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 .
The Amendment filed on 11/06/25 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/584,791 of which claims 2, 3, 5, and 8-10 have been canceled and claims 14-16 are added. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11-16 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s response, filed on 11/06/25, with respect to 101 rejections of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11-16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Applicant argues “Claim 1 is not directed to the abstract concept of merely "selecting a format" or "improving efficiency" at the high level. It addresses a specific, long-standing technical problem in database management systems: the performance bottleneck caused by the mismatch between the physical layout of data in memory (row-based, column-based, hybrid) and the access patterns of the query processor”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitations recite determining a first data format based on a first reading order in which a plurality of first data to be processed by a first phase of the first physical operator is read during the first data processing. wherein the first data format is selected from a row-based format, a column-based format, or a hybrid format; determining a second data format based on a second reading order in which a plurality of second data to be processed by a second phase of the first physical operator or the second physical operator is read during the second data processing, wherein the second data format is selected from the row-based format, the column-based format, or the hybrid format, and the second data format is different from the first data format, the plurality of second data includes a result of the first data processing. The limitations of determining…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…”, “determining…,” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining data format. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, generating…, converting…, executing…. The “generating” and “converting” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “executing” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Generating” and “converting” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “executing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner points that improvement cannot be part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. See 101 rejections below.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Applicant argues “Because amended claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2A of the Alice analysis, there is no need to proceed to Step 2B of the Alice analysis. However, the claim 1 is also eligible under step 2B”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to response to arguments II above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1, 12 and 13 recite determining a first data format based on a first reading order in which a plurality of first data to be processed by a first phase of the first physical operator is read during the first data processing. wherein the first data format is selected from a row-based format, a column-based format, or a hybrid format; determining a second data format based on a second reading order in which a plurality of second data to be processed by a second phase of the first physical operator or the second physical operator is read during the second data processing, wherein the second data format is selected from the row-based format, the column-based format, or the hybrid format, and the second data format is different from the first data format, the plurality of second data includes a result of the first data processing.
The limitations of determining…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…”, “determining…,” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining data format. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, generating…, converting…, executing…. The “generating” and “converting” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “receiving” and “executing” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Generating” and “converting” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “receiving” and “executing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 4 recites when the first data processing includes one of aggregation, filtering, or inter-column operation, the first data format comprises the column-based format; when the first data processing includes one of merging, itemizing, or inter-row operation, the first data format comprises the row-based format; and when the first data processing includes at least one of: the aggregation, the filtering, or the inter-column operation, and at least one of the merging, the itemizing, or inter-row operation, the first data format comprises the hybrid format. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 6 recites wherein the determining the first data format based on the first reading order in which the plurality of first data is read during the first data processing includes: when the first reading order includes row-by-row reading, determining that the first data format is the row-based format; and when the first reading order includes column-by-column reading, determining that the first data format is the column-based format. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 7 recites wherein the determining the first data format based on the first reading order in which the plurality of first data is read during the first data processing includes: when the first reading order including sequentially reading first data of a first target row, second data of a second target row, and the first target row and the second target row are not adjacent to each other, the first data format is to store the first target row and the second target row adjacent to each other; and when the first reading order including sequentially reading first data of a first target column, second data of a second target column, and the first target column is not adjacent to the second target column, determining that the first data format is to store the first target column and the second target column adjacent to each other. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 11 recites wherein: the plurality of first data includes at least one of data in the database, or data obtained by processing based on the data in the database; and the plurality of second data includes at least one of the data in the database, or the data obtained by processing based on the data in the database. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 14 recites wherein the converting the plurality of first data and the converting the plurality of second data are performed by a VectorTransformer that rewrites data based on a VectorOrder. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., converting, performed) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 15 recites wherein determining the first data format and the second data format is based on a layout and cache aware cost model that estimates cache misses for different data formats. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 16 recites wherein the converting the plurality of first data and the converting the plurality of second data occur in real-time during query execution without pre-storing data in multiple formats. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., converting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Note
Examiner points that claim limitations “physical plan” and “physical operator” do not provide distinctions from a “plan” or an “operator”. Furthermore, the original disclosure does not provide a definition of these claim limitation to distinguish from a plan or an operator. Therefore, Examiner will not give any patentable weight these claimed limitations.
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 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 of this title, 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, 4, 6, and 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukouvalas et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0102613; hereinafter “Boukouvalas”) in view of Gould et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0102325; hereinafter “Gould”).
As per claims 1, 12, and 13, Boukouvalas discloses a method applied to a database system, comprising: receiving, by a query parser of the database system, a structured query language (SQL) data processing request that indicates processing on data in a database, the processing including first data processing and second data processing, the first data processing being different from the second data processing; (See Figs. 1-2, paras. 8, 34, 40, wherein query language (SQL), query parser functions on receiving user request, program modules in which “storing operating system 144, application programs 145, other program modules 146, and program data 147. Note that these components can either be the same as or different from operating system 134, application programs 135, other program modules 136, and program data” [0034] are disclosed, also See paras. 28, 51, wherein data processing APIs are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
generating, by a query optimizer of the database system, a physical plan in response to the SQL data processing request, the physical plan comprising a first physical operator, or comprising the first physical operator and a second physical operator; (See paras. 41, 45, 48-49, wherein query optimizer functions, generating physical operator trees are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
executing the first data processing on the converted plurality of first data via the first phase of the first physical operator; (See paras. 42-45, wherein query executor producing utilizing transformed data (analogous to processing on converted data), query optimizer functions in which “information provided by the query optimizer included in the compile-time plan may include but is not limited to, such information as scalar expressions, parameter values used to optimize a query, physical operator-specific information” [0045] are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
and executing the second data processing on the converted plurality of second data via the second phase of the first physical operator or via the second physical operator, (See paras. 42-45, wherein query executor producing utilizing transformed data (analogous to processing on converted data), query optimizer functions in which “information provided by the query optimizer included in the compile-time plan may include but is not limited to, such information as scalar expressions, parameter values used to optimize a query, physical operator-specific information” [0045] are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
However, Boukouvalas fails to disclose determining a first data format based on a first reading order in which a plurality of first data to be processed by a first phase is read during the first data processing, wherein the first data format is selected from a row-based format, a column-based format, or a hybrid format; converting the plurality of first data into the first data format; determining a second data format based on a second reading order in which a plurality of second data to be processed by a second phase is read during the second data processing, wherein the second data format is selected from the row-based format, the column-based format, or the hybrid format, and the second data format is different from the first data format, the plurality of second data includes a result of the first data processing; converting the plurality of second data into the second data format; wherein the first data processing has a higher execution efficiency for the first data format than for the second data format, and the second data processing has a higher execution efficiency for the second data format than for the first data format.
On the other hand, Gould teaches determining a first data format based on a first reading order in which a plurality of first data to be processed by a first phase is read during the first data processing, wherein the first data format is selected from a row-based format, a column-based format, or a hybrid format; (See paras. 73, 76-79, wherein data sources and format in which “Data sources 30 in general includes a variety of individual data sources, each of which may have unique storage formats and interfaces (for example, database tables, spreadsheet files, flat text files, or a native format used by a mainframe 110). The individual data sources may be local to the profiling and processing sub-system”[0073] and reading data from data source with initial format information in which “first reading data from a data source, the profiling module 100 typically starts with some initial format information about records in that data source…” [0077] are disclosed, also See Fig. 4, paras. 82, 86-87, 98, wherein profiling module functions, data format types are disclosed, also See paras. 103, 105-113, 152, wherein phases of executions, data format interpretation process are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
converting the plurality of first data into the first data format; (See paras. 73-74, 77, 87, wherein various formats of data in which “the profiling module 100 can use predefined DML files to automatically interpret data from a variety of common data system formats (e.g., SQL tables, XML files, CSV files) or use a DML file obtained from the metadata store 112 describing a customized data system format” [0077] are disclosed, also See paras. 126, 173-175, 188, wherein converting data into a format process are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
determining a second data format based on a second reading order in which a plurality of second data to be processed by a second phase is read during the second data processing, wherein the second data format is selected from the row-based format, the column-based format, or the hybrid format, and the second data format is different from the first data format, the plurality of second data includes a result of the first data processing; (See paras. 73, 76-79, wherein data sources and format in which “Data sources 30 in general includes a variety of individual data sources, each of which may have unique storage formats and interfaces (for example, database tables, spreadsheet files, flat text files, or a native format used by a mainframe 110). The individual data sources may be local to the profiling and processing sub-system”[0073] and reading data from data source with initial format information in which “first reading data from a data source, the profiling module 100 typically starts with some initial format information about records in that data source…” [0077] are disclosed, also See Fig. 4, paras. 82, 86-87, 98, wherein profiling module functions, data format types are disclosed, also See paras. 105-113, 152, wherein data format interpretation process are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
converting the plurality of second data into the second data format; (See paras. 73-74, 77, 87, wherein various formats of data in which “the profiling module 100 can use predefined DML files to automatically interpret data from a variety of common data system formats (e.g., SQL tables, XML files, CSV files) or use a DML file obtained from the metadata store 112 describing a customized data system format” [0077] are disclosed, also See paras. 126, 173-175, 188, wherein converting data into a format process are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
wherein the first data processing has a higher execution efficiency for the first data format than for the second data format, and the second data processing has a higher execution efficiency for the second data format than for the first data format. (See paras. 106, 118-119, wherein process of efficiently handling various types of record structures in which “The import component can be used by graphs to efficiently handle various types of record structures. The ability of the import component to interpret records with variable record structure such as conditional records or variable length vectors enables graphs to process such data without the need to first flatten such data into fixed length segments. Another type of processing that can be performed by graphs using the import component is discovery of relationships between or among parts of the data (e.g., across different records, tables, or files). Graphs can use a rule within the import component to find a relationship between a foreign key or field in one table to a primary key or field in another table, or to perform functional dependency calculations on parts of the data” [0119] are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Gould teachings in the Boukouvalas system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for functional dependency data profiling taught by Gould in the Boukouvalas system for effectively generating a hierarchical plain-text execution plan from a database query. In addition, both of the references (Boukouvalas and Gould) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould discloses when the first data processing includes one of aggregation, filtering, or intercolumn operation, the first data format comprises the column-based format; (See Figs. 3a, 5p, para. 45, wherein aggregating operations, column-based format are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
when the first data processing includes one of merging, itemizing, or inter-row operation, the first data format comprises the row-based format; (See Figs. 3a, 5I, para. 45, wherein merging operations, row-based format are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
and when the first data processing includes at least one of: the aggregation, the filtering, or the inter-column operation, and at least one of the merging, the itemizing, or the inter-row operation, the first data format comprises the hybrid format. (See Figs. 3a, 5p, 5l, para. 45, wherein aggregating, merging operations, column-based format are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould discloses when the first reading order includes row-by-row reading, determining that the first data format is the row-based format; (See Figs. 3a, 5I, para. 45, wherein merging operations, row-based format are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
and when the first reading order includes column-by-column reading, determining that the first data format is the column-based format. (See Figs. 3a, 5p, para. 45, wherein aggregating operations, column-based format are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould discloses the plurality of first data includes at least one of data in the database, or data obtained by processing based on the data in the database; (See Figs. 4b, 5aa, paras. 51, wherein data processing API, gathering data streams are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
and the plurality of second data includes at least one of the data in the database, or the data obtained by processing based on the data in the database. (See Figs. 4b, 5aa, paras. 51, wherein data processing API, gathering data streams are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
As per claim 14, Boukouvalas fails to disclose wherein the converting the plurality of first data and the converting the plurality of second data are performed by a VectorTransformer that rewrites data based on a VectorOrder.
Gould teaches wherein the converting the plurality of first data and the converting the plurality of second data are performed by a VectorTransformer that rewrites data based on a VectorOrder. (See Fig. 7, paras. 11, 28, 126, wherein data order, transformation of data process in which “a data stream and outputs processed data based on that data stream in a first-in, first out manner. However, non-real-time contexts are also possible, in which data are stored (either in memory or persistently) for processing later. In this context, modules of the data processing system do not necessarily operate on the most recent data available” [0011] and “A transform generator can transform a rule specification into the computer program that implements the segmentation logic. In this example, the selections made by an entity through user interfaces described here form a specification that specify which fields and datasets are used in the complex aggregation. Based on the specification, the transforms described herein are generated” [0126] are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould discloses wherein determining the first data format and the second data format is based on a layout and cache aware cost model that estimates cache misses for different data formats. (See Figs. 3a, 3b, 4a, para. 41, 45-46, 49, wherein cached plan size information, statementsubtreecost and physical operator trees to execute based on cost of execution are disclosed; as taught by Boukouvalas.)
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby incorporated by reference, Boukouvalas fails to disclose wherein the converting the plurality of first data and the converting the plurality of second data occur in real-time during query execution without pre-storing data in multiple formats.
On the other hand, Gould teaches wherein the converting the plurality of first data and the converting the plurality of second data occur in real-time during query execution without pre-storing data in multiple formats. (See paras. 27-28, wherein real-time data processing are disclosed; as taught by Gould.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boukouvalas et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0102613; hereinafter “Boukouvalas”) in view of Gould et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0102325; hereinafter “Gould”) and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0175357; hereinafter “Chen”).
As per claim 7, the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould fails to disclose wherein the determining the first data format based on the first reading order in which the plurality of first data is read during the first data processing includes: when the first reading order including sequentially reading first data of a first target row, second data of a second target row, and the first target row and the second target row are not adjacent to each other, determining that the first data format is to store the first target row and the second target row adjacent to each other; and when the first reading order including sequentially reading first data of a first target column, second data of a second target column, and the first target column is not adjacent to the second target column, determining that the first data format is to store the first target column and the second target column adjacent to each other.
On the other hand, Chen teaches wherein the determining the first data format based on the first reading order in which the plurality of first data is read during the first data processing includes: when the first reading order including sequentially reading first data of a first target row, second data of a second target row, and the first target row and the second target row are not adjacent to each other, determining that the first data format is to store the first target row and the second target row adjacent to each other; (See Fig. 1a, paras. 20, 204, 212-213, wherein rows and columns are disclosed, also See paras. 132, 195-196, 347, wherein representation orders, configuring input caching process are disclosed, also See paras. 164-165, wherein adjacent elements are disclosed; as taught by Chen.)
and when the first reading order including sequentially reading the first data of a first target column, second data of a second target column, and the first target column is not adjacent to the second target column, determining that the first data format is to store the first target column and the second target column adjacent to each other. (See Fig. 1a, paras. 20, 204, 212-213, wherein rows and columns are disclosed, also See paras. 132, 195-196, 347, wherein representation orders, configuring input caching process are disclosed, also See paras. 164-165, wherein adjacent elements are disclosed; as taught by Chen.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Chen teachings in the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for functional dependency data taught by Chen in the combination of Boukouvalas and Gould system for effectively generating a hierarchical plain-text execution plan from a database query. In addition, both of the references (Boukouvalas, Gould, and Chen) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data format conversion. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Conclusion
1. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
2. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
POINT OF CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KRIS E MACKES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153