DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Remarks and Claim Amendments filed on June 15, 2026.
Claims 1, 12 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated April 06, 2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Response to Amendments
The objection of claims 12-15 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered. To the extent the arguments are directed to the rejection set forth in this Office action, they are not persuasive; in remaining part, they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that Saini fails to describe, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 16, including detecting, based on a system having an issue, inaccessibility of the system to a support agent, wherein the support agent is to go through an approval process prior to accessing the system and wherein the support agent automatically has, without going through the approval process, the one or more privileges to access the copy of the system within the selected region, which is chosen based on the one or more privileges of the support agent, and requests an indication of allowance. As discussed during the June 12, 2026 interview, the Examiner agrees that Saini alone does not teach the amended limitations, and the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Saini has been withdrawn; Applicant's argument is therefore moot as to that withdrawn rejection. The argument does not, however, address the new ground of rejection set forth below, which relies on Saini in view of Peng in view of K. As set forth above, Peng teaches the recited detecting of inaccessibility of the system to a support agent who is to go through an approval process prior to accessing the system (Peng paragraphs[0004], [0022], and [0031]-[0032]), and K teaches creating the copy within a selected region obtained based on the support agent's privileges, wherein the support agent automatically has, without going through the approval process, the privileges to access the copy of the system within the selected region (K column 2 lines 19-47 and column 8 lines 11-27; FIG. 4, steps 402-408). Because the amended limitations are taught by the combination, the request for allowance of claims 1, 12, and 16 is not persuasive.
On page 10, Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent claims and that the other cited references do not overcome the asserted deficiencies of Saini. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, the asserted deficiency of Saini with respect to the amended independent claims is cured by Peng and K; the dependent claims therefore stand rejected together with their respective base claims. Applicant has not separately argued the patentability of any individual dependent claim, nor identified any particular limitation of Raviv, K, or Carriere alleged to be deficient. The dependent claims accordingly fall with the independent claims and remain rejected as set forth below.
The new ground of rejection set forth below was necessitated by Applicant's amendment of independent claims 1, 12, and 16; accordingly, this action is properly made final under MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant's request for a further interview is noted, and the Examiner remains available to discuss the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763, hereinafter Saini – previously presented) in view of Peng (US Pub. No. 2017/0024307) and further in view of K et al. (US Pat. No. 12,001,315, hereinafter K).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Saini teaches a computer-implemented method of facilitating processing within a computing environment, the computer-implemented method comprising: (See Saini paragraph [0022]: “This disclosure pertains to creating a temporary copy of a hosted client instance (i.e., production instance, or source instance) to address troubleshoot or perform an operation associated with the hosted client instance.” Examiner notes: the claimed method of facilitating processing within a computing environment reads on Saini's computer-implemented method of creating a temporary copy of a hosted/production instance to troubleshoot it within a cloud computing environment.)
creating a copy of the system [[within a selected region, the selected region being different from a region that includes the system and wherein the selected region is obtained for the copy of the system based on one or more privileges of the support agent to be used to debug the system, wherein the support agent automatically has, without going through the approval process, the one or more privileges to access the copy of the system within the selected region, which is chosen based on the one or more privileges of the support agent;]] (See Saini paragraph [0039]: “…allowing a user of production instance 415 to request a temporary copy (e.g., temporary instance 417) of production instance 415.” Examiner notes: the claimed copy of the system reads on Saini's temporary copy (temporary instance 417) of the production instance.)
obtaining at the copy of the system real-time data of the system, the real-time data migrated from the system to the copy of the system, the copy of the system and the real-time data migrated from the system to be used to debug the system (See Saini paragraph [0023]: “The live database from the production instance may be copied over (i.e., restored) to the temporary instance by using backup data… Alternately, an on-demand backup may be performed to copy over on to the temporary instance, a current state of the live database from the production instance.” See also Saini paragraph [0035]: “The replication of data between data centers could be implemented in real time…” Examiner notes: the claimed real-time data migrated from the system to the copy reads on Saini copying/restoring the live database—including an on-demand backup of the current state of the live database, capable of real-time replication—from the production instance to the temporary instance, where it is used for debugging.)
performing debugging processing using the copy of the system and the real-time data migrated from the system to generate a debug solution for the system (See Saini paragraph [0039]: “…the developer may perform investigation or debugging operations on temporary instance 417.” See also Saini paragraph [0022]: “…determine whether the operation performed on the temporary instance produces a desired effect…” Examiner notes: the claimed debugging processing on the copy to generate a debug solution reads on Saini performing the debug operation on the temporary instance (holding the migrated live data) to determine an operation producing the desired effect (the solution).) and
providing the debug solution to a selected entity (See Saini paragraph [0041]: “Once efficacy of the solution is validated, the same remediation action may be run on production instance 415.” Examiner notes: providing the debug solution to a selected entity reads on Saini supplying the validated solution/remediation to the production instance (the selected entity) for application.)
Saini is silent to disclose the following limitation, however, in an analogous art, Peng teaches:
detecting, based on a system having an issue, inaccessibility of the system to a support agent. wherein the support agent is to go through an approval process prior to accessing the system (See Peng paragraph [0022]: “…members of production environment 110 can discover software bugs (e.g., issues) with a program…” See Peng paragraph [0004]: “…corporate data access control policies prohibit access to production data by outside development teams, even for testing and debugging purposes. As a result, an outside support team cannot even access a production environment, let alone running test cases and debugging errors.” See Peng paragraph [0031]: “…the production environment is inaccessible by the development environment… Inaccessibility can also include the inability to access datasets within the production environment.” See Peng paragraph [0032]: “…approving the execution of the debugging program in the production environment by seeking approval from at least one member from the production environment and the development environment…”. Examiner notes: a system having an issue reads on Peng's production environment in which a software bug/issue is discovered; inaccessibility of the system to a support agent reads on Peng's production environment that “is inaccessible by the development environment,” such that the outside support team “cannot even access a production environment”; and the support agent is to go through an approval process prior to accessing the system reads on Peng's requirement that execution in the production environment be authorized by “seeking approval from at least one member from the production environment and the development environment”—i.e., the multi-party review/approval chain (Peng paragraph [0029]: development-manager review 204, operations-team review 206, and customer review 208) that must be cleared before the production system is reached for debugging.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saini's method of creating a temporary copy of a production instance for debugging to incorporate Peng's detection that the production system is inaccessible to a support agent who must go through an approval process prior to accessing the system, because doing so enables troubleshooting of a production system whose access is restricted by corporate data-access-control policy while protecting confidential production data from outside support personnel (Peng paragraphs [0004], [0032]).
Saini in view of Peng is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, K teaches:
within a selected region, the selected region being different from a region that includes the system and wherein the selected region is obtained for the copy of the system based on one or more privileges of the support agent to be used to debug the system (See K column 2 lines 19-33: “…debugging system 102 may first provision resources for the support user 106 into the target customer tenant application 112 with the required authorization roles, along with this an onboarding request is made to setup a dedicated debug environment or pod 104 specific for the support user 106 and application 112.” See K column 2 lines 34-47: “…different support users 106 may be provided with different permissions and access to different functionality and/or portions of application code 120 based on the experience or role of the support user 106.” See K, FIG. 4, step 402: “the business application receives request to provision resources and permissions for the support user based on the identified role,” step 404: “…will call an infrastructure service… to have a dedicated debug environment (e.g., pod 104) provisioned which is unique for a combination of support user and tenant identifier,” step 405: “…configuration capturing user and tenant information which describes the scope of access…”. Examiner notes: Applicant is its own lexicographer for region; the specification (paragraph [0042]) defines the “selected region” as “a cloud environment, such as a virtual private cloud environment… that is different from the environment in which the system is executing.” K's “dedicated debug environment or pod 104” is such a selected, separate computing environment, provisioned distinct from the live production application 112 (different from a region that includes the system); and K provisions that environment “based on the identified role” of the support user, “with the required authorization roles,” the configuration describing the support user's “scope of access”—i.e., the selected region is obtained… based on one or more privileges of the support agent.)
wherein the support agent automatically has, without going through the approval process, the one or more privileges to access the copy of the system within the selected region, which is chosen based on the one or more privileges of the support agent (See K column 8 lines 11-27: “The debugging system 102 described herein may provide fully automated setup of dedicated debug environment as part of support user provisioning. In the absence of such automated setup, a support user would need to make a manual request to the operations team… the operations team[] will create a task along with appropriate priority to provide a dedicated debug environment. Time to get the debug environment available will fully depends on the pipeline of activity operations team has.” See K column 2 lines 19-33: “…the support user 106 may choose or be assigned an authorization role which grants the debug environment.” See K, FIG. 4, step 408: “…will check if the login user matches to the user and tenant information available in the environment info, if yes, then will allow the access.”. Examiner notes: the claimed support agent automatically has, without going through the approval process, the one or more privileges to access the copy of the system within the selected region reads on K's “fully automated setup of dedicated debug environment as part of support user provisioning,” which K expressly distinguishes from the alternative manual path requiring “a manual request to the operations team” that must “create a task along with appropriate priority”—i.e., the automated provisioning grants the agent access to the dedicated debug environment without that manual approval process. The agent's access flows automatically from the agent's “authorization role which grants the debug environment” and is “allow[ed]” upon a match of the agent's identity/role to the environment configuration (chosen based on the one or more privileges of the support agent). This bypass is without going through the approval process of Peng (the multi-party approval that gates the production system), so the agent reaches the copy in the selected region without that approval.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Saini in view of Peng to provision the temporary copy within a dedicated debug environment (region) obtained based on the support agent's authorization role, such that the support agent automatically has, without going through the approval process, the privileges to access the copy, as taught by K, because doing so provides a scalable, secure, and prompt debugging capability that avoids the delays, pipeline dependencies, and human errors of a manual operations-team approval/onboarding process (K column 1 line 54 – column 2 line 3, column 8 lines 11-27).
With respect to claim 4 (Original), the combination of Saini and Peng teaches wherein the creating the copy of the system is initiated based on detecting inaccessibility of the support agent to the system (As set forth for claim 1, Peng teaches detecting that the production system is inaccessible to the support agent (Peng paragraph [0031]), and Saini teaches creating the copy of the system (Saini paragraph [0039]); in the combination, creation of Saini's copy is initiated because the production system is inaccessible to the support agent absent approval (Peng), so that the agent may instead debug the copy.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saini's method of creating a temporary copy of a production instance for debugging to incorporate Peng's detection that the production system is inaccessible to a support agent who must go through an approval process prior to accessing the system, because doing so enables troubleshooting of a production system whose access is restricted by corporate data-access-control policy while protecting confidential production data from outside support personnel (Peng paragraphs [0004], [0032]).
With respect to claim 7 (Original), Saini in view of Peng is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, K teaches further comprising performing clean-
up based on providing the debug solution (See K column 6 lines 5-22: “Once debugging system 102 detects response 118 has been submitted, debugging system 102 may automatically deprovision the previously provisioned computing resources to pod 104.”. Examiner notes: performing clean-up based on providing the debug solution reads on K automatically deprovisioning the pod's computing resources upon detecting that a response (response 118—the resolution to the ticket) has been submitted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform clean-up based on providing the debug solution, as taught by K, because automatically deprovisioning the debug environment upon completion enables effective resource optimization, releasing computing resources for other processes (K column 6 lines 5-22, column 8 lines 28-33).
With respect to claim 8 (Original), Saini in view of Peng is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, K teaches wherein the performing clean-up includes deleting the copy of the system (See K column 5 line 66 – column 6 line 9: “Upon the expiration of timer 110… debugging system may automatically (without user intervention) deprovision computing resources from pod 104 (including both containers 124A, 124B)…”. Examiner notes: clean-up including deleting the copy reads on K deprovisioning pod 104 including container 124A, which contains the new instance of the application (the copy), thereby deleting the copy.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform clean-up based on providing the debug solution, as taught by K, because automatically deprovisioning the debug environment upon completion enables effective resource optimization, releasing computing resources for other processes (K column 6 lines 5-22, column 8 lines 28-33).
With respect to claim 9 (Original), Saini in view of Peng is silent to disclose; however, in an analogous art, K teaches wherein the performing clean-up
includes terminating migrating the real-time data to the copy of the system (See K column 6 line 66 – column 7 line 6 (step 270): “access to the provisioned set of computing resources of the pod is revoked…” See K column 7 lines 1-7 (steps 414-415): “…trigger a call to infrastructure service to deprovision the dedicated environment… the infrastructure service will trigger the deprovisioning of the dedicated debug environment.” Examiner notes: clean-up including terminating migration of the real-time data to the copy reads on K deprovisioning/decommissioning the dedicated debug environment and revoking access to it, which terminates the supply of data (migrated per Saini) to the now-decommissioned copy—i.e., terminates the migration of real-time data to the copy.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform clean-up based on providing the debug solution, as taught by K, because automatically deprovisioning the debug environment upon completion enables effective resource optimization, releasing computing resources for other processes (K column 6 lines 5-22, column 8 lines 28-33).
With respect to claim 11 (Original), Saini teaches wherein the system is a virtual machine and the copy of the system is another virtual machine created using digital twin orchestration (See Saini paragraph [0019] (a “computing system” includes a virtual machine) and paragraph [0031] (an application server instance implemented as a Java Virtual Machine); Saini paragraph [0023]: “The temporary copy of the production instance may be an exact copy of the production instance…”; and Saini paragraph [0049] (instance shell creation module 431 orchestrating creation of the temporary copy). Examiner notes: the system being a virtual machine reads on Saini's VM/cloud instances, and another virtual machine created using digital twin orchestration reads on Saini's instance-shell-creation module orchestrating an “exact copy” (digital twin) of the production instance.) With respect to claim 12, claim 12 recites limitations similar to claim 1, in the form of a computer system… comprising: at least one computing device having a hardware processor; a set of one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions, and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1. Saini further teaches such a system (Saini FIG. 8; paragraphs [0068]-[0069]: processor 805 having one or more hardware processors, and memory 810/non-volatile storage 820 as non-transitory storage media).
With respect to claim 14, claim 14 recites a limitation similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 4.
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 1, in the form of a computer program product… comprising: a set of one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more computer readable storage media, and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1. Saini further teaches such a product (Saini paragraph [0008] (method embodied in computer executable program code stored in a non-transitory storage device) and paragraph [0069]; FIG. 8).
With respect to claim 18, claim 18 recites a limitation similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 4.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763, hereinafter Saini – previously presented) in view of Peng (US Pub. No. 2017/0024307) in view of K et al. (US Pat. No. 12,001,315, hereinafter K) and further in view of Raviv et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0213355, hereinafter Raviv – previously presented).
With respect to claim 2 (Original), Saini in view of Peng in view of K is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Raviv teaches further comprising obfuscating at least a portion of the real-time data to obscure confidential data in the real-time data to provide obfuscated data, and wherein the performing the debugging processing uses the obfuscated data (See Raviv paragraph [0027]: “…(7) a redaction capability for obscuring or replacing sensitive private information.” See Raviv paragraph [0029] (sensitive private information originating in the production environment is redacted while preserving the production debugging experience). Examiner notes: obfuscating a portion of the real-time data to obscure confidential data, used in debugging, reads on Raviv's redaction capability for “obscuring or replacing sensitive private information” originating in the production environment, applied to the data used in the production debugging session.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obfuscate confidential data in the real-time data and debug using the obfuscated data, as taught by Raviv, because doing so protects the privacy and security of sensitive and personally identifiable information when debugging with production data (Raviv paragraph [0029]). With respect to claim 3 (Original), Saini in view of Peng in view of K is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Raviv teaches wherein the obfuscating is based on the one or more privileges of the support agent (See Raviv paragraoh [0288]: “…the administrator assigns a developer to a group of users that have permission to share and participant in a debugging collaborative session for a specific project. The user identity and the groups that the user belongs to are passed in the security token when calling the cloud debugger, enabling the debugger to grant or prevent access.” Examiner notes: obfuscating based on the support agent's privileges reads on Raviv's role/claim-based security in which the user's identity and group membership (the agent's privileges), carried in the security token, govern what the agent may access in the debugging session, such that the redaction/obscuring of sensitive data is applied according to those privileges.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obfuscate confidential data in the real-time data and debug using the obfuscated data, as taught by Raviv, because doing so protects the privacy and security of sensitive and personally identifiable information when debugging with production data (Raviv paragraph [0029]). With respect to claim 5 (Original), Saini in view of Peng in view of K is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Raviv teaches wherein the performing debugging processing includes generating one or more responses to one or more queries of the real-time data migrated from the system, the one or more responses being provided to the copy of the system (See Raviv paragraph [0027]: “…(1) source code debugging that is able to predict future values of variables and expressions before code is executed by a user…” See also Raviv paragraph [0182]. Examiner notes: generating responses to queries of the migrated data, provided to the copy, reads on Raviv's debugger generating responses (predicted/evaluated values of variables and expressions) to the developer's queries during the debug session operating on the captured/copied state.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate responses to queries of the migrated data and provide them to the copy, as taught by Raviv, because doing so allows developers to validate potential bug fixes with immediate feedback during debugging (Raviv paragraph [0027]). With respect to claim 6 (Original), Saini in view of Peng in view of Raviv is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, K teaches further comprising performing clean-up based on providing the debug solution, wherein the performing clean-up includes terminating generation of responses (See K column 6 line 66 – column 7 line 6 (step 270): “access to the provisioned set of computing resources of the pod is revoked based on the determination that the predetermined time period has expired… support user 106 may be automatically logged out of pod 104, app instance 126, and/or debugger 128…” Examiner notes: clean-up that terminates generation of responses reads on K deprovisioning the pod and logging the support user out of the debugger upon completion, which ends the debug session and thereby terminates the generation of the query responses (of claim 5).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform clean-up based on providing the debug solution, as taught by K, because automatically deprovisioning the debug environment upon completion enables effective resource optimization, releasing computing resources for other processes (K column 6 lines 5-22, column 8 lines 28-33).
With respect to claim 13, claim 13 recites a limitation similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 2.
With respect to claim 17, claim 17 recites a limitation similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 2.
With respect to claim 19, claim 19 recites a limitation similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 5.
Claims 10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0073763, hereinafter Saini – previously presented) in view of Peng (US Pub. No. 2017/0024307) in view of K et al. (US Pat. No. 12,001,315, hereinafter K) and further in view of Carriere et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0067017, hereinafter Carriere – previously presented).
With respect to claim 10 (Original), Saini in view of Peng in view of K is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Carriere teaches wherein a flow of information between the system and the copy of the system is unidirectional from the system to the copy of the system (See Carriere paragraph [0103]: “Replication in deployed operations is unidirectional in that changes are dictated by a master, and do not flow from an operational site to a master.” See Carriere paragraph [0110]: “The replication is unidirectional from the master site 110 toward the operational sites 120…” Examiner notes: unidirectional flow from the system to the copy reads on Carriere's unidirectional replication from the master site (the system) toward the operational sites (the copy), with changes not flowing back from the operational site to the master.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flow of information between the system and the copy unidirectional from the system to the copy, as taught by Carriere, because enforcing unidirectional flow prevents operations performed on the copy from affecting the live system and “greatly limits the places where conflicts can occur” (Carriere paragraph [0110]).
With respect to claim 15, claim 15 recites a limitation similar to claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 10.
With respect to claim 20, claim 20 recites a limitation similar to claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights