DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents amendments to claims 11 and 15, claims 16–20 are cancelled, and claims 21–25 are presented new. All amendments have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents arguments with respect to claims 1–20. All arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant does not change independent claim 1. The Examiner reconsidered the application of the primary and secondary references to this claim. Applicant will find that each and every claim limitation has been mapped with specific explanations and citations to where the subject matter reads on the references. Applicant’s remarks, particularly with respect to independent claim 1, make assertions as to the failings of the secondary reference to teach aspects of the claim, which are clearly covered by the primary reference. Applicant well understands that the secondary reference is applied to remedy certain conceptual shortfalls of the primary reference and is combined in a manner that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s assertion that the secondary reference fails because it does not teach the recited “a system log” misses the point that the secondary reference is dealing with a much greater concept of redaction of data, which when combined with the primary reference that clearly teaches the redaction of “a system log” and adequately covers the claimed subject matter. There is no basis in the legal obviousness framework for the secondary reference to teach each and every limitation in the claim that is already taught by the primary reference, because this is the basis for anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, which is not being asserted by the Examiner.
The Examiner agrees with Applicant that the amended subject matter to independent claims 11 is not found in the previously cited combination of primary and secondary references. Reconsideration of these references and the application of a new reference create a new combination of references that serve as the basis for the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Each limitation is explained in detail in the mapping of the claim limitations below.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 15 introduce a significant departure to the architecture of the invention in that instead of a “file viewer” generating the redacted system log, this independent claim requires that a “data controller”, which is recited as an intermediary device play the role of generating the redacted system log. This important distinction deviates from the invention as originally presented, as well as what is claimed in independent claims 1 and 11. However, the Examiner considered this embodiment and found that the amended claim reads on the previously cited combination of references. Applicant will find that each and every claim limitation has been mapped with specific explanations and citations to where the subject matter reads on the references.
The Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments and where the Examiner finds merit to Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the Examiner has reconsidered the claim mappings and introduced new reference combinations as appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–3, 10, 15, 21, 24–25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2020/0313878 A1, published Oct. 1, 2020) in view of Hussein (US 2010/0241844 A1, published Sep. 23, 2010).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses: a method comprising: receiving, from a user device, a request to read a system log (the log server 310 receives a log review request from a computing device of a reviewer user to access information in the log file. Wang Figure 3, element 306 and ¶ 54.), wherein the system log contains unredacted records of events that have occurred in a computer system (log files contain information relating to the usage of data logged to allow data owners to determine that the usage of their personal data does not violate user agreements. Wang ¶ 87.); determining a user identity associated with the request (the access control layer 340 ensures that the proper requestors have the appropriate access to the data server by identifying, authenticating, and authorizing access to the data server. Wang ¶¶ 38, 41, 47, and 54.).
Wang does not disclose: in response to the request, generating a redacted system log based on the unredacted records of the events in the system log using a policy and the user identity, wherein the policy indicates data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log, according to the user identity, wherein the redacted system log is different from the system log; and transmitting the redacted system log to the user device.
However, Hussein does disclose: in response to the request, generating a redacted system log based on the unredacted records of the events in the system log using a policy and the user identity, wherein the policy indicates data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log, according to the user identity (the server sends data that contains the unredacted data to the intercept appliance before it makes it way to the call center employee’s screen. Hussain ¶ 21. The redaction appliance applies the redaction rules and masks out all of the sensitive received data based upon a client’s role within an organization. Hussain ¶¶ 15 and 21. Identity, authentication, and role determination are performed on the client by the role database 106 and rules database 105. Hussein ¶ 17.), wherein the redacted system log is different from the system log (information received by the redaction device from the application server is unredacted as shown in Figure 4, element 401, which is different from what is generated to be sent by the redaction device to the client in Figure 4, element 402. Hussein Figure 4 and ¶ 21.); and transmitting the redacted system log to the user device (redacted data generated and sent by the redaction device to the client. Hussein Figure 4 and ¶ 21. The masked information is not conveyed to the client and hence not displayed at the information destination. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with generating a separate redacted version of requested data to be delivered to a requestor based upon the requestor’s identity based upon the teachings of Hussein. The motivation being to protect sensitive data from an employee in a company call center with no need to access such information. Hussein ¶ 21.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Hussein disclose the limitations of claim 1, wherein the redacted system log further comprises: determining an access level based on the user identity (implementing access control for interactions between the client and the data server by identifying, authenticating, and authorizing the clients for access and the access control layer checks the client permissions. Wang ¶¶ 41 and 47.); and determining filtering properties from the policy for the system log based on the access level (permission is granted by the access control layer 340 and degree of access to information in the log file for the reviewer user is determined based upon attribute of the reviewer user and causes information corresponding to the response log entry to be displayed. Wang ¶¶ 47 and 54. Hussein uses authentication information contained in the request and once authenticated, the information is used to determine the requestor’s role and the corresponding redaction rules for this role from the rules database and applies the redaction rules to generate the redacted data to be sent to the requestor. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Hussein discloses the limitations of claim 2, wherein the filtering properties indicate which portions of the system log should be redacted (using authentication information contained in the request and once authenticated, the information is used to determine the requestor’s role and the corresponding redaction rules for this role from the rules database and applies the redaction rules to generate the redacted data to be sent to the requestor. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Hussein discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein a data controller that generates the redacted system log executes in an external system to the user device (using authentication information contained in the request and once authenticated, the information is used to determine the requestor’s role and the corresponding redaction rules for this role from the rules database and applies the redaction rules to generate the redacted data to be sent to the requestor. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses: a computer program product for redacting a system log, the computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to: receive a request from a user device to read the system log (the log server 310 receives a log review request from a computing device of a reviewer user to access information in the log file. Wang Figure 3, element 306 and ¶ 54.), wherein the system log contains unredacted records of events that have occurred in a computer system (log files contain information relating to the usage of data logged to allow data owners to determine that the usage of their personal data does not violate user agreements. Wang ¶ 87.); determine a user identity associated with the request (the access control layer 340 ensures that the proper requestors have the appropriate access to the data server by identifying, authenticating, and authorizing access to the data server. Wang ¶¶ 38, 41, 47, and 54.).
Wang does not disclose: in response to receiving the request from the user device, transmit, by a data controller acting as an intermediary between the user device and the system log, a request to a computing system storing the system log; receive, by the data controller from the computing system storing the system log, the unredacted records of the events in the system log; in response to the request, generate, by the data controller, a redacted system log based on the received unredacted records of the events in the system log using a policy and the user identity, wherein the policy indicates data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log, according to the user identity, wherein the redacted system log is different from the system log; and transmit the redacted system log to the user device.
However, Hussain does disclose: in response to receiving the request from the user device, transmit, by a data controller acting as an intermediary between the user device and the system log, a request to a computing system storing the system log (the redaction appliance is situated between the log storage and the requesting user device where it can intercept traffic as it flows in response to receiving the user request, the appliance send a request to the server. Hussain Figure 1 and ¶¶ 15–17.); receive, by the data controller from the computing system storing the system log, the unredacted records of the events in the system log (a response message of unredacted data is sent by the server and intercepted by the appliance as a result of the request. Hussain Figure 1 and ¶¶ 17 and 21.); in response to the request, generate, by the data controller, a redacted system log based on the received unredacted records of the events in the system log using a policy and the user identity, wherein the policy indicates data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log, according to the user identity, wherein the redacted system log is different from the system log (the intercepting appliance applies redaction rules (including rules associated with the role of the identified client requesting the data) to the received data. Hussain Figures 1–4 and ¶¶ 17, and 20–21.); and transmit the redacted system log to the user device (redacted data generated and sent by the redaction device to the client. Hussein Figure 4 and ¶ 21. The masked information is not conveyed to the client and hence not displayed at the information destination. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with generating a separate redacted version of requested data to be delivered to a requestor based upon the requestor’s identity based upon the teachings of Hussein. The motivation being to protect sensitive data from an employee in a company call center with no need to access such information. Hussein ¶ 21.
Regarding claim 21, Wang in view of Hussein discloses the limitations of claim 1, further comprising: determining an access level based on the user identity (implementing access control for interactions between the client and the data server by identifying, authenticating, and authorizing the clients for access and the access control layer checks the client permissions. Wang ¶¶ 41 and 47.); and determining, from the policy and based on the access level, one or more filtering properties indicating the data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log (permission is granted by the access control layer 340 and degree of access to information in the log file for the reviewer user is determined based upon attribute of the reviewer user and causes information corresponding to the response log entry to be displayed. Wang ¶¶ 47 and 54. Hussein uses authentication information contained in the request and once authenticated, the information is used to determine the requestor’s role and the corresponding redaction rules for this role from the rules database and applies the redaction rules to generate the redacted data to be sent to the requestor. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Regarding claim 24, Wang in view of Hussein discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the policy indicates at least one message identifier, text string, or regular expression for identifying data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log according to the user identity (redaction appliance intercepts the data and applies the redaction rules and masks out particular strings of sensitive information. Hussain ¶ 21.).
Regarding claim 25, Wang in view of Hussein discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the policy indicates at least one responding system, subsystem, or group of systems, and wherein records of events associated with a system other than the at least one responding system, subsystem, or group of systems are not included in the redacted system log according to the user identity (redactions rules are enforced differently for different clients if they carry different organizational roles where a specific client may see three information items redacted, while another one by only see one such item redacted. Hussain ¶ 20.).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi (US 12,026,173 B1, issued Jul. 2, 2024).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Walker discloses the limitations of claim 2. Wang in view of Hussein does not disclose: wherein the policy includes a plurality of access levels, wherein the filtering properties corresponding to each of the plurality of access levels are different.
However, Akkapeddi does disclose: wherein the policy includes a plurality of access levels, wherein the filtering properties corresponding to each of the plurality of access levels are different (masking sensitive system log data where different access levels or permissions require that sensitive information should not be provided to un-authorized users. Akkapeddi 7:16–45.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with distinguishing redacted data between a plurality of access levels based upon the teachings of Akkapeddi. The motivation being where data is acceptable to be provided to certain users, such as the last four digits of a social security number, as opposed to the entire value. Akkapeddi 7:16–45.
Claims 5–8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi in view of Subbiah (US 2019/0026163 A1, published Jan. 24, 2019).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi disclose the limitations of claim 4. Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi does not disclose: wherein a first access level of the plurality of access levels corresponds to a first type of user identity, wherein the user identity is a first user identity, and wherein a second access level of the plurality of access levels corresponds to a second type of user identity.
However, Subbiah does disclose: wherein a first access level of the plurality of access levels corresponds to a first type of user identity, wherein the user identity is a first user identity, and wherein a second access level of the plurality of access levels corresponds to a second type of user identity (permissions indicate the role of the user such that logs are configured for different users or different user roles where the roles are distinguished by the intended audience of the log, for example an application developer or a financial user, etc. Subbiah ¶ 25.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with determining access level based upon user identity and filtering properties based upon access level based upon the teachings of Subbiah. The motivation being to protect sensitive information in log files from users without appropriate authorization to access the information. Subbiah ¶ 26.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi in view of Subbiah disclose the limitations of claim 5, wherein the filtering properties of the first access level is a subset of the filtering properties of the second access level (permission roles that drive what particular data is accessed by certain user roles includes a wide variety of users with overlapping requirements and overlapping log events. Subbiah ¶¶ 11 and 16.).
Regarding claims 7, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi in view of Subbiah discloses the limitations of claims 6, wherein the first access level is an admin access level and the second access level is a lower access level (the log access engine 112 determines for a user 114 whether the user ID associated with the user had permissions to access all or just a part of the data of the log 104 and may either deny the user access to the log, or otherwise mask, obscure, separate, remove, or replace the sensitive information or data. Subbiah ¶ 27.).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi discloses the limitations of claim 4. Wang in view of Hussein in view of Akkapeddi does not disclose: wherein a third access level of the plurality of access levels corresponds to a third type of user identity, wherein the filtering properties of a second access level is a subset of the filtering properties of the third access level, wherein the third access level is a lower access level than the second access level.
However, Subbiah does disclose: wherein a third access level of the plurality of access levels corresponds to a third type of user identity, wherein the filtering properties of a second access level is a subset of the filtering properties of the third access level, wherein the third access level is a lower access level than the second access level (permission roles that drive what particular data is accessed by certain user roles includes a wide variety of users with overlapping requirements and overlapping log events. Subbiah ¶¶ 11 and 16.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with determining access level based upon user identity and filtering properties based upon access level based upon the teachings of Subbiah. The motivation being to protect sensitive information in log files from users without appropriate authorization to access the information. Subbiah ¶ 26.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann (US 2017/0262329 A1, published Sep. 14, 2017).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Hussein discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang in view of Hussein does not disclose: wherein a data controller that generates the redacted system log executes on a file viewer application on the user device.
However, Lehmann does disclose: wherein a data controller that generates the redacted system log executes on a file viewer application on the user device (a user interface of a first computing device modifies a log file by redacting/obfuscating information therein. Lehmann ¶ 3.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with generating a redacted log file on a file viewer application on the user device based upon the teachings of Lehmann. The motivation being that a vendor can provide information to customers premises to deal with an issue with a supported product. Lehmann ¶ 2.
Claims 11–13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses: a computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and a data controller stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations comprising: receive, from a user device, a request to read a system log (the log server 310 receives a log review request from a computing device of a reviewer user to access information in the log file. Wang Figure 3, element 306 and ¶ 54.), wherein the system log contains unredacted records of events that have occurred in a second computer system (log files contain information relating to the usage of data logged to allow data owners to determine that the usage of their personal data does not violate user agreements. Wang ¶ 87.); determine a user identity associated with the request (the access control layer 340 ensures that the proper requestors have the appropriate access to the data server by identifying, authenticating, and authorizing access to the data server. Wang ¶¶ 38, 41, 47, and 54.); .
Wang does not disclose: in response to the request, generate, using a file viewer application on the user device, a redacted system log based on the unredacted records of the events in the system log using a policy and the user identity, wherein the policy indicates data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log, according to the user identity, wherein the redacted system log is different from the system log; and present the redacted system log on the user device using the file viewer application.
However, Hussain does disclose: generate, a redacted system log based on the unredacted records of the events in the system log using a policy and the user identity, wherein the policy indicates data from the unredacted records of the events in the system log to not include in the redacted system log, according to the user identity (the server sends data that contains the unredacted data to the intercept appliance before it makes it way to the call center employee’s screen. Hussain ¶ 21. The redaction appliance applies the redaction rules and masks out all of the sensitive received data based upon a client’s role within an organization. Hussain ¶¶ 15 and 21. Identity, authentication, and role determination are performed on the client by the role database 106 and rules database 105. Hussein ¶ 17.), wherein the redacted system log is different from the system log (information received by the redaction device from the application server is unredacted as shown in Figure 4, element 401, which is different from what is generated to be sent by the redaction device to the client in Figure 4, element 402. Hussein Figure 4 and ¶ 21.); and present the system log on the user device (redacted data generated and sent by the redaction device to the client. Hussein Figure 4 and ¶ 21. The masked information is not conveyed to the client and hence not displayed at the information destination. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with generating a separate redacted version of requested data to be delivered to a requestor based upon the requestor’s identity based upon the teachings of Hussein. The motivation being to protect sensitive data from an employee in a company call center with no need to access such information. Hussein ¶ 21.
Wang in view of Hussain does not disclose: generating, using a file viewer application on the user device, a redacted system log; and present the redacted system log on the user device using the file viewer application.
However, Lehmann does disclose: generating, using a file viewer application on the user device, a redacted system log; and present the redacted system log on the user device using the file viewer application (a user interface of a first computing device modifies a log file by redacting/obfuscating information therein. Lehmann Figure 1 and ¶¶ 3 and 18.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with generating a redacted log file on a file viewer application on the user device based upon the teachings of Lehmann. The motivation being that a vendor can provide information to customers premises to deal with an issue with a supported product. Lehmann ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann discloses the limitations of claim 11, wherein the data controller configured to generate the redacted system log is further comprised to: determine an access level based on the user identity (implementing access control for interactions between the client and the data server by identifying, authenticating, and authorizing the clients for access and the access control layer checks the client permissions. Wang ¶¶ 41 and 47.); and determine filtering properties from the policy for the system log based on the access level (permission is granted by the access control layer 340 and degree of access to information in the log file for the reviewer user is determined based upon attribute of the reviewer user and causes information corresponding to the response log entry to be displayed. Wang ¶¶ 47 and 54. Hussein uses authentication information contained in the request and once authenticated, the information is used to determine the requestor’s role and the corresponding redaction rules for this role from the rules database and applies the redaction rules to generate the redacted data to be sent to the requestor. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann discloses the limitations of claim 12, wherein the filtering properties indicate which portions of the system log should be redacted (using authentication information contained in the request and once authenticated, the information is used to determine the requestor’s role and the corresponding redaction rules for this role from the rules database and applies the redaction rules to generate the redacted data to be sent to the requestor. Hussein ¶ 17.).
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann in view of Akkapeddi (US 12,026,173 B1, issued Jul. 2, 2024).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann discloses the limitations of claim 12. Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann does not disclose: wherein the policy includes a plurality of access levels, wherein the filtering properties corresponding to each of the plurality of access levels are different.
However, Akkapeddi does disclose: wherein the policy includes a plurality of access levels, wherein the filtering properties corresponding to each of the plurality of access levels are different (masking sensitive system log data where different access levels or permissions require that sensitive information should not be provided to un-authorized users. Akkapeddi 7:16–45.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with distinguishing redacted data between a plurality of access levels based upon the teachings of Akkapeddi. The motivation being where data is acceptable to be provided to certain users, such as the last four digits of a social security number, as opposed to the entire value. Akkapeddi 7:16–45.
Claims 22–23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann in view of Lilly (US 2020/0117826 A1, published Apr. 16, 2020).
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann does not disclose: wherein the policy indicates a time-based block during which records of events having timestamps within the time-based block are not included in the redacted system log according to the user identity.
However, Lilly does disclose: wherein the policy indicates a time-based block during which records of events having timestamps within the time-based block are not included in the redacted system log according to the user identity (user attributes indicate which policies are applied including how particular users may be time-based restricted to certain information and data that is redacted. Lilly ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with policy indicating time-based block of data based on a user identity based upon the teachings of Lilly. The motivation being to control the disclosure of sensitive information in particular circumstances.
Regarding claim 23, Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang in view of Hussein in view of Lehmann does not disclose: wherein the policy indicates a time-based event and a time period associated with the time-based event, and wherein records of events occurring during the time period are not included in the redacted system log according to the user identity.
However, Lilly does disclose: wherein the policy indicates a time-based event and a time period associated with the time-based event, and wherein records of events occurring during the time period are not included in the redacted system log according to the user identity (the user can be limited, based on user attributes, to accessing data that is masked, row redacted, time-based restricted, purpose-based restricted. Lilly ¶ 56.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access management and control of computer log data based upon requestor’s permissions of Wang with policy indicating time-based block of data based on a user identity based upon the teachings of Lilly. The motivation being to control the disclosure of sensitive information in particular circumstances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANCE M LITTLE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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.
/VANCE M LITTLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights