Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission filed on May 15, 2026. Claims 13 and 14 were previously canceled. Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending and rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on May 15, 2026. The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims. Claims 1-12 and 15-22 are pending and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments (Remarks) filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 19 are not taught by the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ausarkar para. 0198 supports the claim limitations as it shows how sensitivity classification is converted into specific, enforceable access control rules which logically, get enforced once the rules are defined (the system will carry them out.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 2022/0083228 A1 to Ausarkar et al. (hereinafter, “Ausarkar”) over US 20100030781 A1 to Wong et al. (hereinafter, “Wong”).
Regarding claim 1, Ausarkar discloses: A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that upon execution cause a system to:
replicate, by a replication manager, write input/output (I/O) operations as representations added to a log (“At block 706, the source replication agent 320 adds dehydrated entries to the journal queue. For example, the source replication agent 320 may add, instead of a full entry (or hydrated entry) having both metadata associated with the I/O operation resulting in a change to the source storage device 318 and the data associated with the I/O operation, a dehydrated entry that contains the metadata associated with the I/O operation but not the data associated with the I/O operation. As another example, the source replication agent 320 may add, instead of a full entry or a dehydrated entry, an entry that contains only part of the metadata (e.g., location of the changed block in the source storage device 318)” [0326] [Examiner notes that the journal queue is the log where these representations (of the write) are stored for later]);
select a security policy based on the sensitivity level assigned by the classifier to the first changed data, and a protocol used in the respective write I/O operation of the first changed data (“Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer” [0198]);
generate, based on the security policy for a data object containing the first changed data, the access control rule comprising an access control action specified by the security policy (“Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer” [0198] [Examiner notes that this text supports the claim limitations as it shows how sensitivity classification is converted into specific, enforceable access control rules which logically, get enforced once the rules are defined (the system will carry them out)]).
Ausarkar does not explicitly disclose: classify, using a classifier, changed data in the representations added to the log to identify a sensitivity of first changed data in a respective write I/O operation represented by a first representation of the representations added to the log first changed data in the respective write I/O operation producing a sensitivity level;
However, Wong discloses: classify, using a classifier, changed data in the representations added to the log to identify a sensitivity of first changed data in a respective write I/O operation represented by a first representation of the representations added to the log first changed data in the respective write I/O operation producing a sensitivity level (“One embodiment of the present invention provides a classifier that can automatically reclassify data in a database in response to any relevant data-change in the database. This classifier specifies classification-rules in a database change-notification system, which identifies the relevant data changes. Furthermore, the classifier reclassifies the data based on these classification-rules. For example, the addition of the keyword "anthrax" to a database column having a low sensitivity rating, would automatically reclassify the database column to a higher sensitivity rating. In a second example, the addition of the keywords "kill" and "die" to the same database column would result in the database column receiving an even higher sensitivity rating. In response to the database column being reclassified with a higher sensitivity rating, the classifier can trigger additional operations. For example, these additional operations can involve auditing a table that includes the database column, encrypting data stored in the database column, or activating an intrusion detection system” [0021]; “In one embodiment of the present invention, changing the classification of a data item may result in changing the classification of additional data items associated with the data item. For example, changing the classification of a field in a table may result in changing the classification of the entire table” [0054] [Examiner notes that in the first text, the log is being interpreted as the database change-notification system as it effectively tracks the changed data, which can be seen as the equivalent of a “log” or data structure tracking changes. Examiner also notes that the classifier assigns s sensitivity rating or level to the changed data]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify Ausarkar with the added structure of Wong in order
for the system to be able to efficiently and accurately classify new sensitive data in order to keep it protected.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1, in the form of a system for implementing the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale. Examiner notes that the limitations, a processing resource; and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by the processing resource to are taught by Ausarkar, “Any given computing device comprises one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or single-core or multi-core processors), as well as corresponding non-transitory computer memory (e.g., random-access memory (RAM)) for storing computer programs which are to be executed by the one or more processors” [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: identifying the sensitivity levelAnother type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.)” [0198]).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1/15.
Ausarkar further discloses: is selected from a plurality of different security policies that correspond to different combinations of sensitivity levels and protocols used in write I/O operations Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer” [0198]).
Regarding claim 4, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 3.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the protocols are selected from among a Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), a File Transfer Protocol (FTP), a Secure Shell (SSH) protocol, or a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Management agent 154 can provide storage manager 140 with the ability to communicate with other components within system 100 and/or with other information management cells via network protocols and application programming interfaces (APIs) including, e.g., HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, REST, virtualization software APIs, cloud service provider APIs, and hosted service provider APIs, without limitation” [0112]).
Regarding claim 5, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the generating of the access control rule is further based on a category of the first changed data in the respective write I/O operation (“Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer” [0198] [Examiner notes that the data category here is seen as a type or class of information that the data object belong to such as personal, financial, health/medical, etc.; in this case, a category (like personal) can be classified into different sensitivity levels depending on the context and both (category and sensitivity level) can be used to refine the access control rule]).
Regarding claim 6, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the generating of the access control rule is further based on one or more additional factors selected from among: an identifier of a computing environment, Information management policies 148 can additionally specify or depend on historical or current criteria that may be used to determine which rules to apply to a particular data object, system component, or information management operation, such as: frequency with which primary data 112 or a secondary copy 116 of a data object or metadata has been or is predicted to be used, accessed, or modified; time-related factors (e.g., aging information such as time since the creation or modification of a data object); deduplication information (e.g., hashes, data blocks, deduplication block size, deduplication efficiency or other metrics); an estimated or historic usage or cost associated with different components (e.g., with secondary storage devices 108); the identity of users, applications 110, client computing devices 102 and/or other computing devices that created, accessed, modified, or otherwise utilized primary data 112 or secondary copies 116; a relative sensitivity (e.g., confidentiality, importance) of a data object, e.g., as determined by its content and/or metadata; the current or historical storage capacity of various storage devices; the current or historical network capacity of network pathways connecting various components within the storage operation cell; access control lists or other security information; and the content of a particular data object (e.g., its textual content) or of metadata associated with the data object” [0209] [Examiner notes this text lists criteria that can influence rules including time-related factors (time of a data write), identity of users, applications, client computing devices (identifier of an entity that requested a data write), and current or historical storage storage/network capacity of computing devices (computing environment)]).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claims 1/21.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the security policy comprises one or more conditions and one or more access control actions to apply if the one or more conditions are satisfiedAnother type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer.” [0198] [Examiner notes that the condition here is seen as object sensitivity (confidential, privileged, etc.) and the action (if this condition was satisfied) would be to require reviewer approval before access/write. So when the system sees that the data object is sensitive, it takes the action from the policy and inserts it into the rule for that object]).
Regarding claim 8, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein classifying the first changed data in the respective write I/O operation comprises classifying the data object containing the first changed data Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer.” [0198] [Examiner notes that this text explicitly defines sensitive objects and that level of sensitivity is applied to the whole object, not just to the piece of data that changed and then it specifies the rules/actions for those sensitive objects]).
Regarding claim 9, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 8.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to: map the respective write I/O operation to the Some types of snapshots do not actually create another physical copy of all the data as it existed at the particular point in time, but may simply create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations (e.g., to specific disk blocks) where the data resides as it existed at the particular point in time. For example, a snapshot copy may include a set of pointers derived from the file system or from an application. In some other cases, the snapshot may be created at the block-level, such that creation of the snapshot occurs without awareness of the file system. Each pointer points to a respective stored data block, so that collectively, the set of pointers reflect the storage location and state of the data object (e.g., file(s) or volume(s) or data set(s)) at the point in time when the snapshot copy was created” [0154] [Examiner notes that the I/O operation (disk block changes) is mapped which causes the changed data (updated state of those blocks) to belong to the first data object (file/directory that the pointers map to those blocks)]).
Regarding claim 10, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: receive, by the replication manager, a plurality I/O operations; and identify the write I/O operations from among the plurality of I/O operations (“The block-level filter driver 316 may intercept data modification operations (e.g., data writes) that changes one or more blocks stored in the disk volume or file system. For example, the block-level filter driver 316 may locate, monitor, and/or process one or more of the following with respect to one or more applications running on the client computing device 302: data management operations (e.g., data write operations, file attribute modifications), logs or journals (e.g., NTFS change journal), configuration files, file settings, control files, combinations of the same or the like” [0277] [Examiner notes that this text shows the receiving of operation when the driver intercepts all I/O and identifying write when the driver pinpoints the operations that actually modify blocks]).
Regarding claim 11, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the write I/O operations comprise writes of data blocks (“The block-level filter driver 316 may intercept data modification operations (e.g., data writes) that changes one or more blocks stored in the disk volume or file system. For example, the block-level filter driver 316 may locate, monitor, and/or process one or more of the following with respect to one or more applications running on the client computing device 302: data management operations (e.g., data write operations, file attribute modifications), logs or journals (e.g., NTFS change journal), configuration files, file settings, control files, combinations of the same or the like” [0277]).
Regarding claim 12, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 1.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the log comprises a journal in a persistent memory (“At block 706, the source replication agent 320 adds dehydrated entries to the journal queue. For example, the source replication agent 320 may add, instead of a full entry (or hydrated entry) having both metadata associated with the I/O operation resulting in a change to the source storage device 318 and the data associated with the I/O operation, a dehydrated entry that contains the metadata associated with the I/O operation but not the data associated with the I/O operation. As another example, the source replication agent 320 may add, instead of a full entry or a dehydrated entry, an entry that contains only part of the metadata (e.g., location of the changed block in the source storage device 318)” [0326] [Examiner notes that ethe journal entries are created based on the I/O operations that modify data. The text refers to the I/O resulting in a change to the source storage device. The journal entries represent instances of changed data that will be replicated later. The journal queue mentioned serves as the journal as it stores the changed data and metadata persistently before replication]).
Regarding claim 16, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 15.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein a representation of the representations added to the log comprises changed data of a corresponding write I/O operation (“At block 706, the source replication agent 320 adds dehydrated entries to the journal queue. For example, the source replication agent 320 may add, instead of a full entry (or hydrated entry) having both metadata associated with the I/O operation resulting in a change to the source storage device 318 and the data associated with the I/O operation, a dehydrated entry that contains the metadata associated with the I/O operation but not the data associated with the I/O operation. As another example, the source replication agent 320 may add, instead of a full entry or a dehydrated entry, an entry that contains only part of the metadata (e.g., location of the changed block in the source storage device 318)” [0326] [Examiner notes that ethe journal entries are created based on the I/O operations that modify data. The text refers to the I/O resulting in a change to the source storage device. The journal entries represent instances of changed data that will be replicated later. The journal queue mentioned serves as the log as it stores the changed data and metadata persistently before replication]).
Regarding claim 17, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 15.
Ausarkar further discloses: generate a second access control rule for a second data object containing second changed data in a second write I/O operation of the write I/O operations, the second access control rule being based on a second sensitivity level assigned by the classifier to the changed data in the second write I/O operation, and another protocol used in the second write I/O operation of the second changed data; and perform access control of the second data object based on the second access control rule (“Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer” [0198] [Examiner notes that this text supports the claim limitations as it shows how sensitivity classification is converted into specific, enforceable access control rules which logically, get enforced once the rules are defined (the system will carry them out)]).
Regarding claim 18, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 15.
Ausarkar further discloses: map the first changed data in the first write I/O operation to the first data object based on: reading a portion of a command specifying the first write I/O operation to determine that the command contains an indication that the command is used for an operation involving a data object, and identifying the first data object based on further information in the command (“Some types of snapshots do not actually create another physical copy of all the data as it existed at the particular point in time, but may simply create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations (e.g., to specific disk blocks) where the data resides as it existed at the particular point in time. For example, a snapshot copy may include a set of pointers derived from the file system or from an application. In some other cases, the snapshot may be created at the block-level, such that creation of the snapshot occurs without awareness of the file system. Each pointer points to a respective stored data block, so that collectively, the set of pointers reflect the storage location and state of the data object (e.g., file(s) or volume(s) or data set(s)) at the point in time when the snapshot copy was created” [0154] [Examiner notes that the snapshot system tracks which data blocks are modified when a write happens. These blocks represent the "changed data". The "command" here is broadly defined in the specification (signal, message, metadata). In practice, it is the metadata/pointers created when a snapshot notes a changed block. The snapshot metadata indicates which higher-level object (file, directory, volume) the changed block belongs to. The snapshot system uses that mapping information to link the changed block back to the specific data object it came from. Reading the mappings is equivalent to reading the command information about the write]).
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and 15, in the form of a method, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 19.
Ausarkar further discloses: mapping the first changed data to the data object based on: reading a portion of a command specifying a write I/O operation involving the first changed data to determine that the command contains an indication that the command is used for an operation involving a data object, and identifying the data object based on further information in the command (“Some types of snapshots do not actually create another physical copy of all the data as it existed at the particular point in time, but may simply create pointers that map files and directories to specific memory locations (e.g., to specific disk blocks) where the data resides as it existed at the particular point in time. For example, a snapshot copy may include a set of pointers derived from the file system or from an application. In some other cases, the snapshot may be created at the block-level, such that creation of the snapshot occurs without awareness of the file system. Each pointer points to a respective stored data block, so that collectively, the set of pointers reflect the storage location and state of the data object (e.g., file(s) or volume(s) or data set(s)) at the point in time when the snapshot copy was created” [0154] [Examiner notes that the snapshot system tracks which data blocks are modified when a write happens. These blocks represent the "changed data". The "command" here is broadly defined in the specification (signal, message, metadata). In practice, it is the metadata/pointers created when a snapshot notes a changed block. The snapshot metadata indicates which higher-level object (file, directory, volume) the changed block belongs to. The snapshot system uses that mapping information to link the changed block back to the specific data object it came from. Reading the mappings is equivalent to reading the command information about the write]).
Regarding claim 21, a combination of Ausarkar-Wong discloses the system of claim 15.
Ausarkar further discloses: wherein the Another type of information management policy 148 is an “audit policy” (or “security policy”), which comprises preferences, rules and/or criteria that protect sensitive data in system 100. For example, an audit policy may define “sensitive objects” which are files or data objects that contain particular keywords (e.g., “confidential,” or “privileged”) and/or are associated with particular keywords (e.g., in metadata) or particular flags (e.g., in metadata identifying a document or email as personal, confidential, etc.). An audit policy may further specify rules for handling sensitive objects. As an example, an audit policy may require that a reviewer approve the transfer of any sensitive objects to a cloud storage site, and that if approval is denied for a particular sensitive object, the sensitive object should be transferred to a local primary storage device 104 instead. To facilitate this approval, the audit policy may further specify how a secondary storage computing device 106 or other system component should notify a reviewer that a sensitive object is slated for transfer” [0198] [Examiner notes that this text supports the claim limitations as it shows how sensitivity classification is converted into specific, enforceable access control rules which logically, get enforced once the rules are defined (the system will carry them out)]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Waghmare et al. (US 2023/0400995 A1) teaches techniques for systems and methods disclosed herein that improve on current technology for block-level data replication to cloud computing environments. A new system architecture deploys one or more replication tail proxies in a cloud computing environment, locally (at the cloud) tracks replicated data and determines which replicated data meet criteria for reconstructing a desired point-in-time in the cloud, and persists data blocks received at the replication tail proxy until they are processed as recovery points. The disclosed approach presents resiliency and performance advantages. First, the resiliency of block-level data replication to cloud is improved by deploying the replication tail proxy in the destination cloud. Second, a Recovery Time Objective (RTO) is reduced by enabling faster cloud deployment of virtual machines for disaster recovery, failover, and/or test purposes based on the replicated data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU whose telephone number is (703)756-1761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. 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.
/SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights