unsNotice 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 1 of the remarks, claims 1-7, 10, 12-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Berler et al. (US 20190130097), hereinafter, Berler, view of Frid et al. (US 20190017588), hereinafter Frid. Claims 9 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berler in view of Frid, and further in view of Nosaka (US 20180211707).
In pages 1-2 of the remarks, Applicant states that claims 11-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (“112(b)”) as being indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention, with claim 11 being canceled and its rejections moot. Claim 12 recites “the other compact representation” and “the other read-request sequence” lacks antecedent basis, and traverses the rejection by stating that “another compact representation of another read-request sequence”, and states that the term “another” is a combination of the words “an” and “other”, and the terms of “another” and “the other” are equivalent, and that the rejection of claim 12 should be withdrawn.
Examiner states that the 112(b) rejection for claim 12 is maintained, as when the terms “another” and “the other” are used in the same claim or the same claim limitations, the Examiner states that the terms, even when “another compact representation” and “the other compact representation” are used together, for instance, can create confusion for a person of ordinary skill in the art for making the invention. In particular, one can interpret “another compact representation [CR]” as a second element/CR, and “the other compact representation” to refer to a third element/CR. Examiner recommends that the terms be altered to make the connection between “another [CR]” and “the other [CR]” clearer in the invention of the Applicant.
In pages 2-5 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (“103 rejection”) as being unpatentable by Berler in view of Frid. Applicant has amended claim 1 and respectfully submits that amended claim 1 distinguishes over the cited art, with Applicant defining the “compact representation” as “having a smaller memory size than the consecutive read I/O requests”, with support for the amendment found in paragraphs [0004], [0005], and [0034] of the Specification. Applicant further states in page 4 of the remarks that Berler does not disclose a component that is analogous to “compact representation” as recited in claim 1, and that Berler describes the idea identifying activity indicative of “a read access of the data set from a first logical block address range and a subsequent write access to the first logical block address range”, as described in Berler, paragraph [0053], but with no memory efficiency mechanism for detecting activity is described, and that Berler resembles paragraph [0004] of the Specification with regards to inefficient prior art, which “in-memory data structures for tracking mirror I/O can grow to several GB in size […]”. Applicant states that Berler fails to suggest “storing a compact representation […], the compact representation having a smaller memory size than the consecutive read I/O requests […]” in claim 1, and that the reference of Frid merely establishes beginning and end addresses, as stated in page 8 of the Office Action (“OA”) dated October 16, 2025, and asks Examiner to reconsider use of paragraph [0028], as it states no compact representation whatsoever, and what is being stored in the new buffer is the written payload, not a compact representation.
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant with regards to claim 1 being allowable, as Berler states the 'compact representations' of the Applicant is stated in paragraph [0023] of Berler as 'patterns of read accesses to an LBA range', and when combined with paragraph [0028] of Berler, reciting that this portion can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence has shown up. Furthermore, paragraph [0028] describes writing a payload into a new buffer that is allocated, which can include the read and/or write operations as described in paragraph [0023], which describes backing up LBA ranges that were attacked automatically, as a function of an anti-ransomware module of Berler, corresponding to a compact representation being stored in the buffer. Furthermore, while the limitation of “compact representation having a smaller memory size than the consecutive read I/O requests” is not described in Berler, Frid teaches the limitation in paragraph [0041] in Fig. 1, as information 148/152 stores a compact mapping of blocks of a meta-block, which represents the compact representation, and uses two memory dies to indicate a range of sequential memory dies of the individual blocks being read in consecutive read requests, and uses less memory to store information than the consecutive read I/O requests individually, which otherwise uses up memory dies equal to the amount of blocks being read, and reduces the size of the mapping table, so that less memory is used to store a mapping table 144. As a result, Examiner maintains the 103 rejections for claim 1 as being unpatentable over Berler in view of Frid. Dependent claims 2-7, and 10 inherit the rejection of claim 1, and have their respective rejections maintained as well.
In page 5 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 11 has been canceled, and as a result, the rejection is moot.
In page 6 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 12 has been amended to recite similar limitations to independent claim 1 and submits that the cited art fails to render claim 12 obvious for similar reasons to claim 1 above. Claims 13-20 further depend on claim 12, and should be rendered allowable.
Examiner states that Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 1, and as a result, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berler in view of Frid. Dependent claims 13-19 inherit the rejection of claim 12, and have their respective rejections maintained as well.
Finally, on page 6 of the remarks, Applicant states that claim 22 has been added, and recites similar limitations to independent claim 1 above, and should be allowable for similar reasons to claim 1.
Examiner states that Independent claim 22 recites similar limitations to claim 1, and as a result, remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berler in view of Frid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other compact representation" in lines 21-22 and “the other read-request sequence” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 13-20 are rejected for relying upon independent claim 12, and inherit the rejections of their respective independent claim 12 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berler et al. (US 20190130097 A1), hereinafter Berler, in view of Frid et al. (US 20170017588 A1), hereinafter Frid.
Regarding claim 1, Berler discloses a method of preparing a read-followed-by-write indicator for detecting suspected ransomware attacks in a storage system, comprising ([0023] Anti-ransomware module is configured to monitor read and writes to an NVM with the same logical block address (LBA) ranges, corresponding to an indicator for detecting suspected ransomware attacks of the applicant.):
receiving I/O requests by the storage system, the I/O requests including a read-request sequence, the read-request sequence including multiple consecutive read I/O requests directed to consecutive storage locations ([0023] Anti-ransomware module monitors both read and write accesses to NVM. [0053] Read access of data set from first LBA range corresponds to a read request sequence of multiple consecutive read requests to locations, corresponding to consecutive storage locations of the applicant.);
storing a compact representation of the read-request sequence in a data structure, the compact representation indicating a beginning of the read-request sequence and an end of the read-request sequence ([0023] The anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range corresponds to storing a compact representation of the applicant in conjunction with [0028] stating that obsolete host data is retained until the host indicates the old data be deleted, which can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence. [0028] Payload, or in this scenario, a read sequence of LBA ranges, being written onto a new buffer corresponds to a compact representation being stored on a data structure.);
and updating the read-followed-by write indicator based at least in part on matching the compact representation of the read-request sequence in the data structure with a write-request sequence received in the I/O requests after the read-request sequence and having a beginning and an end that correspond respectively to the beginning and the end of the read-request sequence ([0023] When a write access to the same LBA range is detected as it being read earlier, it matches the pattern of the read LBA range, and this may be indicative of ransomware occurring. The write access of the same LBA range similarly, has a beginning and an end similar to the read request sequence.).
wherein the I/O requests include a third read-request sequence ([0023] Anti-ransomware module monitors reads and write accesses to LBA ranges, meaning a third read request sequence to another LBA range can take place.),
and wherein the method further comprises: storing a compact representation of the third read-request sequence in the data structure, the compact representation of the third read-request sequence identifying a beginning and an end of the third read-request sequence ([0023] The anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range corresponds to storing a compact representation of the applicant in conjunction with [0028] stating that obsolete host data is retained until the host indicates the old data be deleted, which can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence. [0028] Payload, or in this scenario, a read sequence of LBA ranges, being written onto a new buffer corresponds to a compact representation being stored on a data structure.),
subsequently deleting the compact representation of the third read-request sequence from the data structure in response receipt of a write request directed to a location that falls between the beginning and the end of the third read-request sequence but does not correspond in location with any individual read request in the third read-request sequence ([0053] Difference between data read in a third LBA range and data written in a different LBA range can still be indicative of malware, but not in the same way as in claim 5 of the applicant. This can include the write request LBA range being in between the ranges listed in between the third LBA range. The write operations, however, do not have to match up with individual reads from within the third LBA range, as gaps could be present in the reads. [0028] Obsolete host data may be retained until receiving an indication that old blocks are to be retired, which in this scenario, happens when no matching of read and write sequences occurs.).
Berler does not appear to disclose, but Frid teaches the limitations of “compact representation having a smaller memory size than the consecutive read I/O requests” ([0041] Fig. 1, information 148/152 stores a compact mapping of blocks of a meta-block, and uses two memory dies to indicate a range of sequential memory dies of the individual blocks being read in consecutive read requests. Usage of two memory blocks uses less memory to store information than the consecutive read I/O requests individually. This is performed to reduce a size of the mapping table, and less memory is used to store a mapping table 144.);
And ‘beginning address’ and ‘end address’ ([0054] Fig. 2, mapping of LBA 0-8 corresponds to meta-block 10, page 0, wherein the mapping contains a beginning address of LBA 0, and an end address of LBA 8.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of " compact representation having a smaller memory size than the consecutive read I/O requests" in a method for ‘preparing a read-followed-by-write indicator for detecting suspected ransomware attacks in a storage system’ and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would have been motivated to read operation duration is reduced by selecting a meta-block size based on the status of a memory die, as opposed to waiting for a memory die to complete an operation to begin the read operation that was intended, especially when consecutive read requests are involved (Frid [0023]). Also, applying the known method of “beginning address” and “end address” in a method performing ‘preparing a read-followed-by-write indicator for detecting suspected ransomware attacks in a storage system’ and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would have been motivated to increase efficiency by means of a mapping scheme being able to identify LBA addresses as part of a meta-block to more easily identify what range of addresses are to be considered for a representation, as taught by Frid [0052]-[0053].
Regarding claim 2, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 1. Berler also discloses wherein updating the read-followed-by write indicator includes increasing the read-followed-by write indicator based on a number of read requests in the read-request sequence ([0025] Fig. 3, block 346, backing up LBA ranges that were deemed to be attacked corresponds to increasing an indicator based on the number of read requests that took place over the period of monitoring in Fig. 3. At paragraph [0056], the anti-ransomware module backs up an LBA range, which increases the indicator.).
Regarding claim 3, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 2. Berler also discloses wherein the read-request sequence has a length, wherein the compact representation of the read-request sequence further indicates an I/O size of I/O requests that belong to the read-request sequence ([0025] The LBA range described at the end of paragraph [0025], and when acknowledging paragraph [0023], the read accesses to the LBA range, correspond to the length of the read-request sequence. [0023] Anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range, wherein the pattern contains an I/O size of the read request sequence.),
and wherein updating the read-followed-by write indicator further includes determining, based on the length of the read-request sequence and the indicated I/O size, the number of read requests in the read-request sequence ([0025] Fig. 3, block 346, backing up LBA ranges that were deemed to be attacked corresponds to increasing an indicator based on the number of read requests that took place over the period of monitoring in Fig. 3. At paragraph [0056], the anti-ransomware module backs up an LBA range, which increases the indicator based on the number of read requests in the sequence.).
Regarding claim 4, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 1. Berler also discloses further comprising deleting the compact representation of the read-request sequence from the data structure in response to said matching ([0025] Fig. 3, block 342, blocks the write request sequence that depends on the read request sequence earlier. [0028] Obsoleted host data may be retained until receiving an indication that old blocks are to be retired, which can happen when preventing encryption is to be done, in other words, when the blocking of suspicious writes in paragraph [0025], Fig. 3, block 342 of Berler as well.).
Regarding claim 5, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 4. Berler also discloses further comprising: prior to matching, storing in the data structure a compact representation of the write-request sequence ([0023] Later, write accesses to the LBA ranges are detected, with the representation of write access to the LBA ranges corresponding to the compact representation of a write request sequence being retained by the anti-ransomware module temporarily.);
and deleting the compact representation of the write-request sequence from the data structure in response to said matching ([0025] Fig. 3, block 342, writes are blocked from happening, corresponding to erasing the write request sequence of the applicant in response to matching the read request sequence.).
Regarding claim 6, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 1. Berler also discloses further comprising imposing a time limit within which write-request sequences must follow corresponding read-request sequences to be counted toward the read-followed-by write indicator ([0023] If an LBA range is usually accessed once a day or less, accessing the range frequently with reads and writes in that same time period would be indicative of malware, corresponding to the time limit of a write request sequence must follow a read request sequence to be counted towards the indicator.).
Regarding claim 7, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 6. Berler also discloses wherein the I/O requests include a second read-request sequence ([0023] Anti-ransomware module monitors reads and write accesses with the same LBA ranges, meaning a second read request sequence to another LBA range can take place.),
and wherein the method further comprises: storing a compact representation of the second read-request sequence in the data structure ([0023] The anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range corresponds to storing a compact representation of the applicant in conjunction with [0028] stating that obsolete host data is retained until the host indicates the old data be deleted, which can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence. [0028] Payload, or in this scenario, a read sequence of LBA ranges, being written onto a new buffer corresponds to a compact representation being stored on a data structure.);
and subsequently deleting the compact representation of the second read-request sequence from the data structure in response to no corresponding write-request sequence being received within the defined time limit ([0023] "if a read and later write accesses to the same LBA ranges is detected, this may be activity indicative of ransomware", and if later write accesses to the same LBA ranges are not present outside the normal access times, it will not be indicative of ransomware in this scenario, as is the case with the example of accessing an LBA range more than once per day or less. [0028] Obsolete host data may be retained until receiving an indication that old blocks are to be retired, which in this scenario, happens when no matching of read and write sequences occurs.).
Regarding claim 10, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 1. Berler also discloses further comprising: capturing respective traces of the I/O requests in a trace memory ([0023] Anti-ransomware module is configured to monitor reads and/or writes to the NVM, which correspond to capturing traces of the I/O request. A data path links the controller, NVM, and an anti-ransomware module to assist with storage. Paragraph [0028] mentions mentioning writing a payload into a new buffer that is allocated, which can include the read and/or write operations.);
and identifying the read-request sequence by analyzing the trace memory ([0023] Anti-ransomware module identifies patterns of read and/or write accesses to the NVM, which corresponds to identifying the read request sequence by analyzing a trace memory which in this case, is the buffer mentioned in paragraph [0028].),
wherein storing the compact representation of the read-request sequence is responsive to identifying the read-request sequence from the trace memory ([0023] The anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range corresponds to storing a compact representation of the applicant in conjunction with [0028] stating that obsolete host data is retained until the host indicates the old data be deleted, which can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence. [0028] Payload, or in this scenario, a read sequence of LBA ranges, being written onto a new buffer corresponds to a compact representation being stored on a data structure, after the read sequence of LBA ranges has been identified by the anti-ransomware module.).
Regarding claim 12, Berler in view of Frid teach similar limitations also recited in independent claim 1 above, and is rejected for similar rationale to claim 1 above. Berler also discloses the limitations of “a computer program product including a set of non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions which, when executed by control circuitry of a computerized apparatus, cause the computerized apparatus to perform a method of preparing a read-followed-by-write indicator, the method comprising” ([0060] Computer program product which includes a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium with instructions to be executed by a processor, which corresponds to control circuitry of a computerized apparatus. The program product is used to identify indications of a ransomware attack per Berler. [0023] Anti-ransomware module is configured to monitor read and writes to an NVM with the same logical block address (LBA) ranges, corresponding to an indicator for detecting suspected ransomware attacks of the applicant.):
Regarding claim 13, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 12. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 13. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 12. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 15. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 12. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 17. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 12. Berler also discloses similar limitations also present in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 21, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 1. Berler also discloses ‘and after storing another compact representation of another read-request sequence, subsequently deleting the other compact representation from the data structure in response receipt of a write request directed to a location that falls between a beginning and an end of the other read-request sequence but does not correspond in location with any individual read request in the other read-request sequence’ ([0023] The anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range corresponds to storing another compact representation of the applicant in conjunction with [0028] stating that obsolete host data is retained until the host indicates the old data be deleted, which can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence, with host indicating that. [0028] Payload, or in this scenario, a read sequence of LBA ranges, being written onto a new buffer corresponds to a compact representation being stored on a data structure.).
Regarding claim 22, Berler in view of Frid teach similar limitations also recited in independent claim 1 above, and is rejected for similar rationale to claim 1 above.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berler in view of Frid, and further in view of Nosaka (US 20180211707 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Berler in view of Frid teaches the method of claim 1. Berler also discloses further comprising: wherein the I/O requests include a fourth read-request sequence ([0023] Anti-ransomware module monitors reads and write accesses to LBA ranges, meaning a fourth read request sequence to another LBA range can take place.),
and wherein the method further comprises: storing a compact representation of the fourth read-request sequence in the data structure ([0023] The anti-ransomware monitoring and identifying patterns of read accesses to an LBA range corresponds to storing a compact representation of the applicant in conjunction with [0028] stating that obsolete host data is retained until the host indicates the old data be deleted, which can include the read sequence of an LBA range, as the range being read can correspond to a compact representation of a read sequence. [0028] Payload, or in this scenario, a read sequence of LBA ranges, being written onto a new buffer corresponds to a compact representation being stored on a data structure.);
Berler does not appear to disclose, but Nosaka teaches the limitation of ‘and a fifth read-request sequence received after the fourth read-request sequence, and wherein the method further comprises’ ([Claim 4] Circuit receives and stores read requests in sequence, which can include more than one read requests being present and stored. The subsequent read request/requests after the first read request can correspond to the fifth read request sequence when taking Berler's reading of LBA ranges as a read-request sequence into consideration. The first read request corresponds to the fourth read-request sequence of the applicant, when also taking Berler's reading of LBA ranges into account.),
‘and after receipt of the fifth read-request sequence, (i) determining that the fifth read-request sequence is a continuation of the fourth read-request sequence and (ii) merging the fifth read-request sequence into the fourth read-request sequence’ ([Claim 4] The read requests are determined to have target physical addresses in the same physical page, and in doing so, can combine the multiple read requests in sequence into a single read operation, corresponding to the merging of a fifth read request sequence into a fourth read request sequence of the applicant, when taking Berler's description of reading LBA ranges in paragraph [0023] into account. In conjunction with Nosaka's merging of reads in claim 4, the process of combining read-request sequences becomes obvious.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Berler and Nosaka before them, to include Nosaka’s ‘and a fifth read-request sequence received after the fourth read-request sequence;’ and ‘and after receipt of the fifth read-request sequence, (i) determining that the fifth read-request sequence is a continuation of the fourth read-request sequence and (ii) merging the fifth read-request sequence into the fourth read-request sequence’ in Berler’s method performing ‘preparing a read-followed-by-write indicator for detecting suspected ransomware attacks in a storage system’, and ‘wherein the I/O requests include a fourth read-request sequence’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by having one read request that goes through all the necessary reads, while going at a higher speed than separate reads can, as taught by Nosaka Fig. 19, and paragraph [0130].
Regarding claim 20, Berler in view of Frid teaches the computer program product of claim 12. Berler in view of Frid also teach similar limitations also present in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TOMMY MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-4PM ET.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624 on Monday thru Friday, 7AM-7PM. 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.
/T.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496