DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP13461545.9, filed on 08/30/2013.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/28/2025, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 4/30/2025. Applicant’s arguments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 17-19, 24 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US Patent No.: 7,590,641; Date of Patent: Sep. 15, 2009) in view of Anderson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2013/0124525; Pub. Date: May 16, 2013) and Young (US PGPUB No. 2012/0110001; Pub. Date: May 3, 2012).
Regarding independent claim 14,
Olson discloses a computer implemented method for improving efficiency and reducing computational complexity of executing queries in a database using an electronic computing device, the method comprising:(a) identifying, by a comparison of sizes of a plurality of data fields of a plurality of data properties, a first data property from the plurality of data properties to be used as representative data of a query result, See Col. 2, lines 4-10, (Disclosing a system for balancing compression efficiency against access performance of a plurality of columns of a database. The system utilizes a decompression approach that selectively decompresses column data in relational data tables for rows used by a specific query access as that query is being processed, i.e. a computer implemented method for improving efficiency and reducing computational complexity of executing queries in a database using an electronic computing device.) See Col. 8, lines 17-24, (Application 150 may determine that values of a column of a database 200 may be tokenized.) See Col. 10, lines 35-37 & 46-48, (FIG. 7A illustrates the process comprising step 601 wherein application 150 sets the compressed length to the byte size needed to hold a numeric value representing the different between the high and low values of a range of values of columns. At step 603, application 150 computes a column size for keeping the numbers in their original form but using the smallest number of bytes. Note Col. 8, lines 10-16 wherein the system selects columns to be tokenized based on determining whether tokenization would be beneficial for said column based on storage required to hold a totem translation list as well as the length required to store token values in table rows, i.e. identifying, by a comparison of sizes of a plurality of data fields of a plurality of data properties, a first data property from the plurality of data properties to be used as representative data of a query result (e.g. the method selects columns to compress based on storage requirements).)
Olson does not disclose the step wherein the first data property has both the smallest and unique value in the plurality of data properties;
(b) executing a database query on a plurality of data records and identifying a set of data records satisfying the database query;
Anderson discloses the step wherein the first data property has both the smallest and unique value in the plurality of data properties; See Paragraphs [0017]-[0018], (Disclosing a system for processing data records to identify a matched data cluster. The method includes identifying candidate data records in response to a query. The system may compare the query to a data store mapping queries to candidate clusters.) See Paragraph [0251], (As part of resolving a query, a multiple match reconciliation step may be employed for retrieving records. The system may retrieve information by selecting a smallest cluster key wherein said cluster key is then assigned to each unique data record, i.e. wherein the first data property has both the smallest and unique value in the plurality of data properties (e.g. the cluster key representing an attribute of a data record used to identify a record).)
(b) executing a database query on a plurality of data records and identifying a set of data records satisfying the database query; See Paragraph [0282], (The method comprises retrieving records in response to a received query according to query criteria. Data cluster records that match the query criteria are retrieved from remote data clusters and stored as query results.
Olson and Anderson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson to include the method of selecting a smallest cluster key as an identifier for retrieving tabular data from a database as disclosed by Anderson. Paragraph [0029] of Anderson discloses that their approach incrementally discovers clusters and represents each by a representative record that a new query record bust be close to, which represents an improved approach to retrieving data records.
Olson-Anderson does not disclose the step of (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records as values of a result of the database query.
Young discloses the step of (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records as values of a result of the database query. See Paragraph [0021], (Disclosing a system for importing data into a spreadsheet from an external data source via UDFs configured to issue queries to said external data source. A user may utilize external data access user-defined functions (UDFs) to retrieve data records from an external source by issuing a query 316 to external data source 306.) See Paragraph [0029], (Spreadsheet data source manager 504 may generate a hash table that stores data records identified by resolved parameters of other UDF calls for fast retrieval.) See Paragraphs [0061]-[0062], (A UDF may generate a query specifying a plurality of dimensions associated with parameter values that are used to build a key for a hash table configured to store the requested data values, i.e. (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records as values of a result of the database query (e.g. the hash table stores results of the query issued by the UDF).)
Olson, Anderson and Young are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson to include the method of generating a hash table for storing requested query dimensions as disclosed by Young. Paragraph [0031] of Young discloses that the use of a hash table or cache allows for fast future access to the contents of the hash table as required by supplemental or future queries.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
As discussed above with claim 14, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Anderson further discloses the step wherein the plurality of data records are stored in the database comprising multiple data structures. See FIG. 1 & Paragraph [0068], (FIG. 1 illustrates the system comprising data sources 100 which may include a variety of data sources, each of which may have unique storage formats and interfaces. The clustering system may access data sources 100 to determine membership of records in a cluster.) See Paragraph [0080], (Records may be organized into segments used to compare records for membership in a cluster. Records may be analyzed according to characteristics such as product identifiers, geographic quantities, etc., i.e. wherein the plurality of data records are stored in the database comprising multiple data structures (e.g. the plurality of records represent tabular database data having a plurality of fields.).)
Regarding dependent claim 18,
As discussed above with claim 17, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Anderson further discloses the step wherein at least one data structure comprises definitions of data object values of at least one data set, wherein a definition of a data object value comprises (i) a data object identifier, See Paragraph [0067], (Records are associated with a plurality of fields.) See Paragraph [0118], (Records may include a unique record identifier that may be stored in a search store along with a cluster id associated with a confirmed cluster associated with the record, i.e. wherein at least one data structure comprises definitions of data object values of at least one data set, wherein a definition of a data object value comprises (i) a data object identifier.)
and (ii) a unique identifier of a data property that the data object value is assigned to. See Paragraphs [0250] & [0252], (The search store contains search entries for clusters based on cluster id-keys utilized for queries. A cluster key comprising the smallest attribute may be stored in the search store indicated as the "key" column which may be seen in the search store illustrated in FIG. 2B, i.e. (ii) a unique identifier of a data property that the data object value is assigned to (e.g. the cluster key represents a selected key field).)
Regarding dependent claim 19,
As discussed above with claim 18, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Anderson further discloses the step wherein the at least one data structure has a plurality of data properties such that at least two of the plurality of data properties have different data sizes. See FIG. 2B, (FIG. 2B Illustrates elements of the search store having at least three columns wherein the first and second columns include integers and the cluster key is represented as "k1", "k2", "k3". Note [0251]-[0252] wherein a smallest cluster key is selected for each distinct cluster wherein a cluster may comprise a plurality of records, i.e. wherein the at least one data structure has a plurality of data properties such that at least two of the plurality of data properties have different data sizes (e.g. different cluster keys represent different attributes having different sizes by virtue of having differing amounts of records).)
Regarding independent claim 24,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 14 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 27,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 17 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 28,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 18 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 29,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 19 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Anderson and Young as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bestgen et al. (US PGPUB No. 2009/0164412; Pub. Date: Jun. 25, 2009).
Regarding dependent claim 15,
As discussed above with claim 14, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Olson-Anderson-Young does not disclose the step wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest size of data field and unique value of the first data property.
Bestgen discloses the step wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest size of data field and unique value of the first data property. See FIGs. 4-5 & Paragraph [0046], (FIG. 5 illustrates a method of performing a query via a query optimizer wherein a query may include sub-queries containing user-defined functions, references to tables, etc. The query optimizer may determine the set of attributes from each of the operations in the query and prepare a query that retrieves all of the attributes in a single pass and perform a union of all retrieved attributes. The method may include performing operations in parallel to execute the query, i.e. wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest and unique value of the first data property (e.g. the method of Bestgen comprises performing a UNION of a plurality of sub-queries wherein the subqueries retrieve attribute information.).)
The examiner notes that the method of Olson may, as part of resolving a query, may select a execute a query over compressed, tokenized column records but does not explicitly disclose the database query "utilizing UNION operators between SELECT database queries...". The method of Bestgen describes a process of determining and retrieving attributes in order to perform a query which may be applied to any attributes such as the tokenized column records of Olson representing a column having a smallest size.
Olson, Anderson, Young and Bestgen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson-Young to include the method of processing sub-queries as disclosed by Bestgen. Paragraph [0046] of Bestgen discloses that the system is capable of processing the sub-queries such that all the relevant attributes may be retrieved in a single pass and allows for performing query operations in parallel, representing an improvement in resource usage and processing time.
Regarding dependent claim 25,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 15 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Anderson and Young as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB No. 2003/0229640; Pub. Date; Dec. 11, 2003).
Regarding dependent claim 16,
As discussed above with claim 14, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Olson-Anderson-Young does not disclose the step wherein the executing the database query utilizes an INTERSECT operator between subqueries related to different data structures for storing the plurality of data records.
Carlson discloses the step wherein the executing the database query utilizes an INTERSECT operator between subqueries related to different data structures for storing the plurality of data records. See Paragraph [0091], (Disclosing a method for processing queries utilizing a dynamically-populated query buffer to facilitate handling of at least a portion of a database query in parallel. The method comprises utilizing a query buffer to facilitate parallel handling of at least a portion of a database query. A query execution tree 50 represents an entire query in a tree structure comprising a plurality of query nodes representing operations of the query.) See Paragraph [0091], (A query node may comprise an Intersect Node configured to combine two sorted result sets "A" and "B" wherein the result contains tuples in both "A" and "B" without duplicates, i.e. an INTERSECT operation performed on different data sets, i.e. wherein the executing the database query utilizes an INTERSECT operator between subqueries (e.g. an INTERSET node may be used to combine datasets retrieved by other queries) related to different data structures for storing the plurality of data records (e.g. the sorted result sets A and B).)
Olson, Anderson, Young and Carlson are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson-Young to include the method of processing queries according to query nodes as disclosed by Carlson. Paragraph [0140] of Carlson discloses that the query buffer provides the benefit of allowing multiple threads to consume records in parallel to accelerate the execution of query operations. This represents an improvement in resource utilization and processing time.
Regarding dependent claim 26,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 16 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Anderson and Young as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bunker et al. (US Patent No.: 8,364,623; Date of Patent: Jan. 29, 2013).
Regarding dependent claim 20,
As discussed above with claim 18, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Olson-Anderson-Young does not disclose the step of creating a mind map structure comprising nodes and directed links, wherein each node of the mind map represents a data set of the data sets and each directed link of the directed links represents a relation between data sets.
Bunker discloses the step of creating a mind map structure comprising nodes and directed links, wherein each node of the mind map represents a data set of the data sets and each directed link of the directed links represents a relation between data sets. See Col. 6, lines 13-15, (Disclosing a system for generating mind maps comprising receiving a request to generate a graphical summarization of relationships of a particular entity associated with an information technology infrastructure. The system comprises systems management tool 150 configured to generate a mind map by retrieving information on entities and relationships from one or more databases.) See FIG. 4, (FIG. 4 illustrates a mind map comprising a plurality of nodes and edges indicating relationships between information retrieved from a plurality of databases, i.e. creating a mind map structure comprising nodes and directed links, wherein each node of the mind map represents a data set of the data sets and each directed link of the directed links represents a relation between data sets.)
Olson, Anderson, Young and Bunker are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson-Young to include the method of generating mind maps from data retrieved from one or more sources of data as disclosed by Bunker. Col. 3, lines 10-25 of Bunker discloses that the system includes authorization privileges for different users which allows a user to view more detailed information presented in the mind map according to a user's permissions. This ensures that only authorized users are able to perform certain actions with regard to the IT system which prevents actions that could potentially result in inadvertent system downtime or data loss.
Regarding dependent claim 30,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 20 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 21 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Anderson and Young as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Transier et al. (US PGPUB No. 2012/0011144; Pub. Date: Jan. 12, 2012)
Regarding dependent claim 21,
As discussed above with claim 18, Olson-Anderson-Young discloses all of the limitations.
Olson-Anderson-Young does not disclose the step of wherein (c) is performed in multiple threads in parallel for storing data from the set of data records identified in (b) and the first data property identified in (a).
Transier discloses the step wherein (c) is performed in multiple threads in parallel for storing data from the set of data records identified in (b) and the first data property identified in (a). See Paragraph [0016], (Disclosing a system for concurrently generating a local hash table storing key-index pairs which are merged by a plurality of execution threads to produce a set of disjoint result hash tables. The system comprises a plurality of processing units 105, 110, 115 configure to concurrently execute a plurality of execution threads to build the index hash table data structures. Note [0027] wherein the index hash is constructed in parallel by processing key-index pairs to facilitate data lookup operations, i.e. wherein (c) is performed in multiple threads in parallel for storing data from the set of data records identified in (b) and the first data property identified in (a) (e.g. the system of Transier generates a hash table in parallel).
Olson, Anderson, Young and Transier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, query execution. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson-Young to include the method of generating hash tables in parallel as disclosed by Transier. Paragraph [0018] of Transier discloses that the use of a parallel computation environment allows the system to concurrently execute multiple threads for inserting and retrieving data in tables as well as computing an aggregate in a parallel computation environment. This represents an efficient use of resources for computing query results.
Regarding dependent claim 31,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 21 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Anderson, Young and Transier as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dugan et al. (US PGPUB No.: 2002/0083166; Pub. Date: Jun. 27, 2002).
Regarding dependent claim 22,
As discussed above with claim 21, Olson-Anderson-Young-Transier discloses all of the limitations.
Olson-Anderson-Young-Transier does not disclose the step of wherein the multiple threads are determined based at least in part on a number of the keys exceeding a pre-defined number.
Dugan discloses the step of wherein the multiple threads are determined based at least in part on a number of the keys exceeding a pre-defined number. D See Paragraph [0090], (Disclosing a system for managing a plurality of execution threads. A thread manager object manages the plurality of threads using a unique identifier as a key that can be used for thread identification. A hash table of key-value pairs may be consulted to determine if a key is recognized, meaning that the service thread has been allocated for a call instance. If a threshold value of thread instances is exceeded, the system may attempt to generate an additional thread instance for the requested service, i.e. wherein the multiple threads are determined based at least in part on a number of the keys exceeding a pre-defined number (e.g. threads are associated with keys, therefore if a number of threads is exceeded then a number of keys is exceeded).)
Olson, Anderson, Young, Transier and Dugan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data service and management. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson-Young-Transier to include the method of managing service threads according to key-value pairs as disclosed by Dugan. Paragraph [0058] of Dugan discloses that the management of data objects and services improves performance because service processing, call processing and facility processing operate in a homogeneous platform.
Regarding dependent claim 32,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 22 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Anderson, Young, Transier and Dugan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Joshi et al. (US Patent No. 7,043,494; Date of Patent: May 9, 2006).
Regarding dependent claim 13,
As discussed above with claim 22, Olson-Anderson-Young-Transier-Dugan discloses all of the limitations.
Olson-Anderson-Young-Transier-Dugan does not disclose the step wherein the predefined number is between 75 and 150.
Joshi discloses the step wherein the predefined number is between 75 and 150. See Col. 4, lines 1-25, (Disclosing a method of managing a combined hash table/bucket for facilitating fast, deterministic, memory-efficient exact match look-ups on extremely large tables. The method includes determining a maximum number of keys "T" to be stored in the hash table corresponding to an application-specific amount, i.e. wherein the predefined number is between 75 and 150 (e.g. the value of "T" may be any number required by the application, which would include the range of 75-150).)
Olson, Anderson, Young, Transier, Dugan and Joshi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data storage and retrieval. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Olson-Anderson-Young-Transier-Dugan to include the method of processing a predetermined amount of keys as disclosed by Joshi. Col. 5, lines 54-65 of Joshi disclose that the system is capable of providing a CAM to handle situations in which neither the hash table nor overflow bucket table can store any additional keys by storing additional keys.
Regarding dependent claim 33,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 23 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Examiner’s Input
The following represents the examiner’s input relating to potential claim amendments and/or clarifications that would likely overcome the currently cited prior art and/or overcome a particular rejection:
Regarding independent claim 14,
Claim 1 recites the following step:
(c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records as values of a result of the database query.
Paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s Specification describes that “for each set of predefined number of retrieved results, fifth programmatic instructions for executing a new database access thread that is configured to retrieve data that are present in the records identified with the smallest unique values.” Which describes a process wherein a plurality of database access threads (e.g. for each set of results, a new access thread) are used to retrieve data present in the records identified with the smallest unique values. According to Paragraph [0029], the retrieved results are stored in a hash table as in step (c) as presented in the claim above. Paragraph [0060] additionally describes the step wherein “when a result set is obtained for the query executed in a data retrieval threads at steps 405 and 406, the data may be read into a previously defined hash table.”
Regarding dependent claim 15,
Dependent claim 15 discloses the following step:
wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest size of data field and unique value of the first data property.
Similar to the discussion above regarding independent claim 14, Paragraph [0029] references the use of a plurality of threads to execute the limitation above: “the database query executed by each thread, utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the values of the smallest unique value property.”
The use of parallel threads to execute the database query in the manner described in dependent claim 15 is not currently represented in the claim but would likely overcome the currently cited prior art.
Therefore, the examiner suggests incorporating the subject matter of dependent claim 15 to clarify that the process of step (c) is performed in parallel using a plurality of database access threads and that the threads are specifically used to execute database queries as described in Paragraph [0029].
The following represents a potential amendment that would reflect the discussion above:
14. (Proposed Amendment) A computer implemented method for improving efficiency and reducing computational complexity of executing queries in a database using an electronic computing device, the method comprising:(a) identifying, by a comparison of sizes of a plurality of data types fields of a plurality of data properties, a first data property from the plurality of data properties to be used as representative data of a query result, wherein the first data property has a data type which has both the smallest size of data field and unique value in the plurality of data properties;
(b) executing a database query, using one or more database access threads, on a plurality of data records and identifying a set of data records satisfying the database query, wherein the database query utilizes UNION operators between SELECT database queries limited with the smallest size of data field and unique value of the first data property;
and (c) storing, in a hash table, the first data property identified in (a) as keys and the set of data records identified by the one or more database access threads in (b) as values of a result of the database query.
Corresponding amendments are similarly suggested for independent claim 24 along with the cancellation of claims 15, 21, 35 and 31. Claims 22 and 32 would have to be amended to depend on the corresponding independent claims.
Any suitable terminology may be utilized to described the “database access threads”, the term is merely used in the proposed amendment as an example based on the language used in the portions of Applicant’s Specification discussed above. Additionally, any alternative amendments that reflect the discussion above may similarly overcome the currently cited prior art and Applicant is invited to contact the examiner in case further discussion is required to draft a more effective amendment.
These amendments would likely overcome the currently cited prior art and would require further search and/or consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-15, 19, 24-25 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments have modified the scope of the claimed invention, which necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159