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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated March 14, 2024 amendment the specification and claims has been fully considered and is entered. Claims 21-40 are examined.
Response to Preliminary Argument
Applicants argue that “new claim 21 is derived from claim 6 found allowable in the Office Action of June 8, 2021. New claim 31 is derived from claim 9 found allowable in the Office Action of June 8, 2021”. However, newly added claims 21 and 31 are substantially broader than their allowed counterparts and have clarity issues that must be addressed before allowability of these claims can be considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,321 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every element of claims 21-40 of the pending application are present in the claims 1-19 of the ‘321 Patent. Comparison of independent claims to the claims of the ‘321 Patent is illustrated below with the differences highlighted. As shown, while some limitations are worded differently, the substance of the claimed subject matter remains the same.
Claim 21 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘321 Patent
21. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code operable, when executed by one or more processing apparatuses in a computing device, to cause the computing device to perform operations as follows, comprising:
generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface for a cyber threat defense system to display a visual representation of data from a network entity describing network activity containing a potential cyber threat;
generating a query interface component integrated into the threat-tracking graphical user interface to receive a query for assistance;
allowing a system user to digitally grab the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat presented by the threat-tracking graphical user interface into the query interface component along with a data object of the data from the network entity; and
reverting a copy of the data object to a set of portable code for conversion into a copy of the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat at a remote platform for a system support expert at the remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface to assist with a response to the query.
31. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code operable, when executed by one or more processing apparatuses in a computing device, to cause the computing device to perform operations as follows, comprising:
generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface for a cyber threat defense system to display a visual representation of data from a network entity describing network activity containing a potential cyber threat;
generating a query interface component integrated into the threat-tracking graphical user interface to receive a query for assistance;
providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance and the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity containing the potential cyber threat to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat- tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query; and
delivering the incident ticket to a dead drop host for later retrieval by the system support expert.
1. A method for a cyber threat defense system, comprising:
generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface and a query interface component to a system user belonging to a client team to review a potential cyber threat;
allowing the system user to digitally grab, via a visual data container, network activity information for one or more network entities associated with the potential cyber threat presented by the threat-tracking graphical user interface into a collection window of the query interface component; and
providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance and a copy of the visual data container to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query, where the incident ticket containing the query is securely communicated between the threat-tracking graphical user interface to the system support expert at the remote platform who can directly respond to the query within the same threat-tracking .graphical user interface because a communication channel between the remote platform and the threat-tracking graphical user interface is natively built into a coding of the threat-tracking graphical user interface.
6. The method for the cyber threat defense system of claim 1, further comprising: reverting the copy of the data object to a set of portable code for conversion to a copy of the visual data container at the remote platform.
19. A non-transitory machine readable medium configured to store instructions in an executable format, which when executed by one or more processors cause a computing device to perform operations, comprising: generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface and a query interface component to a system user belonging to a client team to review a potential cyber threat; allowing the system user to digitally grab, via a visual data container, network activity information for one or more network entities associated with the potential cyber threat presented by the threat-tracking graphical user interface into a collection window of the query interface component; and providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance and a copy of the visual data container to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query, where the incident ticket containing the query is securely communicated between the threat-tracking graphical user interface to the system support expert at the remote platform who can directly respond to the query within the same threat-tracking graphical user interface because a communication channel between the remote platform and the threat-tracking graphical user interface is natively built into a coding of the threat-tracking graphical user interface.
19. A non-transitory machine readable medium configured to store instructions in an executable format, which when executed by one or more processors cause a computing device to perform operations, comprising:
generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface and a query interface component to a system user belonging to a client team to review a potential cyber threat;
allowing the system user to digitally grab, via a visual data container, network activity information for one or more network entities associated with the potential cyber threat presented by the threat-tracking graphical user interface into a collection window of the query interface component; and
providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance and a copy of the visual data container to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query, where the incident ticket containing the query is securely communicated between the threat-tracking graphical user interface to the system support expert at the remote platform who can directly respond to the query within the same threat-tracking graphical user interface because a communication channel between the remote platform and the threat-tracking graphical user interface is natively built into a coding of the threat-tracking graphical user interface.
9. The method for the cyber threat defense system of claim 1, further comprising: delivering the incident ticket to a dead drop host for later retrieval by the system support expert.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 21, “generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface for a cyber threat defense system to display a visual representation…” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the claim requires the GUI to actually display the visual representation or is directed to a generic GUI that is capable of displaying data. Applicants are advised to amend the claim by stating “that displays a visual representation of data”.
Analogously, “generating a query interface component…to receive a query” is unclear whether receiving a query is required or the claim is directed to a generic query interface component like a search field in a web browser. Applicants are advised to amend the claim by stating “that receives a query for assistance”.
Further, the language “allowing a system user to digitally grab the visual representation” is ambiguous because it is unclear what “allowing” entails and whether it is an active step. Under the BRI, “allowing” could mean an inaction where not preventing a user from doing something (like a failure to implement authentication procedure) effectively allows a system user to digitally grab the visual representation. However, such inaction is an inactive step, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
For the same limitation, it is further unclear how “grabbing the visual representation of data” can be “into the query interface”. It appears that the claim is missing an action that follows grabbing that results in the visual representation being “into the query interface”. The specification discloses such action as “transfer”, “copy”, “drag-and-drop” (par. [0147] as published). However, the claim fails to identify what is being done after grabbing the visual interface such as to result in this data being in the query interface rendering the claim indefinite.
In the same limitation the recitation “a data object of the data from the network entity” is undefined which makes it unclear as to where it comes from to end up in the query interface. In particular, it is unclear whether the data object is something that is “grabbed” together with the visual representation, something that is obtained from the network entity, or something that is generated somewhere in between the process of displaying the visual representation and inputting the grabbed data into the query interface. None of the dependent claims further define the “data object” or explain its origin.
Claim language “reverting a copy of the data…for conversion…” is unclear because it appears to only require revering a copy of the data object to a set of portable code where “for conversion…at a remote platform” is a statement of intended use that is outside the scope of the invention, essentially only requiring generic data conversion into a lower-level code. It is unclear whether the claim intended to include the functionality of data a system support expert at the remote platform to assist with a response to the query that presumably would require transmitting this response back to the system user of the cyber threat defense system.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 24, the language “incident ticket containing the query is securely communicated between the threat-tracking graphical user interface to the remote platform because a communication channel between the platform at the remote platform and the threat-tracking graphical user interface is natively built into the coding of the graphical user interface” is ambiguous because it is unclear how secure communication is accomplished merely by having a generic communication channel natively built into the coding of the GUI.
As to claim 26, it is unclear how a GUI can communicate with a remote platform without an external communication system and what would this “external communication system” entails, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to claim 28, the language “identifying whether a breach state and a chain of relevant behavioral parameters that are associated with one or more network entities that correspond to the potential cyber threat” is missing a verb that is a conditional functionality. In particular, it is unclear what action/function is identified as being conditional (whether) that pertains to the breach state and a chain of relevant behavior.
Claim 31 contains analogous limitations and thus is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 31, it is also unclear as to how “providing an incident ticket” is distinct from “delivering the incident ticket”. In particular, it is unclear whether the incident ticket is sent twice to two different destinations or “delivering” is part of “providing”. It is also unclear what constitutes a “dead drop host”. Dependent claims fail to further define this term and specification does not explain what it is.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The subject matter of claim 37 is fully presented in the independent claim 31 from which claim 37 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 21-22, 24, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry et al. (US 2018/0077190 A1) in view of Claussen et al. (US 2007/0162466 A1).
As to claim 21, Mowry teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code (par. [0119]) operable, when executed by one or more processing apparatuses in a computing device, to cause the computing device to perform operations as follows, comprising:
generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface for a cyber threat defense system to display a visual representation of data from a network entity describing network activity containing a potential cyber threat [generating dashboard GUI 1001] (Fig. 9 par. [0067]);
generating a query interface component integrated into the threat-tracking graphical user interface to receive a query for assistance [“view of threats” interface component 1610] (Fig. 16 par. [0100]);
allowing a system user to digitally grab the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat presented by the threat-tracking graphical user interface into the query interface component along with a data object of the data from the network entity [allowing the user to make selections, such as selecting the visual representation of one of the options to change the timeframe and query the system to present the results for the particular selection] (Figs. 13 and 14; par. [0080], [0085], [0098]).
Mowry fails to teach reverting a copy of the data object to a set of portable code for conversion into a copy of the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat at a remote platform for a system support expert at the remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface to assist with a response to the query.
Claussen is directed to sending a data object from one application to another (abstract). In particular, Claussen teaches reverting a copy of the data object to a set of portable code (par. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mowry by reverting a copy of the data object to a set of portable code for conversion into a copy of the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat at a remote platform for a system support expert at the remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface to assist with a response to the query in order to convert the data object to the transmission format so that is can be transmitted to the destination and rebuilt (par. [0005] in Claussen).
As to claim 22, Mowry teaches presenting the query interface component integrated into the threat-tracking graphical user interface to come up as a pop up window when activated that allows the system support expert at the remote platform to analyze information being displayed on the threat-tracking graphical user interface along with the system user viewing the threat-tracking graphical user interface [popup window 2110] (Figs. 11 and 21 par. [0113]). It is noted that claim language “allows the system support expert to analyze” is a statement of intended use. There is no requirement to analyze information.
As to claim 24, Mowry teaches constructing an incident ticket to include i) connection logs extracted from the threat-tracking graphical user interface, ii) graphical representations extracted from the threat-tracking graphical user interface, iii) triaged incidents extracted from the threat- tracking graphical user interface, iv) analyst comments, v) and any combination of these [opening trouble tickets] (par. [0067]), where the incident ticket containing the query is securely communicated between the threat-tracking graphical user interface to the remote platform because a communication channel between the platform at the remote platform and the threat- tracking graphical user interface is natively built into the coding of the graphical user interface [client API] (par. [0015]).
As to claim 26, Mowry teaches establishing a secure multimedia communication channel between the threat-tracking graphical user interface and the system support expert at the remote platform to exchange any of audio, visual, and textual information through the multimedia communication channel which is constructed as part of a native portion of user interface; and thus, does not require accessing an external communication system to securely exchange the audio, visual, and textual information with a platform used by the system support expert [web browser and a communication application] (par. [0045]).
As to claim 27, Mowry teaches establishing a secure reverse control channel with the system support expert [bi-directional communication] (par. [0047]-[0048]) to view and manipulate the threat-tracking graphical user interface while presented to the system user [statement of intended use].
As to claim 28, Mowry teaches identifying whether a breach state and a chain of relevant behavioral parameters that are associated with one or more network entities that correspond to the potential cyber threat [performing a signature-based detection] (par. [0007]).
As to claim 29, Mowry teaches generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface to display a breach state and a chain of relevant behavioral parameters [“to display” is a statement of intended use] (Figs. 10-18); and presenting a query option to generate [“to generate” is a statement of intended use] (par. [0057]-[0058], Fig. 16) a query for assistance that allows a system user to digitally grab the breach state and the chain of relevant behavioral parameters presented on screen by the threat-tracking graphical user interface.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry et al. in view of Claussen et al. and in further view of Zaitsev (US 2013/0055399 A1).
As to claim 23, Mowry in view of Claussen teaches all the elements except receiving a poll for incident tickets from the remote platform; and in response to polling from the remote platform to retrieve an incident ticket containing the query, and then sending the incident ticket to the remote platform for the system support expert.
Zaitsev is directed to automatic analysis of security related incidents in computer networks (abstract). In particular, Zaitsev teaches receiving a poll for incident tickets from the remote platform [receiving request for additional events] (step 225 par. [0060]); and in response to polling from the remote platform to retrieve an incident ticket containing the query, and then sending the incident ticket to the remote platform for the system support expert [the additional event-level information which ultimately caused the incident is transmitted to the administration server 110] (Fig. 3A, par. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mowry in view of Claussen by receiving a poll for incident tickets from the remote platform; and in response to polling from the remote platform to retrieve an incident ticket containing the query, and then sending the incident ticket to the remote platform for the system support expert, in order to obtain incident related information from a device to reconstruct the chain of events (par. [0061] in Zaitsev).
As to claim 30, Mowry teaches generating an incident ticket that includes the visual representation of data [trouble ticket 1005] (Fig. 9 par. [0067]).
Mowry in view of Claussen fails to teach that the incident ticket contains the query for assistance; and providing the incident ticket to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query.
Zaitsev is directed to automatic analysis of security related incidents in computer networks (abstract). In particular, Zaitsev teaches that the incident ticket contains the query for assistance; and providing the incident ticket to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query [providing incident report 220 to the administration server 110] (par. [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mowry in view of Claussen by having the incident ticket contain the query for assistance; and providing the incident ticket to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query in order to reduce the time spent on investigating security incidents (par. [0011] in Zaitsev).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry et al. in view of Claussen et al. and in further view of Ahmed et al. (US 2015/0370898 A1).
As to claim 25, Mowry in view of Claussen teaches all the elements except receiving a drag-and-drop input from the system user selecting the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat contained in the data object to move a copy of the data object into a collection window of the query interface component, where the data object contains a literal copy of the data as opposed to a summarization of the data.
Ahmed is directed to a text and graphic based search query formulation (abstract). In particular, Ahmed teaches receiving a drag-and-drop input from the system user selecting the visual representation of data describing activity contained in a data object to move a copy of the data object into a collection window of the query interface component, where the data object contains a literal copy of the data as opposed to a summarization of the data [selecting images and text by drag and drop into the factor window 208 to assist in constructing a query] (Fig. 2 par. [0023]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mowry in view of Claussen by receiving a drag-and-drop input from the system user selecting the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity associated with the potential cyber threat contained in the data object to move a copy of the data object into a collection window of the query interface component, where the data object contains a literal copy of the data as opposed to a summarization of the data, in order to obtain an ordered list of recommendations based on the query (par. [0004] in Ahmed).
Claims 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry et al. in view of Zaitsev.
As to claim 31, Mowry teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code (par. [0119]) operable, when executed by one or more processing apparatuses in a computing device, to cause the computing device to perform operations as follows, comprising:
generating a threat-tracking graphical user interface for a cyber threat defense system to display a visual representation of data from a network entity describing network activity containing a potential cyber threat [generating dashboard GUI 1001] (Fig. 9 par. [0067]);
generating a query interface component integrated into the threat-tracking graphical user interface to receive a query for assistance that includes the visual representation of data [“view of threats” interface component 1610] (Fig. 16 par. [0100]).
Mowry fails to teach providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance and the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity containing the potential cyber threat to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat- tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query; and delivering the incident ticket to a dead drop host for later retrieval by the system support expert.
Zaitsev is directed to automatic analysis of security related incidents in computer networks (abstract). In particular, Zaitsev teaches providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance from the network entity describing network activity containing the potential cyber threat to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat-tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query [providing incident report 220 to the administration server 110] (par. [0043]-[0044]); and delivering the incident ticket to a dead drop host [event collection module 300] for later retrieval by the system support expert (par. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mowry by providing an incident ticket containing the query for assistance and the visual representation of data from the network entity describing network activity containing the potential cyber threat to a system support expert at a remote platform from the threat- tracking graphical user interface for a response to the query; and delivering the incident ticket to a dead drop host for later retrieval by the system support expert, in order to reduce the time spent on investigating security incidents (par. [0011] in Zaitsev).
As to claims 32-34, Mowry in view of Zaitsev teaches all the elements, as discussed per claims 22-24 above.
As to claim 35, Mowry in view of Zaitsev teaches targeting the system support expert for delivery of the incident ticket based on a query category for the query (par. [0031] in Zaitsev).
As to claim 36, Mowry in view of Zaitsev teaches encrypting the incident ticket to make the incident ticket unreadable until unlocked by the system support expert (par. [0062], [0118] in Mowry).
As to claim 37, Mowry in view of Zaitsev teaches all the elements, as discussed per claim 31 above.
As to claim 38, Mowry teaches cooperating with a cyber threat module to identify whether a breach state and a chain of relevant behavioral parameters deviating from a normal benign behavior of the network entity correspond to the potential cyber threat [performing a signature-based detection] (par. [0007]).
As to claim 39, Mowry in view of Zaitsev teaches storing the incident ticket as an incident report for later review (par. [0055] in Zaitsev).
As to claim 40, Mowry in view of Zaitsev teaches exporting the incident ticket as a document (par. [0042] in Zaitsev).
Related Prior Art
Watanabe et al. (US 2017/0278077 A1) is directed to a database that stores incident cases and provides access to incident cases (abstract). In particular, Watanabe teaches a GUI for incident registration and retrieval (Figs. 11-14 and corresponding description). Therefore, teachings of Watanabe are pertinent to the pending claims and can be used in the rejection of claims 21-40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457