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 .
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/11/2026.
Status of claims:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15 and 17-19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the amended claims have been
have been considered in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“storing…; thereby generating….; generating a graph extension …” recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement or processing
These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of
generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps
from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For
example, "storing…; thereby generating….; generating a graph extension …” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data and processing data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving a request; applying the object…; performing the graph operation by traversing…;deallocating…” recite insignificant extra-solution activities such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application.
"hardware processor" is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer, which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides
integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
“receiving a request; applying the object…; performing the graph operation by traversing…;deallocating…”. This is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334; i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”.
“hardware processor”, amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: relevant court decision: the followings are example of the court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see versata Dev. Group, Inc. v SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more
The claims as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2, The claim recites the additional limitations “generating...” is insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application; and “storing…”under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3, The claim recites the additional limitations “executing… generating... traversing”. is insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application
Claim 4, The claim recites the additional limitations “receiving… scanning… determining ..generating...”. recites in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data and processing data. And recite insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 5-10, recite the additional limitations that in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data and processing data. And recite insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 12-20, are the non-transitory computer-readable media claims corresponding to the method claims 2-10 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 2-10.
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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11: recites the newly added limitation “deallocating the graph extension after generating the results for the query based on the traversing of the base graph and the graph extension. Examiner noticed that only par. [0095] of the Applicant’s specification mention that deallocated after the results have been generated, but Applicant’s specification does not provide how the deallocating processing is done. Applicant is required for clarification is required.
Claims 12-20, are the non-transitory computer-readable media claims corresponding to the method claims 2-10 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 2-10.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilloulin et al., (US 2022/0284056), hereinafter “Hilloulin”, in view of Kayyoor et al., (US 10,311,231), hereinafter “Kayyoor”, and in further view of Choudhury et al. (US 2018/0329958 A1), hereinafter “Choudhury”.
As per claim 1, Hilloulin discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
- storing a base graph, in fast-access memory, the base graph includes a plurality of source vertices, a plurality of destination vertices and a plurality of edges connecting one or more of the plurality of source vertices with one or more of the plurality of destination vertices (Abstract, par.[0022], a graph is represented as delta compressed sparse rows (CSR), in which its data structure stores forward edge offsets that map reverse edges to forward edges, enabling fast traversals of graph edges in forward and reverse directions. To support fast graph updates, delta logs are used to store changes to the graph; and par. [0033], a base version of the graph data structure is initially loaded or created to connect edges between source and destination vertices with the constraints that the source vertices all come from a specific source vertex table and/or that the destination vertices all come from a specific destination vertex table);
- wherein, the plurality of source vertices, the plurality of destination vertices and the plurality of edges are generated and stored in the fast access memory from a plurality of database objects stored in persistent storage of a database, different from the fast-access memory (par.[0033] and [0037]-[0039], heterogeneous in-memory graph, which is also referred to as “partitioned in-memory graph,” includes one or several vertex tables and edge tables, wherein each of these tables includes vertices or edges of a certain type with specific sets of properties to each table, wherein a single edge table connects edges between source and destination vertices with the constraints that the source vertices all come from a specific source vertex table and/or that the destination vertices all come from a specific destination vertex table; par. [0166]-[0167], processing requests by clients to access the database, wherein a database comprises data and metadata that is stored on a persistent memory mechanism, such as a set of hard disks. Such data and metadata may be stored in a database logically, for example, according to relational and/or object-relational database constructs.
- in response to receiving a request to perform an object change, applying the object change to the one or more of the plurality of database objects of the database after generating and storing the base graph in the fast-access memory (par. [0022] and [0049], providing fast and memory efficient in-memory to allow a graph processing engine to provide fast graph updates, while maintaining analytical performance during graph analytics and querying in an efficient manner; par. [0109]- [0110], if there are changes for a vertex table, they are processed as follows: In a first step, changes are split by change type (vertex addition, deletion, update); and par. [0114]- [0115], the reused physical vertex index is set in the vertex change object. If there are remaining vertex additions after the compensation procedure, they are assigned new physical vertex indices at the end of the index range); and
- in response to receiving a query requesting a graph operation on the base graph: while continuing to store the base graph in the fast-access memory without applying the graph change, generating a graph extension based, at least in part, on the graph change to the base graph, and performing the graph operation by traversing the base graph and the graph extension thereby generating results for the query (par. [0003]-[0005], [0038] and [0124], modified graph shown in FIG. 5 and fig.10, most graph processing engines and graph databases use special indices to accelerate the graph traversals when performing graph analytics or answering graph queries to update a graph stored in an in-memory graph database or graph processing engine while providing snapshot isolation guarantees and maintaining analytical performance on the graph, wherein each edge table is updated independently, given a set of changes provided by the pre-processing, note that the graph extension is a modified is referred to modified vertices or vertex),
wherein the graph extension is different from the base graph and includes one or more changed source vertices, one or more changed destination vertices and one or more changed edges connecting the one or more changed source vertices with the one or more changed destination vertices according to the graph change to the base graph (Abstract and par.[0033], a base version of the graph data structure is initially loaded or created to connect edges between source and destination vertices with the constraints that the source vertices all come from a specific source vertex table and/or that the destination vertices all come from a specific destination vertex table; and par. [0124]-[0131], and [0179], provide a query result, wherein vertex additions or removal and edge changes are sorted by source vertex, and grouped into list of changes and incrementing/decrementing counts of edges for each source/destination vertex compared to the previous version of the graph).
However, Hilloulin does explicitly generating a graph change to the base graph.
On the other hand, Kayyoor discloses and thereby, generating a graph change to the base graph (col.7, lines 48-col.8, lines 6, simplify base graphs for visualization on a display, base graphs may be perturbed, such as by removing edges, removing vertices, collapsing edges into super-edges, and/or collapsing vertices into super-vertices, thereby simplifying the base graph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hilloulin to generate a graph change to the base graph in order to reduce the overall size of the graph thereby improving computational efficiency, allowing a user to visualize the base graph on a display to easily analyze the base graph.
On the other hand, Choudhury discloses deallocating the graph extension after generating the results for the query based on the traversing of the base graph and the graph extension (par. [0076]-[0077], the query graph generator (224) reacts to user input that indicates a selection of a query graph template or previously-created instance of query graph …change the data graph (230) in reaction to user input that indicates changes to the query graph (230), such as addition or removal of a vertex, addition or removal or an edge, or changes to an attribute of the query graph. The query graph optimizer (226) is configured to decompose the query graph (230) into multiple query subgraphs.The query graph optimizer (226) can follow a depth-first traversal, breadth-first traversal, or statistically-driven traversal of the query graph (230) to generate the multiple query subgraphs; par. [0155], The continuous query process can include pruning the data graph to remove one or more edges and/or one or more vertices of the data graph. ..the pruning can remove any of the edges of the data graph that are outside the time window defined by the pruning threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of cited references to include the features of Choudhury in order to providing timely results for large, dynamic data graphs, subgraph matching query processing presents additional challenges to track partial matches and combine intermediate results.
As per claim 2, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses based, at least in part, on the object change, generating a particular record, of a graph change log associated with the base graph, that includes information on the graph change including a type of graph change, a timestamp of committing the object change to the database and an identifier of at least one modified vertex or at least one modified edge (par. [0022], [0045] and [0124], update in-memory property graphs in a fast manner, while minimizing memory consumption, wherein a graph is represented as delta compressed sparse rows (CSR), in which its data structure stores forward edge offsets that map reverse edges to forward edges, enabling fast traversals of graph edges in forward and reverse directions, in order to support fast graph updates, delta logs are used to store changes to the graph by updating edge tables, wherein each edge table is updated independently, given a set of changes provided by the pre-processing and validation module and wherein if there are no changes for a given edge table and there are no topological changes to the vertex tables it connects (addition or removal of vertices), a fast path that only increments the reference counters of all the delta data structures is taken); and
- storing the particular record of graph change log, and thereby updating the graph change log to have up-to-date graph changes for the base graph as of the timestamp of committing the object change to the database (par. [0022], delta logs are used to store changes to the graph).
As per claim 3, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses executing, by a set of processes, the query of the graph operation (par. [0025], graph processing systems can be split in two classes: graph analytics and graph querying);
- generating, by the set of processes, the graph change log associated with the base graph and the graph extension based at least in part on the graph change log (par. [0022], a base version of the graph data structure is initially loaded or created, and subsequent versions of the graph are created from the reference to the initial graph and a delta log data structure that records the changes compared to the base version of the graph); and
- traversing, by the set of processes the base graph and the graph extension to generate results for the query (par. [0025], extracting information hidden in the relationships between entities, by iteratively traversing relevant subgraphs or the entire graph) .
As per claim 4, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses receiving the query requesting the graph operation as of a requested timestamp on the base graph (par. [0172], generates one or more different candidate execution plans for a query, which are evaluated by the query optimizer to determine which execution plan should be used to compute the query);
- scanning a graph change log of records associated with the base graph (par. [0067], access a value at a specific index, it is first checked to see if the delta log has an entry for that value);
- determining one or more records of the graph change log of records that include a timestamp for committing that is earlier or same as the requested timestamp (par.[0071], [0124], [0159], [0161], new checkpoint array is created and updated to reflect required changes is determined wherein the edge array may be updated by merging delta logs of a previous edge array with the topological edge modifications, and the edge offset array may be updated based on the topological edge modifications, and update the graph to only the current active set (e.g., data corresponding to the current date) and, therefore, provides update speed benefits proportional to the active set size reduction); and
- generating the graph extension based, at least in part, the one or more records of the graph change log (par. [0022], [0053] and [0065]-[0066], a base version of the graph data structure is initially loaded or created, and subsequent versions of the graph are created from the reference to the initial graph and a delta log data structure that records the changes compared to the base version of the graph, wherein one or more data structures used in vertex and edge tables are modified to become delta data structures and wherein delta data structures store information in a base data structure (also referred herein to as a consolidated version of the data structure) and changes in delta logs)..
As per claim 5, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses scanning a graph change log of records associated with the base graph (par. [0067], access a value at a specific index, it is first checked to see if the delta log has an entry for that value);
- determining that a particular record of the graph change log qualifies for the graph operation (par.[0071], [0124], [0159], [0161], new checkpoint array is created and updated to reflect required changes is determined wherein the edge array may be updated by merging delta logs of a previous edge array with the topological edge modifications, and the edge offset array may be updated based on the topological edge modifications, and update the graph to only the current active set (e.g., data corresponding to the current date) and, therefore, provides update speed benefits proportional to the active set size reduction);
- determining that the particular record indicates a deletion operation on a particular source vertex of the base graph (par.[0096], bit array is used to indicate, for each physical vertex index, if the vertex is valid or deleted); and
- generating results for the query by scanning the base graph at least by omitting the particular source vertex with the delete indication in the graph extension (par. [0102] and [0179], removing a non-existing edge, updating a non-existing property, etc., result in either an error being returned or being ignored and optimize a query by transforming the query by transforming a query involves rewriting a query into another semantically equivalent query that should produce the same result and that can potentially be executed more efficiently, i.e. one for which a potentially more efficient and less costly execution plan can be generated).
As per claim 6, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses wherein the delete indication is a set bit in a bit vector stored in the graph extension and wherein the bit vector is aligned with a source array stored in the base graph and indexed by identifiers of the plurality of source vertices (par. [0037]-[0039] and [0095]-[0096], bit array is used to indicate, for each physical vertex index, if the vertex is valid or deleted. This bit array can be backed by a full array or, if there are few deletions (common case), by a sparse bitset (not allocating any memory for blocks containing only valid vertices)).
As per claim 7, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses wherein generating the graph extension comprises: scanning a graph change log of records associated with the base graph (par. [0067], access a value at a specific index, it is first checked to see if the delta log has an entry for that value);
- determining that a particular record of the graph change log qualifies for the graph operation (par.[0071], [0124], [0159], [0161], new checkpoint array is created and updated to reflect required changes is determined wherein the edge array may be updated by merging delta logs of a previous edge array with the topological edge modifications, and the edge offset array may be updated based on the topological edge modifications, and update the graph to only the current active set (e.g., data corresponding to the current date) and, therefore, provides update speed benefits proportional to the active set size reduction);
- determining that the particular record indicates a deletion operation on a particular edge of the base graph (par. [0048], since edge lists are kept sorted in the forward and reverse CSR, an edge insertion or removal may happen at any place in the forward edge list. The edges after that insertion/deletion location have therefore a different edge offset by the end of the graph update (except if another edge deletion or insertion compensates that change of offset overall);
- storing delete indication in the graph extension that the particular edge in the base graph is deleted (par. [0048] and [0158], change of edge offset must be reflected in the eRevOffset array); and
- generating results for the query by scanning the base graph at least by omitting the particular edge with the delete indication in the graph extension (par. [0102] and [0179], removing a non-existing edge, updating a non-existing property, etc., result in either an error being returned or being ignored and optimize a query by transforming the query by transforming a query involves rewriting a query into another semantically equivalent query that should produce the same result and that can potentially be executed more efficiently, i.e. one for which a potentially more efficient and less costly execution plan can be generated).
As per claim 8, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses wherein generating the graph extension comprises: scanning a graph change log of records associated with the base graph (par. [0067], access a value at a specific index, it is first checked to see if the delta log has an entry for that value);
- determining that a particular record of the graph change log qualifies for the graph operation (par.[0071], [0124], [0159], [0161], new checkpoint array is created and updated to reflect required changes is determined wherein the edge array may be updated by merging delta logs of a previous edge array with the topological edge modifications, and the edge offset array may be updated based on the topological edge modifications, and update the graph to only the current active set (e.g., data corresponding to the current date) and, therefore, provides update speed benefits proportional to the active set size reduction);
- determining that the particular record indicates an insertion operation for a new source vertex or the new source vertex with a new edge to a destination vertex (par. [0037]-[0038] and [0048);
- storing, in the graph extension, the new source vertex or the new source vertex with the new edge to the destination vertex (par. [0048], edges after that insertion/deletion location have therefore a different edge offset by the end of the graph update (except if another edge deletion or insertion compensates that change of offset overall), wherein change of edge offset must be reflected in the eRevOffset array); and
- generating results for the query, at least, by scanning, in the graph extension, the new source vertex in addition to scanning the plurality of source vertices in the base graph (par. [0124]-[0131], and [0179], provide a query result, wherein vertex additions or removal and edge changes are sorted by source vertex, and grouped into list of changes and incrementing/decrementing counts of edges for each source/destination vertex compared to the previous version of the graph).
As per claim 9, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses wherein generating the graph extension comprises: scanning a graph change log of records associated with the base graph (par. [0067], access a value at a specific index, it is first checked to see if the delta log has an entry for that value);
- determining that a particular record of the graph change log qualifies for the graph operation (par.[0071], [0124], [0159], [0161], new checkpoint array is created and updated to reflect required changes is determined wherein the edge array may be updated by merging delta logs of a previous edge array with the topological edge modifications, and the edge offset array may be updated based on the topological edge modifications, and update the graph to only the current active set (e.g., data corresponding to the current date) and, therefore, provides update speed benefits proportional to the active set size reduction);
- determining that the particular record indicates a modification operation for a particular source vertex of the base graph to add a new edge to a particular destination vertex (par. [0049], he modified graph shown in FIG. 5);
- storing modification indication in the graph extension that the particular source vertex in the base graph is modified (par. [0053], one or more data structures used in vertex and edge tables are modified to become delta data structures. Delta data structures store information in a base data structure (also referred herein to as a consolidated version of the data structure) and changes in delta logs);
- storing, in the graph extension, the particular source vertex and the new edge to the particular destination vertex thereby generating an indication of the new edge between the particular source vertex and the particular destination vertex (par. [0053], one or more data structures used in vertex and edge tables are modified to become delta data structures. Delta data structures store information in a base data structure (also referred herein to as a consolidated version of the data structure) and changes in delta logs);
- storing, in the graph extension, a reference that maps the particular source vertex in the base graph with the particular source vertex in the graph extension (par. [0072]-[0078] and [0080]-[0081], a list is returned by referring to the array of consolidated list begins at index); and
- generating results for the query, at least, by identifying the particular source vertex in the graph extension based on the reference and scanning the particular source vertex in the graph extension in addition to scanning the plurality of source vertices in the base graph including the particular source vertex in the base graph (par. [0124] -[0131], and [0179], provide a query result, wherein vertex additions or removals) and edge changes are sorted by source vertex, and grouped into list of changes and incrementing/decrementing counts of edges for each source/destination vertex compared to the previous version of the graph).
As per claim 10, the combination of Hilloulin, Kayyoor and Choudhury discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Hilloulin discloses wherein the modification indication is a set bit in a bit vector stored in the graph extension and wherein the bit vector is aligned with a source array stored in the base graph and indexed by identifiers of the plurality of source vertices (par. [0049] and [0124]).
As per claims 11-20, One or more non-transitory computer-readable media claims, which are corresponding the method of claims 1-10 as above. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)-270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165
/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights