investigation.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim with the teachings of Dunn to include (perform an action) according the potential breach warning and determination of unauthorized access to the sender's system, taking action from the group consisting of sending a warning to a user, locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, deleting the outbound electronic message, requiring a password reset for the sender account, requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account, scanning the sender message system, requiring a change in security question for the sender account, verifying security and privacy settings of the sender account and any combination thereof in order to prevent suspicions email from spreading inside the network.
Regarding claim 17, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the user is taken from the group consisting of administrator, sender, recipient, third party, reputation administrator, and any combination (Liao Fig.2).
Regarding claim 19, Liao teaches a computerized system for detection of unauthorized access comprising:
gateway system comprising at least one processor and anon-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the gateway system to intercept an outbound electronic message transmitted from a sender message system and (Col 3 lines 19-40, Fig. 2: SMPT Gateway 202):
receive an undeliverable response from a recipient message system associated with the outbound electronic message (Col 5 lines 61-67 Col 6: the message failed count may indicate the number of emails, from a single email source, having at least one invalid recipient address (invalid RCPT TO address in SMTP) within a predetermined period of time.);
generate a potential breach warning according to an undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit, an undeliverable percentage exceeding a predetermined percentage limit, an undeliverable counter exceeding a historical undeliverable response value, the outbound electronic message being addressed to a bait address, an IP address associated with the outbound electronic message being invalid and any combination thereof (Col 6-7: if the ratio of recipient failed count versus total message count for a particular email source is relatively high, an email from the particular email source is likely to be malicious. Bounced emails and their sources are added to the historical statistics, from which the bounce ratio (number of bounce messages/number of total messages) for a given IP address may be computed. If the bounce ratio is greater than a certain threshold, it may be presumed that the domain is under bounce attack from this IP address.).
determine unauthorized access to the sender message system based upon the pattern of undeliverable responses (Col 7 lines 3-9: (e) An email client may be classified as a bounce-source (i.e., a legitimate site being used by a malicious source to bounce emails from) when the ratio of bounced emails over the number of total emails received from the email client (bounce ratio) is greater than a threshold value.).
Liao does not explicitly disclose the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications.
Shraim teaches the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications (Para [0198]: Registering domains or email addresses found in bounce messages from suspected scammers can act as a honeypot to capture incoming traffic, analyze threat data, and plant tracking indicators.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao with the teachings of Shraim to include the outbound electronic message is addressed to a bait address, wherein the bait address is an email address that has been generated by the gateway system and published by the gateway system to a website associated with a sender domain, wherein the bait address is not used for legitimate communications in order to monitor the email from suspicion activity using plant tracking beacon to catch the scammers.
Liao in view of Shraim does not explicitly disclose automatically implement, by the gateway system, at least one security measure selected from the group consisting of: locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, requiring a password reset for the sender account, and requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account.
Dunn teaches automatically implement, by the gateway system, at least one security measure selected from the group consisting of: locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, requiring a password reset for the sender account, and requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account (Fig. 7. Para [0125]: The autonomous response module has held the message before delivery due to suspicious content or attachments. Held emails can be reprocessed and released by an operator after investigation.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim with the teachings of Dunn to automatically implement, by the gateway system, at least one security measure selected from the group consisting of: locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, requiring a password reset for the sender account, and requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account in order to prevent suspicions email from spreading inside the network.
Regarding claim 20, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 19, where in the gateway system is adapted to take action from the group consisting of sending a warning to a user, locking a sender account associated with the outbound electronic message, placing the outbound electronic message in quarantine, deleting the outbound electronic message, requiring a password reset for the sender account, requiring multifactor authentication for the sender account, scanning the sender message system, requiring a change in security question for the sender account, verifying security and privacy settings of the sender account and any combination thereof according to the undeliverable counter exceeding a predetermined count limit, the undeliverable percentage exceeding a predetermined percentage limit, the undeliverable counter exceeding the historical undeliverable response value, the outbound electronic message being addressed to a bait address, and any combination thereof according to the potential breach warning (Dunn Fig. 7. Para [0125]: The autonomous response module has held the message before delivery due to suspicious content or attachments. Held emails can be reprocessed and released by an operator after investigation.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8601064 B1) in view of Shraim (US 20180012184 A1) in view of Dunn (US 20190260780 A1) and in view of Furlong (US 20140025763 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1.
Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined percentage limit is two percent or greater.
Furlong teaches wherein the predetermined percentage limit is two percent or greater (Para [0167]-[0178]: take an action according to threshold percentage, e.g., threshold exceed 3% take a high action.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn with the teachings of Furlong to include wherein the predetermined percentage limit is two percent or greater in order to establish reactive actions to increase targeted success rate for the delivery of digital messages (Furlong Claim 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8601064 B1) in view of Shraim (US 20180012184 A1) in view of Dunn (US 20190260780 A1) and in view of Dubodelov (US 20190129765 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 1.
Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn does not explicitly disclose wherein the gateway system is in communications with the sender message system using an application programming interface.
Dubodelov teaches wherein the gateway system is in communications with the sender message system using an application programming interface (Para [0014]: call-processing system 102 may function as a “gateway” between external senders of the requests and services providing APIs 112 that are internal to an organization and/or other entity.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn of gateway system with the teachings of Dubodelov to include the well-known technique of wherein the gateway system is in communications with the sender message system using an application programming interface because the results would have been predictable and resulted in interact with the user through interface.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8601064 B1) in view of Shraim (US 20180012184 A1) in view of Dunn (US 20190260780 A1) and in view of Renteria (US 20160142429 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 16.
Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn does not explicitly disclose wherein the IP address associated with the outbound electronic message is invalid due to its origin being geographically disallowed.
Renteria teaches wherein the IP address associated with the outbound electronic message is invalid due to its origin being geographically disallowed (Para [0016]: determined whether one or more IP addresses associated with the email is within or without a predetermined geographic region, for example a region known for originating malicious attacks.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn and with the teachings of Renteria to include the IP address associated with the outbound electronic message is invalid due to its origin being geographically disallowed in order to quarantine email sent from IP addresses associated with geographic region known for originating malicious attacks (Renteria Para [0016]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8601064 B1) in view of Shraim (US 20180012184 A1) in view of Dunn (US 20190260780 A1) and in view of Sprosts (US 20070220607 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn teaches the system of claim 19.
Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn does not explicitly disclose wherein the gateway system is adapted to release the outbound electronic message from quarantine upon request from a user.
Sprosts teaches wherein the gateway system is adapted to release the outbound electronic message from quarantine upon request from a user (Claims 4-5: performing different actions in response to (a) a user request to manually release the message from the message quarantine.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liao in view of Shraim in view of Dunn with the teachings of Sprosts to include wherein the gateway system is adapted to release the outbound electronic message from quarantine upon request from a user in order to analyse the message manually (Sprosts Claims 4-5).
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 JUDY BAZNA whose telephone number is (703)756-1258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 08:30 AM-05:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at (571) 272-3739. 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.
/JUDY BAZNA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2495
/FARID HOMAYOUNMEHR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights