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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed 29 September 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted in this application on 29 September 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copy of the1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for verifying the identification of one or more software vulnerabilities-based inputs from a user.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of displaying parameters to receive input from a user during a simulation; monitoring inputs from the user during the simulation; and in response to monitoring the inputs from the user, verifying a correctness of an identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs.
The claimed system simply describes series of steps of collecting data, analyzing user inputs and verifying correctness. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances and concepts performed by a human using pen and paper (including observation; evaluation; judgment; opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitation of a virtual machine implementing one or more software vulnerabilities; a client computing system; a graphical user interface, a display device of the client computing system. the additional limitations (of claim 12) include a memory and a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Merely adding generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims.
Dependent claims include the additional elements of a database, a port configuration, a memory requirement, and/or a CPU requirement of the virtual machine, a network, a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit, a second virtual machine, a second client computing system, a second and third graphical user interface and a display device As discussed above with respect to the independent claims The additional elements in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic machine performing a generic computer function of processing data. The limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the computer at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
The remaining dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Dependent claims, recite additional limitations and steps. However, as mentioned above with respect to the independent claims, the claimed limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a device, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic device to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 19-20 are nominally directed to one or more computer program, which embody (code) instructions for causing a processor to perform steps. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) are not directed to any of the statutory categories when claimed as a product without any structural recitations (See MPEP § 2106.03(I)). A program does not constitute statutory subject matter, because it is neither a process, a machine, an article of manufacture, nor a composition of matter, and therefore does not fall within any of the statutory classes of invention. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and MPEP § 2106.03(1). See also “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media”, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office. When a claim encompasses both statutory and non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is considered to be directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106(11). Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) are not directed to any of the statutory categories when claimed as a product without any structural recitations (See MPEP § 2106.03(I).) Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner Note; Applicant can amend to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation “a computer readable medium” to the claim (i.e., A non-transitory computer readable medium …”), such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent, unless the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morton et al. (US 20200215414 A1), hereinafter “Morton”.
Regarding claim 1, Morton discloses a method for providing dynamic virtual machines, the method comprising: generating a virtual machine (para [0143] mission variability may be introduced to change the particular devices (such as virtual machines), operating systems, tools and the like which are associated with the mission environment.") implementing one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0064] missions have parameters (such as variable cyber ranges with different services, operating systems, vulnerabilities, location of malware, etc."), assigning the virtual machine (para [0144] "The VEM deploys the base mission blueprint on virtualized backend hardware infrastructure and ensures that the virtual systems are successfully started and interconnected. Each running mission environment is set up so that it is completely isolated from other concurrently running missions in use by other players.") to a client computing system (para [0098] player or student station 32 may comprise a computing station or terminal. rendering a graphical user interface for display on a display device of the client computing system, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display parameters of the virtual machine and interface tools to receive input from a user during simulation of the virtual machine (para [0147] "Once the mission is enabled, in a step S4 information regarding the mission environment is displayed to the player(s) and the players begin providing inputs."), monitoring inputs from the user during the simulation of the virtual machine on the client computing system (para [0123] which monitor aspects of the game/mission, such as by monitoring student inputs via the player station 32."), and in response to monitoring the inputs from the user, verifying a correctness of an identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs (para [0557] "The cyber-warrior must identify the vulnerable application on the emulated system").
Regarding claim 2, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a second virtual machine (para [0143]) implementing one or more second software vulnerabilities (para [0064]), wherein when verification of the correctness of the identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities indicates that the identification is incorrect, the one of more second software vulnerabilities are configured to be similar to the one or more software vulnerabilities implemented to the virtual machine (para [0150] the player may replay the mission from the stored mission play logs. This allows the player to review their actions and consider mistakes and record lessons learned."), and when verification of the correctness of the identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities indicates that the identification is correct, the one of more second software vulnerabilities are configured to be different from the one or more software vulnerabilities implemented to the virtual machine (para [0525] "The historical game play data will also be utilized by the in-game Al logic to learn and adapt its strategy over time. This enables the game play to change when playing the same mission repeatedly").
Regarding claim 3, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting parameters for the virtual machine from a database (para [0130] includes a number of databases, such as databases of virtual resources (tools, network components, etc.) which may be used in forming training scenarios").
Regarding claim 4, Morton discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the parameters comprise at least one of a computing address, a port configuration (para [0409] the randomly chosen value of the service dictates other variables. For instance, the type of service chosen dictates what ports should be open on a firewall"), a memory requirement, and/or a CPU requirement of the virtual machine.
Regarding claim 5, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interface tools comprise at least one of buttons (para [0154] " a VCR style set of control buttons"), drop down menus, and/or text boxes configured to enable the user to build a solution indicating the identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities of the virtual machine.
Regarding claim 6, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a score for the client computing system implementing the virtual machine, wherein the score increases in response to correct identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0565] set of points are assigned to each mission objective based upon a degree of difficulty").
Regarding claim 7, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more software vulnerabilities comprise at least one of an error, a flaw, a fault, and/or a vulnerability that is associated with at least one of an application service and/or a network of the virtual machine (para [0557]).
Regarding claim 10, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a second virtual machine (para [0143]) implementing one or more second software vulnerabilities different from the one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0064]), assigning the second virtual machine (para [0144]) to a second client computing system (para [0098]), rendering a second graphical user interface for display on a display device of the second client computing system, wherein the second graphical user interface is configured to display parameters of the second virtual machine and interface tools to receive input from a second user during simulation of the second virtual machine (para [0147]), monitoring inputs from the second user during the simulation of the second virtual machine on the second client computing system (para [0123]), and in response to monitoring the inputs from the second user, verifying a correctness of an identification of the one or more second software vulnerabilities from the inputs (para [0557]).
Regarding claim 13, Morton discloses a system for providing dynamic virtual machines, the system comprising: an administrative computing device comprising a processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (para [0692] .the software, such as the applications herein, when executed by one or more processors, effectuate the above-described functionality."), and a machine-readable instruction set stored in the non-transitory computer readable memory of the administrative computing device (para [0691] "software", "applications" and the like, preferably means machine-readable code fixed in a tangible medium (i.e. non-transitory), such as a memory device.") that causes the system to perform at least the following when executed by the processor: generate a virtual machine (para [0143]) implementing one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0064]), assign the virtual machine (para [0144]) to a client computing system (para [0098]), render a graphical user interface for display on a display device of the client computing system, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display parameters of the virtual machine and interface tools to receive input from a user during simulation of the virtual machine (para [0147]), monitor inputs from the user during the simulation of the virtual machine on the client computing system (para [0123]), and in response to monitoring the inputs from the user, verify a correctness of an identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs (para [0557]).
Regarding claim 14, Morton discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the machine-readable instruction set, when executed by the processor, further causes the system to select parameters for the virtual machine from a database (para [0130]).
Regarding claim 15, Morton discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the parameters comprise at least one of a computing address, a port configuration (para [0409]), a memory requirement, and/or a CPU requirement of the virtual machine.
Regarding claim 16, Morton discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the machine-readable instruction set, when executed by the processor, further causes the system to generate a score for the client computing system implementing the virtual machine, wherein the score increases in response to correct identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0565]).
Regarding claim 17, Morton discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the one or more software vulnerabilities comprise at least one of an error, a flaw, a fault, and/or a vulnerability that is associated with at least one of an application service and/or a network of the virtual machine (para [0557]).
Regarding claim 19, Morton discloses a computer program for providing dynamic virtual machines comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out steps comprising: generating a virtual machine (para [0143]) implementing one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0064]), assigning the virtual machine (para [0144]) to a client computing system (para [0098]), rendering a graphical user interface for display on a display device of the client computing system, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display parameters of the virtual machine and interface tools to receive input from a user during simulation of the virtual machine (para [0147]), monitoring inputs from the user during the simulation of the virtual machine on the client computing system (para [0123]), and in response to monitoring the inputs from the user, verifying a correctness of an identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs (para [0557]).
Regarding claim 20, Morton discloses the computer program of claim 19, further comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by the computer, cause the computer to carry out steps comprising: generating a score for the client computing system implementing the virtual machine, wherein the score increases in response to correct identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities (para [0565]).
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 8, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Kennedy et al. (US 9325728 B1) hereinafter, “Kennedy”.
Regarding claim 8, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit of the virtual machine that identifies a software vulnerability of the one or more software vulnerabilities.
Kennedy teaches a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit of the virtual machine that identifies a software vulnerability of the one or more software vulnerabilities (column 18, line 61-67), "The System ID should be kept secret and not displayed on the frontend. Along with the SID, all vulnerabilities the client is responsible for are also sent in the vulnerabilities subsection. Vulnerability subsections have a precedence, which dictates the priority in which these fixes should be administered. The Vulnerabilities subsection includes: id: the vulnerability ID".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morton to incorporate “a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit of the virtual machine that identifies a software vulnerability of the one or more software vulnerabilities”, as taught by Kennedy, because storing tokens associated with each vulnerability could be used to easily indicate to a user vulnerabilities that have or still need to be identified (see column 18, line 62-64).
Regarding claim 9, Morton and Kennedy disclose the method of claim 8. Morton further discloses wherein verifying the correctness of the identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs (para [0557]). Kennedy further discloses includes comparing a token received as an input from the user to the predetermined token (column 18, line 27-30 "Client sends a VULNFIXED message to the server whenever the system administrator fixes a target vulnerability per the given profile. The only thing the server needs is the vulnerability ID as transmitted in the PROFILE message.").
Regarding claim 18, Morton discloses the system of claim 13, and verification of the correctness of the identification of the one or more software vulnerabilities from the inputs (para [0557]). Morton does not disclose wherein a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit of the virtual machine that identifies a software vulnerability of the one or more software vulnerabilities, and includes comparing a token received as an input from the user to the predetermined token. Kennedy does disclose wherein a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit of the virtual machine that identifies a software vulnerability of the one or more software vulnerabilities (column 18, line 61-67), and includes comparing a token received as an input from the user to the predetermined token (column 18, line 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morton to incorporate “a predetermined token is located in a virtual memory unit of the virtual machine that identifies a software vulnerability of the one or more software vulnerabilities”, as taught by Kennedy, because storing tokens associated with each vulnerability could be used to easily indicate to a user vulnerabilities that have or still need to be identified (see column 18, line 62-64).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Rodmell (US 2016/0019800 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose rendering a second graphical user interface for display on the display device of the client computing system, wherein the second graphical user interface comprises a dynamically built syntax problem based on a software tool or a programming language and an interface prompting the user to enter proper syntax in response to the dynamically built syntax problem.
Rodmell teaches rendering a second graphical user interface for display on the display device of the client computing system, wherein the second graphical user interface comprises a dynamically built (para [0061] training question card generator 645 may generate electronic flash cards having a multiple choice and/or short answer format in accordance with various embodiments of the inventive subject matter.") syntax problem based on a software tool or a programming language (para [0053] "The topic may be associated with, but is not limited to, a software development project, a particular product, a programming language, and/or a programming lesson or technique.") and an interface prompting the user to enter proper syntax in response to the dynamically built syntax problem (para [0034] "The questions may comprise multiple choice and/or short answer questions. The user may provide input to set the ratio of multiple-choice questions to short answer questions.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morton to incorporate “rendering a second graphical user interface for display on the display device of the client computing system, wherein the second graphical user interface comprises a dynamically built syntax problem based on a software tool or a programming language and an interface prompting the user to enter proper syntax in response to the dynamically built syntax problem”, as taught by Rodmell, because providing a user with syntax problems to correct may bolster the educational value of the system and help to circumvent issues associated with trial and error based on-the-job training (see para [0006]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton in view of Sumrall et al. (US 2005/0287510 A1) in further view of Wahl (US 2008/0033966 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Morton discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach rendering a third graphical user interface for display on the display device of the client computing system, wherein the third graphical user interface comprises a plurality of columns, wherein a first column includes a plurality of different protocols and a second column includes a plurality of different ports, each of the plurality of different protocols are correlated to one or more of the plurality of different ports, prompting the user to select matches between the plurality of different ports and the plurality of different protocols, and verifying the selected matches to determine whether the user has provided correct matches.
Sumrall discloses rendering a third graphical user interface for display on the display device of the client computing system, prompting the user to select matches between the plurality of different ports and the plurality of different protocols, and verifying the selected matches to determine whether the user has provided correct matches (para [0206] "For questions 78 with a question type of matching, a student may drag and drop selections from one category onto selections in the other category in order to match the corresponding elements in the two categories.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morton to incorporate “rendering a third graphical user interface for display on the display device of the client computing system, prompting the user to select matches between the plurality of different ports and the plurality of different protocols, and verifying the selected matches to determine whether the user has provided correct matches”, as taught by Sumrall, because providing computerized training materials, such as matching items with corresponding items, is a potentially effective way to evaluate and develop the skills and recognition abilities of trainees without the need of physical instructors (see para [0003]).
Neither Moton, nor Sumrall disclose wherein the third graphical user interface comprises a plurality of columns, wherein a first column includes a plurality of different protocols and a second column includes a plurality of different ports, each of the plurality of different protocols are correlated to one or more of the plurality of different ports.
Wahl discloses wherein the third graphical user interface comprises a plurality of columns, wherein a first column includes a plurality of different protocols and a second column includes a plurality of different ports, each of the plurality of different protocols are correlated to one or more of the plurality of different ports (para [0089]-[0093] "The columns of this table are: SERVER ID: a unique identifier for the server, HOST ADDRESS: the internet protocol (IP) network address of the server, PORT: the transmission control protocol (TCP) port number of the server, and PROTOCOL: a string comprising an indicator of the protocol used to interact with the server.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Morton to incorporate “the third graphical user interface comprises a plurality of columns, wherein a first column includes a plurality of different protocols and a second column includes a plurality of different ports, each of the plurality of different protocols are correlated to one or more of the plurality of different ports”, as taught by Sumrall with those of Wahl because it would be helpful for an analyst in training to be aware of which ports correspond with which protocols according to the requirements of their specific enterprise (see para [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691