DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-9, 11-21, received 15 October 2025. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-9, 11-21 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 October 2025 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinder et al (US 20170244762 A1, hereafter referred to as Kinder) in view of Scolnicov et al (US 20130332090 A1, hereafter referred to as Scolnicov).
Regarding claim 1, Kinder teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a compute engine of a security network, and via an event stream, first event data associated with a first computing event (Kinder [0092] teaches receiving, by a cloud service, event information from an endpoint), wherein:
the event stream comprises event data associated with occurrences of computing events on one or more client devices (Kinder [0009] teaches receiving event data wherein the event data is acquired from events on the endpoint [0033], and the security network receives the event data from one or more security agents (Kinder [0079, 0081 and 0009]), executing on the one or more client devices (Kinder [0033]), that detect the occurrences of the computing events on the one or more client devices (Kinder [0075 and 0077]);
determining, by the compute engine, that at least one attribute of the first event data associated with the first computing event satisfies criteria (Kinder [0095] teaches determining category, event frequency and references to other similar events by comparing the event);
identifying, by the compute engine, the second event data in data received by the security network, wherein the second event data:
is associated with a second computing event (Kinder [0034] discloses correlating or comparing [Claim 7] data (second event data) across multiple endpoints at a cloud service. Additionally, Kinder [0095] teaches comparing the event to other events).
However, Kinder does not explicitly teach the criteria as a composition operation, such that Kinder does not explicitly teach determining, by the compute engine, that the first event data associated with the first computing event satisfies criteria of a composition operation, wherein a context collection format associated with the composition operation defines: a first subset of one or more first data elements, within a first set of data elements included in the first event data that indicates first attributes of the first computing event, to be included in composition event data generated by the composition operation, and a second subset of one or more second data elements, within a second set of data elements included in second event data that indicates second attributes of a second computing event, to be included in the composition event data; wherein the second event data shares, with the first event data associated with the first computing event the at least one attribute that satisfies the criteria of the composition operation; and generating, by the compute engine, using the composition operation, the composition event data by: extracting the first subset of one or more first data elements, defined by the context collection format, from the first set of data elements included in the first event data; extracting the second subset of one or more second data elements, defined by the context collection format, from the second set of data elements included in the second event data; and including, in the composition event data, the first subset of one or more first data elements extracted from the first event data and the second subset of one or more second data elements extracted from the second event data.
Scolnicov, in an analogous art, teaches the criteria as a composition operation (Scolnicov [0014] teaches combination rules which combine candidate events into composite events), such that Scolnicov teaches determining, by the compute engine, that at least one attribute of the first event data associated with the first computing event satisfies criteria of the composition operation (Scolnicov [0037] teaches determining candidates from raw data, based on combination rules, whereby candidate events are assembled into sets of two or more related candidate events based on event characteristics collection format associated with the composition operation defines:
a first subset of one or more first data elements, within a first set of data elements included in the first event data that indicates first attributes of the first computing event, to be included in composition event data generated by the composition operation (Scolnicov [0015] teaches the combination rule identifies characteristics (first subset of first data elements) of the event data to be identified (extracted) and compared to the corresponding event characteristics (second subset of second data elements) of any or all other candidate events for combining as specified by the rule [0095]) and
a second subset of one or more second data elements, within a second set of data elements included in second event data that indicates second attributes of a second computing event, to be included in the composition event data (Scolnicov [0015] teaches the combination rule identifies merged composite event data from the plurality of candidate events, including the corresponding event characteristics (second subset of second data elements) of any or all other candidate events to be identified (extracted) and compared to event characteristics (first subset of first data elements) for combining as determined by the combination rule [0095]);
wherein the second event data is associated with the second computing event (Scolnicov [0015, 0063] teaches a second of the two candidate events or event sets), and shares, with the first event data associated with the first computing event, the at least one attribute that satisfies the criteria of the composition operation (Scolnicov [0063 and 0086] teaches candidate events are assembled into sets of two or more related candidate events based on candidate event characteristics matching criteria as determined by the combination rule [0015]); and
generating, by the compute engine, using the composition operation, the composition event data (Scolnicov [0015] teaches the composite event data determined by the combination rule) by:
extracting the first subset of one or more first data elements, defined by the context collection format, from the first set of data elements included in the first event data (Scolnicov [0015] teaches event data of the two candidate events merged into the composite event as determined by the combination rule);
extracting the second subset one or more second data elements, defined by the context collection format, from the second set of data elements included in the second event data (Scolnicov [0015] teaches event data of the two candidate events merged into the composite event as determined by the combination rule); and
including, in the composition event data the first subset of one or more first data elements extracted from the first event data and the second subset of one or more second data elements extracted from the second event data (Scolnicov [0015] teaches the event data of the two candidate events are merged according to the combination rule).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kinder in view of Scolnicov in order to configure the operation, as taught by Kinder, to include a composition operation wherein a context collection format associated with the composition operation defines: a first subset of one or more first data elements, within a first set of data elements included in the first event data that indicates first attributes of the first computing event, to be included in composition event data generated by the composition operation, and a second subset of one or more second data elements, within a second set of data elements included in second event data that indicates second attributes of a second computing event, to be included in the composition event data; wherein the second event data shares, with the first event data associated with the first computing event the at least one attribute that satisfies the criteria of the composition operation; and generating, by the compute engine, using the composition operation, the composition event data by: extracting the first subset of one or more first data elements, defined by the context collection format, from the first set of data elements included in the first event data; extracting the second subset of one or more second data elements, defined by the context collection format, from the second set of data elements included in the second event data; and including, in the composition event data, the first subset of one or more first data elements extracted from the first event data and the second subset of one or more second data elements extracted from the second event data, as taught by Scolnicov.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to identify relations between anomalies and detect events with less significant signals while improving the classification and measurement of events (Scolnicov [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Kinder-Scolnicov teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kinder-Scolnicov teaches the computer-implemented method wherein:
the first event data is received from a first security agent executing on a first client device, and the second event data is received from a second security agent executing on a second client device (Kinder [0034] discloses correlating or comparing [Claim 7] data (second event data) across multiple endpoints at a cloud service. Additionally, Kinder [0095] teaches comparing the event to other events).
Regarding claim 11, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Claim 2, 12, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinder et al (US 20170244762 A1, hereafter referred to as Kinder) in view of Scolnicov et al (US 20130332090 A1, hereafter referred to as Scolnicov) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Xiong et al (US 10438164 B1, hereafter referred to Xiong).
Regarding claim 2, Kinder-Scolnicov teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Kinder-Scolnicov does not explicitly teach the computer implemented method wherein: the second computing event occurred prior to an occurrence of the first computing event, and the security network receives the first event data prior to receiving the second event data.
Xiong, in an analogous art, teaches the computer implemented method wherein:
the second computing event occurred prior to an occurrence of the first computing event (Xiong [40:66-12] teaches the data associated with the second event was previously captured by the sensors before the first event), and the security network receives the first event data prior to receiving the second event data (Xiong [40:20-34 and Fig 18-1802] teaches accessing first data prior to accessing the second event data [40:66-12]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kinder-Scolnicov in view of Xiong in order to configure the second event, as taught by Kinder-Scolnicov, to occur prior to an occurrence of the first event, and the security network receives the first event data prior to receiving the second event data, as taught by Xiong.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (receiving first event data prior to receiving second event data wherein the second event occurred prior to an occurrence of the first event, as taught by Xiong) for another known element (receiving first event prior to receiving second event data wherein the first event occurs prior to the occurrence of the second event, as taught by Kinder-Scolnicov) in order to yield predictable results (merging or combining first and second, received, event data) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 2.
Therefore, claims 12 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 2.
Claim 3, 13, 18, 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinder et al (US 20170244762 A1, hereafter referred to as Kinder) in view of Scolnicov et al (US 20130332090 A1, hereafter referred to as Scolnicov) as applied above regarding claim 1, further in view of Sharifi et al (US 10581886 B1, hereafter referred to as Sharifi).
Regarding claim 3, Kinder-Scolnicov teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Kinder-Scolnicov does not explicitly teach the computer implemented method wherein: the security network received the second event data prior to receiving the first event data, the security network stored the second event data in storage, and the compute engine identifies the second event data by querying the storage for the second event data.
Sharifi, in an analogous art, teaches the computer-implemented method wherein:
the security network received the second event data prior to receiving the first event data (Sharifi [21:6-11] teaches similar data (“second event data”) retrieved from and event storage wherein the similar data is data previously received and placed into event storage [20:52-62], such that the similar data is received prior to the incoming data (“first event data”)), the security network stored the second event data in storage (Sharifi [21:6-15] teaches searching and retrieving the similar event from the event storage), and the compute engine identifies the second event data by querying the storage for the second event data (Sharifi [21:6-15] teaches searching and retrieving the similar event from the event storage).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kinder-Scolnicov in view of Sharifi in order to configure the security network to receive the second event data prior to receiving the first event data, the security network to store the second event data in storage, and the compute engine to identify the second event data by querying the storage for the second event data, as taught by Sharifi.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated in order to improve the security and efficiency of a service by analyzing events using profiles to identify anomalies and threats to the service (Sharifi [2:35-41]).
Regarding claim 13, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 3.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 3.
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 21, Kinder-Scolnicov teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
However, Kinder-Scolnicov does not explicitly teach the computer-implemented method further comprising adding, by the compute engine, the composition event data to the event stream.
Sharifi, in an analogous art, teaches the computer-implemented method further comprising adding, by the compute engine, the composition event data to the event stream (Sharifi [22:49-64] teaches combining and placing the combined event into the queue to send to the metrics engine, wherein the combined events a part of a first event stream produced by the throttling system and provided to the metrics engine [19:32-41]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-9, 14-15 and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Without conceding propriety of the asserted combination, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Kinder and Scolnicov does not render claim 1 unpatentable. Kinder describes a system in which a server may receive event data from endpoint agents on computing endpoints. See Kinder, Abstract. Scolnicov describes "a method for detecting related events in a water monitoring system." See Scolnicov, Abstract. However, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Kinder and Scolnicov would not have been obvious, and does not teach or suggest all of the elements of amended claim 1.
The system described by Kinder relates to event data associated with computing events, such "event data including process creation data, persistent process data, thread injection data, network connection data, memory pattern data," or other computing event data. See Kinder, Abstract. However, the system described by Scolnicov relates to "real-world events" associated with "water network operations," such as "a water leak, a burst, a faulty sensor, a water theft," or other water-related events. See Scolnicov, paragraphs [0007], [0038], and [0054]. Accordingly, because Kinder and Scolnicov relate to different types of events (computer events and real-world water-related events, respectively), Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Kinder's system for processing computer event data based on Scolnicov's system for processing data about real-world water-related events.” Remarks pg 13
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. Scolnicov, while in the primary embodiment discusses water network operations, is analogous and obvious in that it still teaches the functionality of receiving and analyzing event data associated with a sensor ([0034, 0036]) wherein the sensor produces ([0037]), derives or generates ([0011]) the data for monitoring a resource distribution or delivery or collection system ([0011]). Moreover, the primary embodiment of a water utility network is not the only application for a monitoring system that monitors resource distribution, delivery or collection ([0011]). Scolnicov [0011] explicitly teaches the monitoring system including sensors which generate, produce, derive, and communicate/provide via a network for monitoring resource distribution, delivery and collection in a computer data, cable, satellite or other digital content delivery network such that teachings of Scolnicov are in the same technical field of data collection and analysis as Kinder. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention explore all types and implementations of event analysis networks, including water utility networks, to identify functionality for incorporation in an event analysis network for security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to identify relations between anomalies and detect events with less significant signals while improving the classification and measurement of events (Scolnicov [0013]). Therefore, the examiner asserts it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kinder in view of Scolnicov in order to produce the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Even if it would have been obvious to combine Kinder and Scolnicov (to which Applicant does not acquiesce), Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination does not teach or suggest all of the elements that amended claim 1 recites. For example, the Office acknowledges that Kinder does not describe elements associated with a "composition operation" that may be used to generate "composition event data" as claim 1 recites, but argues that Scolnicov describes such elements in the proposed combination. See Office Action, pages 5 and 7. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Scolnicov indicates that multiple "candidate events" may be "merged together" according to a combination rule. See Scolnicov, paragraph [0064]. As discussed above, Scolnicov relates to real-world water-related events, and may merge information about two related water events. For example, different events about "a flow increase and a nearby flow decrease may be combined to identify a breached valve event." See Scolnicov, paragraph [0013].
However, respectfully submits that there is no indication that Scolnicov's combination rule is associated with a "context collection format" that defines: 1) a specific "first subset" of data
elements to be extracted from a set of data elements in "first event data;" and 2) a specific "second subset" of data elements to be extracted from a set of data elements in "second event data" that shares an attribute with the first event data, as amended claim 1 recites. Applicant also respectfully submits that Scolnicov does not teach or suggest extracting the defined "first subset" and "second subset" of data elements from the first event data and the second event data respectively, or "including, in the composition event data, the first subset of one or more first data elements extracted from the first event data and the second subset of one or more second data elements extracted from the second event data," as amended claim 1 also recites.” Remarks pg 13-14
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. Based upon broadest reasonable interpretation in view of applicant’s specification, the examiner understands the context collection format indicates or defines which types of data elements should be copied from received event data or taken from multiple pieces of received event data and used to generate new combined event data according to a composition (applicant’s specification [0052]) such that at least one common attribute is shared and identified. Scolnicov [0015] teaches a combination rule which indicates one or more event characteristics of the event data that match corresponding event characteristics of any or all other candidate events such that predetermined characteristics or attributes of the first data are compared to characteristics of the second and subsequent data to determine a relationship over the event data.
Moreover, regarding the applicant’s assertion Scolnicov does not extract the defined attributes or include the extracted attributes in the composition event data, the examiner disagrees. Scolnicov [0015] teaches identifying (extracting) and comparing event characteristics determined by the combination rule, wherein the identified events are merged into a single composite event with composite event data also determined by the combination rule.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“For example, although Scolnicov indicates that two pieces of event data about related water events may be merged together according to a combination rule, Applicant respectfully submits that Scolnicov does not extract specifically-defined subsets of data elements from each of the two pieces of event data, or include such extracted data elements in combined data. Instead, Scolnicov only broadly indicates that data about related events may be "merged," for instance by determining an "average magnitude" of the events or "selecting the earliest start date of a candidate event." See Scolnicov, paragraph [0015].” Remarks pg 14
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding applicant’s previous arguments pertaining to claim 1. Specifically, Scolnicov [0015] teaches identifying and comparing one or more event characteristics of the event data with corresponding event characteristics of the other candidate events wherein the events are merged, with the merged or composite event data determined by the combination rule, whereby the combination rule specifies which characteristics to select [0095]. Moreover, the mathematical definition of a subset includes the full set such that if the full set of event characteristics is merged that still constitutes a subset (Scolnicov [0013, 0114] teaches combining a first data event with one or more second data events.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that determining an average magnitude, as Scolnicov describes, would involve deriving an average from values presented in different pieces of event data. Id. Accordingly, there no indication that Scolnicov's combination rule involves "extracting" different specifically-defined subsets of data elements from both pieces of event data, and then "including" those extracted subsets of data elements in generated composition event data as amended claim 1 recites.
Similarly, Applicant respectfully submits that determining an earliest start date of a candidate event, as Scolnicov describes, would involve comparing two dates indicated by two different pieces of event data in order to determine which date is earlier, such that there is no pre- existing definition indicating that a value of a particular date field from a particular one of the two pieces of event data should be extracted and included in combined data. Accordingly, there no indication that Scolnicov's combination rule is associated with a "context collection format" that "defines" particular subsets of data elements that are to be extracted and included from each of the two different pieces of event data. Id.” Remarks pg 14
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding applicant’s previous arguments pertaining to claim 1. Specifically, Scolnicov [0013, 0114] teaches identifying events, according to the composition rule [0015], and combining the contents of the identified events, whereby the combination rule specifies or defines which characteristics to select [0095].
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Moreover, as discussed above, Scolnicov concerns event data about real-world water events. See Scolnicov, paragraphs [0007], [0038], and [0054]. Accordingly, because Scolnicov is focused on water events, Applicant respectfully submits that Scolnicov does not teach or suggest a "context collection format" that "defines" a "first subset" of data elements "within a first set of data elements ... that indicates first attributes of the first computing event," as well as a "second subset" of data elements "within a second set of data elements ... that indicates second attributes of a second computing event," as amended claim 1 recites (emphasis added).” Remarks pg 14-15
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding applicant’s previous arguments pertaining to claim 1. Specifically, Scolnicov, while in the primary embodiment discusses water network operations, is analogous and obvious in that it still teaches the functionality of receiving and analyzing event data associated with a sensor ([0034, 0036]) wherein the sensor produces ([0037]), derives or generates ([0011]) the data for monitoring a resource distribution or delivery or collection system ([0011]). Moreover, the primary embodiment of a water utility network is not the only application for a monitoring system that monitors resource distribution, delivery or collection ([0011]). Scolnicov [0011] explicitly teaches the monitoring system including sensors which generate, produce, derive, and communicate/provide via a network for monitoring resource distribution, delivery and collection in a computer data, cable, satellite or other digital content delivery network such that teachings of Scolnicov are in the same technical field of data collection and analysis as Kinder. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention explore all types and implementations of event analysis networks, including water utility networks, to identify functionality for incorporation in an event analysis network for security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to identify relations between anomalies and detect events with less significant signals while improving the classification and measurement of events (Scolnicov [0013]). Therefore, the examiner asserts it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kinder in view of Scolnicov in order to produce the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“For at least the reasons presented herein, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Kinder and Scolnicov. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 1.” Remarks pg 15
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding applicant’s previous arguments pertaining to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues:
“Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable over the cited documents. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 4 is allowable over the cited documents of record for at least its dependency from an allowable base claim, and also for the additional features that it recites. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claim 4.” Remarks pg 15
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 of which claim 4 inherits.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, applicant argues:
[In Part] Claims 1 and 11 and 1 and 16 recite similar subject matter and is not obvious for reasons similar to the presented above with respect to claim 1. Remarks pg 15-16
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding independent claim 1 of which claims 11 and 16 have similar arguments.
Regarding the dependent claims, applicant argues:
[In part] The claims depend from an independent claim and are allowable over the cited documents for at least their dependency from an allowable base claim according to the reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims. Remarks 17-18
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claims of which claim the dependent claims inherit.
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446