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 Amendments / Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments filed, 03/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Mitani reference does not teach "a generation unit configured to generate dependence information including an execution user of a first evaluation target and a dependence relationship representing being in a dependence relationship with the first evaluation target, and access authority information of a resource accessible by the execution user."
For instance, Applicant argues that "Mitani merely discloses that an access control policy is a policy in which a plurality of combinations of one or more patterns indicating the attributes of access and actions of access control respectively corresponding to the one or more patterns are defined;" that "the pattern in Mitani indicates one or more elements indicating the attributes of access that change over time, which is a target pattern of a policy generation;" and that "the dependence relationship recited in amended claim 1 cannot correspond to any of the pattern, sample policy, and actions described in Mitani." In response, it is noted that paragraph [0052] of Mitani recites "the determination unit 22 can determine actions for IDs of various types of (a plurality of) request sources or request destinations at one time using the access control policy generated by the policy generation system 21 before a request is made, and output them. The set of the plurality of output actions can be output as an Access Control List (ACL)." Paragraph [0029] of Mitani further recites that the access source attributes include "information about ID of the access source," "information about a user," "information about a device of the access source," and "software name (e.g., application name)," wherein the "information about ID of the access source includes any one or more of ID (user ID) of the access source, a user name, a device ID, an application ID." Accordingly, the policy generation system 21 generates an access control policy and corresponding ACL that links a user ID ( "execution user") to a device ID, application ID, or session ("first evaluation target") via the access source attribute structure, and outputs the set of authorized resources per user/device ID. This teaches the claimed "generate dependence information including an execution user of a first evaluation target and a dependence relationship representing being in a dependence relationship with the first evaluation target, and access authority information of a resource accessible by the execution user;".
Applicant further argues that "Mitani also fails to disclose 'dependence information' as recited in amended claim 1" because "the pattern in Mitani indicates one or more elements indicating the attributes of access that change over time" and "the sample policy in Mitani is a policy in which a plurality of corresponding relations between a pattern of a plurality of elements indicating the attributes of access and an action of access control for the sample pattern are defined."
In response, it is noted that paragraph [0034] of Mitani recites "when there are 'X1, Y1', 'X1, Z1', and 'Y1, Z1' as patterns of a plurality of elements indicating the attributes of access and there are 'authorization', 'denial', and 'authorization' as actions respectively corresponding to these patterns, 'X1, Y1->authorization', 'X1, Z1->denial', and 'Y1, Z1->authorization' are defined in the data set as combinations of the above patterns and actions;" relational mappings between multi-element access attributes and authorization outcomes. At least paragraphs [0091]-[0093] of Mitani further discuss the policy generation unit 213 generating an access control policy in which the quantitative action corresponding to the target pattern (including user, device, and application identifiers) is defined as a combination. Consequently, Mitani is considered to teach "a generation unit configured to generate dependence information including an execution user of a first evaluation target and a dependence relationship representing being in a dependence relationship with the first evaluation target, and access authority information of a resource accessible by the execution user" because the policy generation unit generates a combination structure linking a user/access-source identifier to a device/application/session identifier and a corresponding set of authorized resources.
Therefore, the identified claim language is considered to be taught by the combined references, and the rejection is maintained. Further, since Applicant has not presented additional arguments concerning the dependent claims their rejections are likewise maintained.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the arguments filed on 03/30/2026, in which, claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 4-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20240283792 A1, referred to as Mitani), in view of Dani et al. (US 20220311798 A1, referred to as Dani).
In reference to claim 1, An information processing device comprising: one or more hardware processors configured to function as: a generation unit configured to generate dependence information including an execution user of a first evaluation target and a dependence relationship representing being in a dependence relationship with the first evaluation target, and access authority information of a resource accessible by the execution user (Mitani: [0146]-[0147] Provides for information processing devices with hardware processors configured to execute software for security related functions. Mitani: [0045]-[0046] and [0061] Provides for generating information about users, their relationships to evaluation targets/access patterns, and authority/policy information for resources. The policy generation system creates dependence relationships between access attributes and control actions. Mitani: [0029] Provides for access source attribute information including user ID, user name, device ID, and application ID, which links an execution user to a device/application/session evaluation target via the access source attribute structure. Mitani: [0034] Provides for relational mappings between multi-element access attributes and authorization outcomes. Mitani: [0052] Provides for outputting a set of authorized actions per request source/destination ID as an Access Control List (ACL). Mitani: [0091]-[0093] Provides for the policy generation unit generating an access control policy in which the quantitative action corresponding to a target pattern.)
An identification unit configured to identify a resource accessible by the first evaluation target based on the execution user and the access authority information (Mitani: [0047]-[0049] Provides for a determination unit identifies which resources are accessible by comparing user attributes with access control policies.)
A vulnerability risk level calculation unit configured to calculate a vulnerability risk level (Mitani: [0048] and [0085]-[0086] Provides for calculating risk levels related to security vulnerabilities.)
Mitani does not explicitly disclose indicating a risk level of each vulnerability from the resource accessible by the first evaluation target and one or more pieces of vulnerability information. However, Dani teaches: indicating a risk level of each vulnerability from the resource accessible by the first evaluation target and one or more pieces of vulnerability information (Dani: [0069]-[0086] Provides for calculating vulnerability risk levels using mathematical formulas that incorporate multiple vulnerability factors and accessible resources.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mitani, which provides an information processing device that generates dependence information including execution users and access authority relationships, identifies accessible resources, and calculates vulnerability risk levels, with the teachings of Dani, which introduces specific methodologies for indicating risk levels of individual vulnerabilities associated with accessible resources using multiple vulnerability information factors. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Dani's granular vulnerability risk assessment approach into Mitani's resource access evaluation system to provide more detailed security analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable more precise risk management by assessing individual vulnerabilities rather than aggregate risk levels.
In reference to claim 2, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first evaluation target is a first program, and the dependence relationship includes information indicating a second program on which the first program depends (Mitani: [0029]-[0031] Provides for tracking software/application dependencies and relationships between different system components (OS, applications, authentication systems)
In reference to claim 4, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the vulnerability risk level calculation unit calculates the vulnerability risk level further based on asset importance level of the resource (Mitani: [0031], [0048] and [0085] Provides for how resource importance/usability is factored into risk assessments and security determinations. Dani: [0077]-[0081] Provides for incorporating asset importance/criticality into vulnerability risk calculations.
In reference to claim 5, The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the asset importance level includes at least one of confidentiality importance level of the resource, safety importance level of the resource, and availability importance level of the resource (Mitani: [0030]-[0031] Provides for "degree of confidentiality of the data" as a factor in access control decisions and discusses how confidentiality levels indicate potential damage from attacks.)
In reference to claim 6, The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the identification unit identifies a possible operation for the resource from the access authority information (Mitani: [0030] and [0047]-[0049] Provides for "operation type" as part of access control evaluation and describes how the determination unit identifies what operations/actions are possible based on access control policies and authority information.) the vulnerability risk level calculation unit calculates the vulnerability risk level further based on the possible operation for the resource (Dani: [0086]-[0090] Provides for incorporating access paths and connectivity (which represent possible operations) into its risk calculations.)
In reference to claim 10, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to further function as: a device risk calculation unit configured to calculate a device risk indicating a vulnerability risk level in a device to be evaluated based on a plurality of vulnerability risk levels when the plurality of vulnerability risk levels are calculated for the device (Mitani: [0029], [0048] and [0085] Provides for comprehensive device risk assessment that considers multiple factors about devices (OS version, behavioral anomaly, position, etc.) and calculates overall risk levels for security decisions. Dani: [0086]-[0090] Provides for calculating an overall device risk by combining multiple vulnerability risk components.)
In reference to claim 11, The information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to further function as: an output unit configured to output an evaluation result including at least one of the vulnerability risk level and the device risk by at least one of display information and voice (Dani: [0022] and [0058] Provides for utput units that present evaluation results through display interfaces.)
In reference to claim 12, The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first evaluation target is a first service implemented by one or more programs (Dani: [0077]-[0083] Provides for identify services as evaluation targets and consider their implementation and importance in security assessment.) the dependence relationship includes information indicating a second service on which the first service depends (Mitani: [0048] and [0054]-[0055] Provides for interconnected system components and infrastructure dependencies (authentication infrastructure, monitoring functions, SIEM) that work together to provide access control services.)
In reference to claim 13, An information processing method implemented by an information processing device, the method comprising: generating dependence information including an execution user of a first evaluation target and a dependence relationship representing being in a dependence relationship with the first evaluation target, and accessing authority information of a resource accessible by the execution user (Mitani: [0146]-[0147] Provides for information processing devices with hardware processors configured to execute software for security related functions. Mitani: [0045]-[0046] and [0061] Provides for generating information about users, their relationships to evaluation targets/access patterns, and authority/policy information for resources. The policy generation system creates dependence relationships between access attributes and control actions. Mitani: [0029] Provides for access source attribute information including user ID, user name, device ID, and application ID, which links an execution user to a device/application/session evaluation target via the access source attribute structure. Mitani: [0034] Provides for relational mappings between multi-element access attributes and authorization outcomes. Mitani: [0052] Provides for outputting a set of authorized actions per request source/destination ID as an Access Control List (ACL). Mitani: [0091]-[0093] Provides for the policy generation unit generating an access control policy in which the quantitative action corresponding to a target pattern.)
identifying a resource accessible by the first evaluation target based on the execution user and the access authority information (Mitani: [0047]-[0049] Provides for a determination unit identifies which resources are accessible by comparing user attributes with access control policies.)
calculating a vulnerability risk level (Mitani: [0048] and [0085]-[0086] Provides for calculating risk levels related to security vulnerabilities.)
Mitani does not explicitly disclose indicating a risk level of each vulnerability from the resource accessible by the first evaluation target and one or more pieces of vulnerability information. However, Dani teaches: indicating a risk level of each vulnerability from the resource accessible by the first evaluation target and one or more pieces of vulnerability information (Dani: [0069]-[0086] Provides for calculating vulnerability risk levels using mathematical formulas that incorporate multiple vulnerability factors and accessible resources.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mitani, which provides an information processing device that generates dependence information including execution users and access authority relationships, identifies accessible resources, and calculates vulnerability risk levels, with the teachings of Dani, which introduces specific methodologies for indicating risk levels of individual vulnerabilities associated with accessible resources using multiple vulnerability information factors. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Dani's granular vulnerability risk assessment approach into Mitani's resource access evaluation system to provide more detailed security analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable more precise risk management by assessing individual vulnerabilities rather than aggregate risk levels.
In reference to claim 14, A computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to function as: a generation unit configured to generate dependence information including an execution user of a first evaluation target and a dependence relationship representing being in a dependence relationship with the first evaluation target, and access authority information of a resource accessible by the execution user (Mitani: [0146]-[0147] Provides for information processing devices with hardware processors configured to execute software for security related functions. Mitani: [0045]-[0046] and [0061] Provides for generating information about users, their relationships to evaluation targets/access patterns, and authority/policy information for resources. The policy generation system creates dependence relationships between access attributes and control actions. Mitani: [0029] Provides for access source attribute information including user ID, user name, device ID, and application ID, which links an execution user to a device/application/session evaluation target via the access source attribute structure. Mitani: [0034] Provides for relational mappings between multi-element access attributes and authorization outcomes. Mitani: [0052] Provides for outputting a set of authorized actions per request source/destination ID as an Access Control List (ACL). Mitani: [0091]-[0093] Provides for the policy generation unit generating an access control policy in which the quantitative action corresponding to a target pattern.)
an identification unit configured to identify a resource accessible by the first evaluation target based on the execution user and the access authority information (Mitani: [0047]-[0049] Provides for a determination unit identifies which resources are accessible by comparing user attributes with access control policies.)
a vulnerability risk level calculation unit configured to calculate a vulnerability risk level (Mitani: [0048] and [0085]-[0086] Provides for calculating risk levels related to security vulnerabilities.)
Mitani does not explicitly disclose indicating a risk level of each vulnerability from the resource accessible by the first evaluation target and one or more pieces of vulnerability information. However, Dani teaches: indicating a risk level of each vulnerability from the resource accessible by the first evaluation target and one or more pieces of vulnerability information (Dani: [0069]-[0086] Provides for calculating vulnerability risk levels using mathematical formulas that incorporate multiple vulnerability factors and accessible resources.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mitani, which provides an information processing device that generates dependence information including execution users and access authority relationships, identifies accessible resources, and calculates vulnerability risk levels, with the teachings of Dani, which introduces specific methodologies for indicating risk levels of individual vulnerabilities associated with accessible resources using multiple vulnerability information factors. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Dani's granular vulnerability risk assessment approach into Mitani's resource access evaluation system to provide more detailed security analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable more precise risk management by assessing individual vulnerabilities rather than aggregate risk levels.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20240283792 A1, referred to as Mitani), in view of Dani et al. (US 20220311798 A1, referred to as Dani) in further view of Foo et al. (US 20200042712 A1, referred to as Foo).
In reference to claim 3, The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the generation unit analyzes the first program to identify the second program and generates dependence information including the identified second program (Foo: [0040] and [0068]-[0072] Provides for analyzing programs (projects) to identify dependent programs (open-source components/libraries) and generates dependency information including those identified components.) the identification unit identifies the resource accessible by the first program when the one or more pieces of vulnerability information include vulnerability information of the second program (Foo: [0040] and [0068]-[0072] Provides for identifying resources (libraries) accessible by the first program when vulnerability information exists for those dependent libraries (second programs).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mitani in view of Dani, which together provide an information processing device that evaluates resource access relationships and calculates detailed vulnerability risk levels, with the teachings of Foo, which introduces program analysis to identify dependent programs and generate dependency information for vulnerability assessment. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Foo's program dependency analysis into the combined security evaluation system to track indirect security risks through software dependencies. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide comprehensive vulnerability management that accounts for risks inherited from dependent libraries and components.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20240283792 A1, referred to as Mitani), in view of Dani et al. (US 20220311798 A1, referred to as Dani) in further view of Reguly et al. (US 11861015 B1, referred to as Reguly).
In reference to claim 7, The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the vulnerability risk level calculation unit determines an attack possibility of a specific vulnerability based on whether at least one of the first program and the second program includes a verification code as a program for checking whether the specific vulnerability is present, or whether an attack campaign against the specific vulnerability is present (Reguly: Col. 10 lines 20 - 60 Provides for determining attack possibility based on exploit availability, including automated exploits, exploit frameworks, and functional exploit code.) calculates the vulnerability risk level of the specific vulnerability further based on the attack possibility of the specific vulnerability (Reguly: Col. 13 Lines 25-40 and Col. 22 Line 48 - Col. 23. Line 35 Provides for that exploit availability (attack possibility) is directly factored into the vulnerability risk calculation through the SKILL component and exploit availability buckets.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mitani in view of Dani, which together provide an information processing device that evaluates resource access relationships and calculates detailed vulnerability risk levels for accessible resources, with the teachings of Reguly, which introduces determining attack possibility based on the presence of verification code, exploit frameworks, and active attack campaigns, and incorporating this attack possibility into vulnerability risk calculations. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Reguly's attack possibility assessment into the combined vulnerability risk calculation system to provide more realistic and actionable security evaluations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to prioritize vulnerabilities based on actual exploitability rather than theoretical severity alone.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20240283792 A1, referred to as Mitani), in view of Dani et al. (US 20220311798 A1, referred to as Dani) in further view of Rakesh et al. (US 20200304534 A1, referred to as Rakesh).
In reference to claim 8, The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to further function as: a correction unit configured to make a correction to add a resource accessible by another user to a range of resources accessible by the first program when the one or more pieces of vulnerability information include a vulnerability that enables at least one of the first program and the second program to be operated by the another user (Rakesh: [0004] and [0030] Provides for how exploiting vulnerabilities in one layer grants access to previously inaccessible devices in subsequent layers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mitani in view of Dani, which together provide an information processing device that evaluates resource access relationships and calculates detailed vulnerability risk levels for accessible resources, with the teachings of Rakesh, which introduces the concept of privilege escalation vulnerabilities that enable programs to operate with another user's privileges and thereby access resources normally restricted to that user. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to incorporate Rakesh's privilege escalation modeling into the combined security evaluation system to account for expanded attack surfaces created by exploitable vulnerabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide more accurate risk assessments by recognizing that certain vulnerabilities effectively extend a program's resource access scope beyond its intended permissions.
In reference to claim 9, The information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the correction unit corrects a range of resources accessible by the first program to all resources when the one or more pieces of vulnerability information include a kernel vulnerability that enables at least one of the first program and the second program to operate in a privileged mode (Rakesh: [0044]-[0046] provides for "privilege escalation" as an attack intention, which relates to gaining elevated privileges.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 AIDAN EDWARD SHAUGHNESSY whose telephone number is (703)756-1423. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Nickerson, can be reached at telephone number (469) 295-9235. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/usptoautomated-interview-request-air-form.
/A.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights