DETAILED ACTION
The following claims are pending in this office action: 1, 3, 5-6 and 8-10
Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims.
The following claims are amended: 1, 3, 6 and 8-9
The following claims are new: -
The following claims are cancelled: 2, 4, 7
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 8-10 are rejected.
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 ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “disable any action on the file while displaying the notification and until a user confirms the notification, enable any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification, and update display content that is displayed on the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file.” The amended limitations are disclosed by Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) and Tikkanen et al. (US Pub. 2011/0302655) as explained below.
Independent claim 6 is amended in a similar way to claim 1. The amended limitations are disclosed by Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) and Tikkanen et al. (US Pub. 2011/0302655) as explained below and rejected accordingly.
Dependent claims 3, 5 and 8-10 depend on independent claim 1. The amended elements in the claims are disclosed by Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) and Tikkanen et al. (US Pub. 2011/0302655) as explained below, and so any additional features to the dependent claims are rejected accordingly.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed 07/02/2026 are not persuasive.
Applicant’s position is that Templeton in view of Kai does not clearly teach “enable any action on the file after user confirms the notification.” Applicant explains:
Kai merely describes a configuration that enables the use of an operation panel after a touch disable mode (for a touch function) has been canceled. That is, in Kai, the use of an operation panel is enabled after the touch disablement function has been canceled ... the feature "after the user confirms the notification (for indicating that a virus has been detected)," as recited in amended claim 1, is clearly, and completely, different from the feature "after a touch disable mode (for a touch function) has been canceled," as described in Kai. (Remarks, pg. 3)
the present application enables preventing the spread of damage caused by a virus infection when the user, who is unaware that the file is infected, accidentally operates on the file. Moreover, when the state of the file is changed (e.g., from accessible to inaccessible) as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file, the content related to the file will be updated and displayed. This allows the user to be aware exactly what specific measure was taken to address the infected file. However, Kai does not describe such a configuration and the subsequent result. (Remarks, pg. 3)
If an Applicant disagrees with any factual findings by the Office, an effective traverse of a rejection based wholly or partially on such findings must include a reasoned statement explaining why the Applicant believes the Office has erred substantively as to the factual findings. A mere statement or argument that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness will not be considered substantively adequate to rebut the rejection or an effective traverse of the rejection under 37 CFR 1.111(b). See MPEP §2141. During patent prosecution, “claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification… Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP § 2111. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. sv. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Also see MPEP 2141.03. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Templeton teaches “a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention ... View Virus Bin button 310 provides the user with ... a virus bin contents window 312 ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files, such as the date the file was added to the virus bin.” Templeton, col. 4, ln. 30-40. Kai teaches “The user who has confirmed the error notification on the notification screen 31 can cancel the touch disable mode.” Kai, para. 0069. Furthermore, “When the touch disable mode is cancelled... Subsequently ... application may be started.” Kai, para. 0059. Thus the combination of references teaches a virus bin contents window/error notification (display a notification that a virus has been detected) that indicate when the virus was added to the virus bin, (indicating that a virus has been detected when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning) confirming the error notification, (after the user confirms the error notification) and subsequently starting an application (enable any subsequent action on the file).
Here, Applicant argues that the claim limitation “after the user confirms the notification” is different from “after a touch disable mode has been canceled.” However, Kai clearly describes that, in order to cancel the touch disable mode, and starting an application (enable any action on the file) the user confirms the error notification. Templeton, the error notification is a notification that a virus has been detected in an infected file. Thus, Templeton in view of Kai clearly teaches after confirming the notification, a touch disable mode is canceled which allows for “any subsequent action” to be performed. As Applicant attacks the references individually and does not correctly characterize Kai, this argument is not a reasoned statement and so is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the purpose for combining is not found in the references. However, in the rejection below, Tikkanen discloses that an antivirus can disclose the specific measure being performed by the file to show the user the anti-virus is working. Furthermore, “it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” See MPEP Section 2144. Here, Kai clearly teaches that disallowing any action on a file until a user confirms a notification provides a benefit for the user to prevent an incorrect operation from occurring, such as ignoring the notification/virus. As the prior art provides the teaching/suggestion/motivation for disabling any action on the file while displaying the notification and then enabling any subsequent action after the user confirms the notification, this argument is not a reasoned statement and so is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Trost does not teach “the one or more controllers update display content displayed by the display based on a specific measure that was performed on the file.”
Here, Applicant argues that “when a file name is changed as a result of the specific measure against the infected file, a display content including the replaced file name is shown.” However, none of the claims include the limitation that the replaced file name is shown as a result of the specific measure performed on the file. Furthermore, Trost teaches “displays sequential actions taken by the incident response team” where the actions are performed on a file/document such as a link mitigation action, which matches “update the display content displayed by the display based on a specific measure that was performed by the file.” It is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claims that are not part of the claims. See MPEP section 2111.01. As applicant does not base the argument on the claims, the argument is not a reasoned statement and so is not persuasive.
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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton (US Patent No. 6,401,210) (hereinafter “Templeton”) in view of Kai et al. (US Pub. 2022/0046134) (hereinafter “Kai”) and in view of Tikkanen et al. (US Pub. 2011/0302655) (hereinafter “Tikkanen”).
As per claim 1, Templeton teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 59-61] “Embodiments of the present invention are related to the use of the system 400 to manage computer virus infected files”; [col. 6, ln. 27-28] “The computer system 400 includes a processor 402 that processes data signals [an information processing apparatus]”)
one or more controllers; and ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 67 to col. 8, ln. 3] “Execution of the sequences of instructions causes processor 402 [one or more controllers] to manage virus infected files according to embodiments of the present invention”)
a display wherein the one or more controllers: ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 30] “Fig. 4 is a diagram of a display”; [col. 6, ln. 26 to col. 7, ln. 2] “The computer system 400 includes ... a display device ... a computer set, a computer monitor, a flat panel display, or other suitable display”)
perform virus scanning on a file that is subjected to the virus scanning, ([Templeton, col. 3, ln. 50-51] “The anti-virus process may be used to scan one or more files ... for a virus”)
display, on the display, a notification indicating that the virus has been detected when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning. ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 20-22] “all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically when the files are scanned and a virus is detected”; [col. 4, ln. 30-40] “FIG. 4 is a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention ... View Virus Bin button 310 provides the user with ... a virus bin contents window 312 [notification] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files, such as the date the file was added to the virus bin [when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning]”)
Templeton does not clearly teach disable any action on the file while displaying the notification and until a user confirms the notification, enable any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification, and update display content that is displayed on the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file.
However, Kai teaches disable any action on the file ([Kai, para. 0032] “the MFP 9 to ... document box ... copy ... document [action on the file]”; [para. 0044] “The disable controller 911 executes a mode ... In which the operation input ... Is disabled ... A normal operation input performed by a user ... Is not reflected in the operation of the MFP [disable any action on the file]”) while displaying the notification and ([para. 0039] “displays a notification screen 31 ... while the touch operation is disabled”) until a user confirms the notification, and ([para. 0069] “The user who has confirmed the error notification on the notification screen 31 can cancel the touch disable mode [this also cancels displaying the notification as the notification is displayed while the touch operation is disabled]”)
enable any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification. ([Kai, para. 0059] “When the touch disable mode is cancelled [after the user confirms the notification] ... Subsequently ... application may be started [any subsequent action on the file as an application is a file]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton with the teachings of Kai to include disable any action on the file while displaying the notification and until a user confirms the notification, and enable any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so beneficially prevents an incorrect operation from being performed. (Kai, para. 0066)
Templeton in view of Kai does not clearly teach update display content that is displayed on the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file.
However, Tikkanen teaches update display content that is displayed on the display ([Tikkanen, para. 0042] “an icon associated with the file is shown on the display 8 [display content that is displayed on the display] is changed [update display content] to show a "cloud quarantine" icon”) in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, ([para. 0042] “When using cloud quarantine, files [as a result of a specific measure performed on the file] ... may not be executed [the file has become inaccessible]”)
wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file. ([Tikkanen, para. 0042-0043] “icon associated with the file is shown on the display 8 ... refer to any visual representation of the file ... the cloud quarantine state ... the “Queued for analysis” sub-state .... the “Request for analysis sent” sub-state”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai with the teachings of Tikkanen to include update display content that is displayed on the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the operation of the antivirus application is made visible to the user and the user sees, in a subtle and non-intrusive way, that the antivirus application is protecting the computer system and perceives that the anti-virus application is working. (Tikkanen, para. 0053)
As per claim 3, Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen teaches claim 1.
Templeton also teaches wherein the specific measure performed on the file is any of a change in a file name of the file, a change in a file path indicating a storage location of the file, release of mounting of a device storing the file, deletion of the file, and overwriting and saving of the file. ([Templeton, col. 3, ln. 57-62] “the user may be individually prompted to select an option [perform a specific measure] for each file in which a virus is detected ... If the virus bin option is selected, the anti-virus process moves an infected file to the virus bin for safe-keeping [a change in a file path indicating a storage location of the file]”; [col. 3, ln. 65 to col. 4, ln. 4] “the user may direct that the infected files be ... deleted, saved to a different storage location and ... renamed, or sent to another user while disabled or scrambled [overwriting and saving of the file]”; Examiner interprets “is any of” to mean that any of the following measures disclosed meets the claim limitation which are, as explained above, disclosed in Templeton)
As per claim 6, Templeton teaches a virus detection display method comprising: ([Templeton, col. 1, ln. 60-61] “An embodiment of the present invention is a method of managing a file infected by at least one computer virus”; [col. 4, ln. 30-32] “FIG. 4 is a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention”)
perform virus scanning on a file that is subjected to the virus scanning, ([Templeton, col. 3, ln. 50-51] “The anti-virus process may be used to scan one or more files ... for a virus”)
display, on the display, a notification indicating that the virus has been detected when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning. ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 20-22] “all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically when the files are scanned and a virus is detected”; [col. 4, ln. 30-40] “FIG. 4 is a diagram of a display illustrating the viewing of the contents of the virus bin according to an embodiment of the present invention ... View Virus Bin button 310 provides the user with ... a virus bin contents window 312 [notification] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files, such as the date the file was added to the virus bin [when the virus has been detected during the virus scanning]”)
Templeton does not clearly teach disable any action on the file while displaying the notification and until a user confirms the notification; enabling any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification; and updating display content that is displayed by the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file..
However, Kai teaches disable any action on the file ([Kai, para. 0032] “the MFP 9 to ... document box ... copy ... document [action on the file]”; [para. 0044] “The disable controller 911 executes a mode ... In which the operation input ... Is disabled ... A normal operation input performed by a user ... Is not reflected in the operation of the MFP [disable any action on the file]”) while displaying the notification and ([para. 0039] “displays a notification screen 31 ... while the touch operation is disabled”) until a user confirms the notification; ([para. 0069] “The user who has confirmed the error notification on the notification screen 31 can cancel the touch disable mode [this also cancels displaying the notification as the notification is displayed while the touch operation is disabled]”)
enable any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification. ([Kai, para. 0059] “When the touch disable mode is cancelled [after the user confirms the notification] ... Subsequently ... application may be started [any subsequent action on the file as an application is a file]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton with the teachings of Kai to include disable any action on the file while displaying the notification and until a user confirms the notification; enable any subsequent action on the file after the user confirms the notification. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so beneficially prevents an incorrect operation from being performed. (Kai, para. 0066)
Templeton in view of Kai does not clearly teach updating display content that is displayed by the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file.
However, Tikkanen teaches updating display content that is displayed by the display ([Tikkanen, para. 0042] “an icon associated with the file is shown on the display 8 [display content that is displayed on the display] is changed [update display content] to show a "cloud quarantine" icon”) in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file ([para. 0042] “When using cloud quarantine, files [as a result of a specific measure performed on the file] ... may not be executed [the file has become inaccessible]”)
wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file. ([Tikkanen, para. 0042-0043] “icon associated with the file is shown on the display 8 ... refer to any visual representation of the file ... the cloud quarantine state ... the “Queued for analysis” sub-state .... the “Request for analysis sent” sub-state”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai with the teachings of Tikkanen to include updating display content that is displayed by the display in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of a specific measure performed on the file, wherein the updated display content includes content that indicates a change in a state of the file as a result of the specific measure being performed on the file. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the operation of the antivirus application is made visible to the user and the user sees, in a subtle and non-intrusive way, that the antivirus application is protecting the computer system and perceives that the anti-virus application is working. (Tikkanen, para. 0053)
As per claim 8, Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen teaches claim 1.
Templeton also teaches wherein one or more controllers perform ([Templeton, col. 7, ln. 67 to col. 8, ln. 3] “Execution of the sequences of instructions causes processor 402 [one or more controllers] to manage virus infected files according to embodiments of the present invention”) a specific measure on the file infected by the virus in order to realize cleaning, deletion or isolation of the virus. ([Col. 4, ln. 41-53] “Once the virus infected file is safely moved into the virus bin, the virus it contains can no longer be inadvertently spread to other programs or otherwise infect the system [realize isolation] ...The Clean option 316 attempts to remove the virus from the file ... The Delete Permanently option 318 removes the file from the virus bin and deletes it”)
Templeton does not clearly teach wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more controllers perform a specific measure.
However, Kai teaches wherein, after the user confirms the notification, one or more controllers perform a specific measure. ([Kai, para. 0059] “When the touch disable mode is canceled [after the user confirms the notification] ... Subsequently, [by one or more controllers – see para. 0072: “Each function ... implemented by one or more processing circuits”] ... another application may be started [perform a specific measure]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Templeton, Kai and Tikkanen for the same reasons as disclosed above.
As per claim 9, Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen teaches claim 1.
Templeton also teaches displaying the notification, even in the case ([Templeton, col. 4, ln. 20-40] “If the user chooses this option [in a case that the file has become inaccessible] ... the user may view the contents of the virus bin ... by selecting a View Virus Bin option ... When the view Virus Bin button is selected, a virus bin contents window 312 may be displayed [displaying the notification] ... The virus bin may show information about virus infected files”) that the file has become inaccessible as a result of the specific measure performed on the file. ([Col. 4, ln. 16-21] “The Scan Options Dialog window 306 presents the user with a set of actions to automatically perform when a virus is detected ... One of the options may be Move To Virus Bin 308 [the specific measure that was performed on the file] ... all virus infected files will be moved into the virus bin automatically [in a case that the file has become inaccessible as a result of the specific measure performed on the file]”; [col. 3, ln. 20-22] “The virus bin ... used to store virus infected files in a state where the virus may not be executed, copied, or detected”)
Templeton does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification.
However, Kai teaches wherein the one or more controllers continue displaying the notification until the user confirms the notification. ([Kai, para. 0058] “When “manual” is selected as the cancel method in the touch disable function setting ... the touch disable mode is canceled in response to the touch operation performed on an end button 23 [until the user confirms the notification]”; [para. 0070] “The drawing controller 912 displays the notification screen 31 that notifies an interrupt event on the interrupt layer 30 when an interrupt event has occurred [continue displaying the notification] while the touch operation is disabled [until the user confirms the notification]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Templeton, Kai and Tikkanen for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lurie et al. (US Pub. 2022/0103507) (hereinafter “Lurie”).
As per claim 5, Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen teaches claim 1.
Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained.
However, Lurie teaches wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained. ([Lurie, para. 0043] “the notification escalation system issuing a command that allows a laptop computer to conspicuously display a text message on its screen [provide to the user another notification] ... In this example, such a visual display can prompt a user who has been unresponsive to a text message [previous notification] to receive the text message [notification indicating that the notification is being maintained as it is identical to the first text message] on the user's laptop computer”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen with the teachings of Lurie to include wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows for a set of notification options for notifying the user, thereby improving an ability to efficiently determine an effective manner of notifying a user. (Lurie, para. 0017-0018)
As per claim 10, Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen and further in view of Lurie teaches claim 5.
Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen does not clearly teach wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, the other notification when the notification continues to be displayed for a predetermined period of time, or longer, without being confirmed by the user.
However, Lurie teaches wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, the other notification when the notification continues to be displayed for a predetermined period of time, or longer, without being confirmed by the user. ([Lurie, para. 0042] “the notification escalation system [the one or more controllers] can generate a set of three notification ... the set of three notification ... can have a corresponding 10-minute acknowledgment-time threshold [when the notification continues to be displayed for a predetermined amount of time or longer] ... the notification escalation system can, select, at a first time, the first notification [provide, to the user, the first notification] ... Continuing with this example, the notification escalation system can select, at a second time, the second notification [provide, to the user, the other notification] ... in response to determining that a user did not respond to a notification by the first notification option [when the notification continues to be displayed without being confirmed by the user]”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the elements disclosed by Templeton in view of Kai and Tikkanen with the teachings of Lurie to include wherein the one or more controllers provide, to the user, another notification indicating that the notification is being maintained. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so the system can cyclically initiate notification until it obtains acknowledgement data, thereby improving an ability to efficiently determine an effective manner of notifying a user. (Lurie, para. 0017-0018)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Adams et al. (US Pub. 2017/0324756) discloses displaying a notification that a suspicious file is deleted.
Costea et al. (US Pub. 2006/0161988) discloses a user interface that includes a file name and associated quarantine actions performed to the file.
Yoshikawa et al. (US Pub. 2018/0020013) discloses om Fig. 43 a notification specifying a modification of the file name has occurred.
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 ZHE LIU whose telephone number is (571) 272-3634. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM to 5:30 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, Carl Colin can be reached on (571) 272-3862. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/ZHE LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights