DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 12/03/2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues (see pages 10-11), with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, that neither Subramanian nor Jiang is alleged to teach "wherein the user role information includes relationships between a plurality of users of a digital platform."
In response to the Applicant’s argument, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (U.S. PGPub 2025/0265013) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2025/0148384) further in view of Lang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0269383) is made in view of the amendments made to claims 1, 8 and 15. The new reference, Lang, is relied upon to teach the limitation above.
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 1-3, 7-8, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (U.S. PGPub 2025/0265013) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2025/0148384) further in view of Lang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0269383).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Subramanian teaches A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least: receive, from a client device associated with a user, an access request for a capability to access a resource, (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters for validating the data exchange and may include a user identity, a user credential, a type of asset to search, a particular data exchange asset to validate, or other parameters...)
the access request comprising a user identifier for the user and a resource identifier for the resource; (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters for validating the data exchange and may include a user identity, a user credential, a type of asset to search, a particular data exchange asset to validate, or other parameters...; see paragraph 0049 where data attributes such as asset name, asset owner, asset business unit, asset identifier, and other suitable attributes, along with a data type of each of the data attributes. For example, an asset name data attribute may have a data type of string, while an asset identifier data)
determine the capability for the user to access the resource by at least comparing the at least one user role for the user to allowed user roles for the resource; and (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0082 where the user role may be compared to a database listing roles likely to access each of the plurality of asset types to filter the plurality of asset types based on the user role...the user role may be compared to a database listing roles likely to access each of the plurality of asset types...; see paragraph 0104)
send, to the client device, an access response, the access response indicating the capability for the user to access the resource. (Subramanian, see fig. 4; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...)
However, Subramanian does not explicitly teach send, to an agent of a machine learning model, a prompt to identify at least one user role for the user, the prompt comprising the user identifier and user role information;
receive, from the agent, the at least one user role for the user;
Jiang teaches send, to an agent of a machine learning model, a prompt to identify at least one user role for the user, the prompt comprising the user identifier and user role information; (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 along with the key attributes 118 are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…; see paragraph 0019 where key attributes 118 of the activity, such as information on a user, time and location of activity, other participants involved in activity, engagement level (e.g., hours spent and units of work, such as completed lines of code, number of projects or tasks completed) project status of activity, etc.)
receive, from the agent, the at least one user role for the user; (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 along with the key attributes 118 are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…The user role 130...are inputted (received from the agent) to an activity categorizer 132...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Subramanian and Jiang to provide the technique of sending, to an agent of a machine learning model, a prompt to identify at least one user role for the user, the prompt comprising the user identifier and user role information and receiving, from the agent, the at least one user role for the user of Jiang in the system of Subramanian in order to substantially improve productivity (Jiang, see paragraph 0002).
However, Subramanian-Jiang does not explicitly teach wherein the user role information includes relationships between a plurality of users of a digital platform;
Lang teaches wherein the user role information includes relationships between a plurality of users of a digital platform; (Lang, see paragraph 0860 security proximity policy could be "team leaders who are top secret cleared can access information resources classified as top secret". Hierarchical Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)…; see paragraph 0869 social proximity would be in a social network (e.g. Facebook): "everyone can only access their friends' information and limited information about friends' friends.", or "intelligence analysts working on a task related to a criminal A can access all information about criminals that are in two hops social proximity to criminal A". Or "Friend's friends can access my information unless friend's friends' friends' are on my blocked list".; see also paragraph 0064 organizational proximity (e.g., relationships in the chain of command), operational proximity (e.g., supported/supporting units, common missions), social proximity, business process proximity etc. For example, a team leader for a first responder team responding to an accident may want to gain insight into data from other teams)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Subramanian-Jiang and Lang to provide the technique of the user role information includes relationships between a plurality of users of a digital platform of Lang in the system of Subramanian-Jiang in order to improve access control effectiveness (Lang, see paragraphs 0765-0766).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches wherein the prompt further comprises a plurality of user roles and the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: send, to a role-based access control (RBAC) service, a user role request; and (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters…; see paragraph 0031 where changes to role assignments in the Role-based Access Control (“RBAC”) system (which authorizes changes to asset information); see paragraph 0032 where provisioning users and systems to roles on an asset instance based on an RBAC policy specifying roles and permissions for the asset type...; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...)
receive, from the RBAC service, a user role response comprising a plurality of user roles. (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters…; see paragraph 0031 where changes to role assignments in the Role-based Access Control (“RBAC”) system (which authorizes changes to asset information); see paragraph 0032 where provisioning users and systems to roles on an asset instance based on an RBAC policy specifying roles and permissions for the asset type...; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...)
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches wherein the user role information includes at least an endpoint for a role-based access control (RBAC) service that has a plurality of user roles, (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters…; see paragraph 0031 where changes to role assignments in the Role-based Access Control (“RBAC”) system (which authorizes changes to asset information); see paragraph 0032 where provisioning users and systems to roles on an asset instance based on an RBAC policy specifying roles and permissions for the asset type...; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...)
the plurality of the user roles comprises the at least one user role, and each user role of the plurality of user roles being associated in the RBAC with a description of the user role. (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters…; see paragraph 0031 where changes to role assignments in the Role-based Access Control (“RBAC”) system (which authorizes changes to asset information); see paragraph 0032 where provisioning users and systems to roles on an asset instance based on an RBAC policy specifying roles and permissions for the asset type...; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...; see paragraph 0039 a user role, a user business unit, a list of user team memberships, a user organization)
Regarding claim 7, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches wherein the resource is at least partially stored in the memory of the computing device. (Subramanian, see figs. 1-3; see paragraph 0051 where data stored in a database for the unique asset type…; see paragraph 0060 where an asset type are loaded into memory for faster processing of asset management requests.)
Regarding claim 11, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches wherein the user role information comprises a first endpoint representing a first role-based access control (RBAC) service for which the agent can obtain the at least one user role, and the method further comprising: (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters…; see paragraph 0031 where changes to role assignments in the Role-based Access Control (“RBAC”) system (which authorizes changes to asset information); see paragraph 0032 where provisioning users and systems to roles on an asset instance based on an RBAC policy specifying roles and permissions for the asset type...; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...)
sending, by the agent of the machine learning model and to the first role-based access control (RBAC) service, a user role request; and (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 along with the key attributes 118 are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…; see paragraph 0019 where key attributes 118 of the activity, such as information on a user, time and location of activity, other participants involved in activity, engagement level (e.g., hours spent and units of work, such as completed lines of code, number of projects or tasks completed) project status of activity, etc.)
receive, by the agent of the machine learning model and from the first RBAC service, the at least one user role. (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 along with the key attributes 118 are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…The user role 130...are inputted (received from the agent) to an activity categorizer 132...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 8 and 15 is also applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches wherein the user role information further comprises a second endpoint representing a second RBAC service for which the agent can obtain at least a second user role corresponding to the user, the second endpoint corresponding to an external service. (Subramanian, see figs. 2 and 4; see paragraph 0079 where receive, from a first user, a request to access a data exchange...the request may include additional validation parameters…; see paragraph 0031 where changes to role assignments in the Role-based Access Control (“RBAC”) system (which authorizes changes to asset information); see paragraph 0032 where provisioning users and systems to roles on an asset instance based on an RBAC policy specifying roles and permissions for the asset type...; see paragraph 0098 where generate the validation result for display to the user. The system may generate the validation results based on the first comparison and the second comparison... the search results a list of validation results is generated and returned by the system...)
Regarding claim 13, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches further comprising: sending, by the agent of the machine learning model and to the second RBAC service, a second user role request; and (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 along with the key attributes 118 are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…; see paragraph 0019 where key attributes 118 of the activity, such as information on a user, time and location of activity, other participants involved in activity, engagement level (e.g., hours spent and units of work, such as completed lines of code, number of projects or tasks completed) project status of activity, etc.)
receive, by the agent of the machine learning model and from the second RBAC service, at least the second user role. (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 along with the key attributes 118 are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…The user role 130...are inputted (received from the agent) to an activity categorizer 132...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 8 and 15 is also applied to claim 13.
Claims 4-6, 9-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian-Jiang-Lang in view of Lander et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0331832).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 15. However, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang does not explicitly teach wherein the access response indicates that the resource is inaccessible to the user.
Lander teaches wherein the access response indicates that the resource is inaccessible to the user. (Lander, see figs. 13 and 18A-18C; see paragraph 0287 where A DENY of an access to a resource always takes precedence over grant in one embodiment. Therefore, even if one policy evaluates to DENY the access, the processing should immediately stop. Therefore, the functionality of FIG. 18C as well as the whole isAccessAllowed flow ends. At 1824, if applicable, all deny+obligations are returned.; see paragraph 0242 where the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305...compute the allowed scopes that are to be granted (at 1303) in FIG. 13. The access token includes the computed scopes, which may be based at least on the role of the user and the role of the application....; see also fig. 30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Subramanian-Jiang-Lang and Lander to provide the technique of the access response indicates that the resource is inaccessible to the user of Lander in the system of Subramanian-Jiang-Lang in order to provide secure access to resources or applications located anywhere, regardless of from what device type or by what user type (Lander, see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 15. However, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang does not explicitly teach wherein the access response indicates that the resource is accessible to the user and comprises the at least one user role for the user.
Lander teaches wherein the access response indicates that the resource is accessible to the user and comprises the at least one user role for the user. (Lander, see figs. 13 and 18A-18C; see paragraph 0242 where the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305… the allowed scopes that are to be granted (at 1303) in FIG. 13. The access token includes the computed scopes, which may be based at least on the role of the user and the role of the application.; see paragraph 0313 where Once a user obtains a token, the user has access to resources; see also fig. 30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Subramanian-Jiang-Lang and Lander to provide the technique of the access response indicates that the resource is accessible to the user and comprises the at least one user role for the user of Lander in the system of Subramanian-Jiang-Lang in order to provide secure access to resources or applications located anywhere, regardless of from what device type or by what user type (Lander, see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang-Lander teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least send, in response to determining the capability for the user to access the resource, the resource to the client device associated with the user. (Subramanian, see figs. 1 and 5; see paragraph 0022 where allow users to enter information about a data exchange system and/or data exchange assets...Content may be recorded, played, displayed, or accessed by user devices, but can also be part of a live performance...; see paragraph 0047 users to search and access various digital assets and data associated with digital assets...allow users to quickly access data; see paragraph 0098-0099 where the individual validation result will not be included in the returned validation results...receive a plurality of content published to an API” based on the result. The system may then filter the plurality of content using a first user content subscription setting for the first user...)
Regarding claim 9, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches all of the features of claim 8. However, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang does not explicitly teach wherein the access request includes a JSON web token (JWT), and the method further comprising:
validating, by the authentication service and in response to receiving the access request, the JWT;
granting, by the authentication service and in response to determining that the user is capable of accessing the resource, the user access to the resource by authorizing a portion of the JWT based on the at least one user role; and
sending, by the authentication service and to the client device, an access response comprising the JWT.
Lander teaches wherein the access request includes a JSON web token (JWT), and the method further comprising: (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0098 where request user authentication, receiving standard identity tokens that are JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) Web Tokens (“JWTs”) conveying the user's authenticated identity....; see paragraph 0242 where OAuth service 1340 validates the client by issuing a user/client combination asking for all of the allowed scopes from the Authorization module (i.e., a policy enforcement point (“PEP”) API 1360 such as Cloud Gate 702 of FIG. 7). At 1304, the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305...)
validating, by the authentication service and in response to receiving the access request, the JWT; (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0098 where request user authentication, receiving standard identity tokens that are JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) Web Tokens (“JWTs”) conveying the user's authenticated identity....; see paragraph 0242 where OAuth service 1340 validates the client by issuing a user/client combination asking for all of the allowed scopes from the Authorization module (i.e., a policy enforcement point (“PEP”) API 1360 such as Cloud Gate 702 of FIG. 7). At 1304, the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305...)
granting, by the authentication service and in response to determining that the user is capable of accessing the resource, the user access to the resource by authorizing a portion of the JWT based on the at least one user role; and (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0098 where request user authentication, receiving standard identity tokens that are JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) Web Tokens (“JWTs”) conveying the user's authenticated identity....; see paragraph 0242 where OAuth service 1340 validates the client by issuing a user/client combination asking for all of the allowed scopes from the Authorization module (i.e., a policy enforcement point (“PEP”) API 1360 such as Cloud Gate 702 of FIG. 7). At 1304, the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305...)
sending, by the authentication service and to the client device, an access response comprising the JWT. (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0242 where the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305….; see also paragraphs 0302-0303)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Subramanian-Jiang-Lang and Lander to provide the technique of the access request includes a JSON web token (JWT), validating, by the authentication service and in response to receiving the access request, the JWT, granting, by the authentication service and in response to determining that the user is capable of accessing the resource, the user access to the resource by authorizing a portion of the JWT based on the at least one user role and sending, by the authentication service and to the client device, an access response comprising the JWT of Lander in the system of Subramanian-Jiang-Lang in order to provide secure access to resources or applications located anywhere, regardless of from what device type or by what user type (Lander, see paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 10, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang-Lander teaches further comprising: receiving, by a resource service and from the client device, a resource request to obtain the resource, the resource request comprising the JWT; (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0098 where request user authentication, receiving standard identity tokens that are JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) Web Tokens (“JWTs”) conveying the user's authenticated identity....; see paragraph 0242 where OAuth service 1340 validates the client by issuing a user/client combination asking for all of the allowed scopes from the Authorization module (i.e., a policy enforcement point (“PEP”) API 1360 such as Cloud Gate 702 of FIG. 7). At 1304, the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305...)
validating, by the resource service, that the JWT is granted access to the resource; and (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0098 where request user authentication, receiving standard identity tokens that are JavaScript Object Notation (“JSON”) Web Tokens (“JWTs”) conveying the user's authenticated identity....; see paragraph 0242 where OAuth service 1340 validates the client by issuing a user/client combination asking for all of the allowed scopes from the Authorization module (i.e., a policy enforcement point (“PEP”) API 1360 such as Cloud Gate 702 of FIG. 7). At 1304, the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305...)
sending, by the resource service and to the client device, a resource response comprising the resource. (Lander, see fig. 13; see paragraph 0242 where the response is the allowed scopes, which is computed and which is incorporated in the access token and sent back to client 1320 at 1305….; see also paragraphs 0302-0303) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 9 is also applied to claim 10.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian-Jiang-Lang in view of Aggarwal et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12039616).
Regarding claim 14, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang teaches wherein the prompt further comprises API data associated with the user, the authentication service receives the at least one user role for the user in response to sending the API data associated with the user to the agent of the machine learning model, and the method further comprising: (Jiang, see figs. 1-2 and 6; see paragraph 0021 where role list 122 (API data) along with the key attributes 118 (API data) are inputted to a role categorizer 128, such as a machine learning model classifier, to output a user role 130…The user role 130...are inputted (received from the agent) to an activity categorizer 132...); see paragraph 0019 where key attributes 118 of the activity, such as information on a user, time and location of activity, other participants involved in activity, engagement level (e.g., hours spent and units of work, such as completed lines of code, number of projects or tasks completed) project status of activity, etc.) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 8 and 15 is also applied to claim 14.
However, Subramanian-Jiang-Lang does not explicitly teach sending, by the authentication service and to an external Application Programming Interface (API), an API request for the API data associated with the user; and
receive, by the authentication service and from the external API, an API response comprising the API data associated with the user.
Aggarwal teaches sending, by the authentication service and to an external Application Programming Interface (API), an API request for the API data associated with the user; and (Aggarwal, see fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 57-67 where typically by calling their exposed Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).; see claim 1 where accessing an application programming interface (API) of a human resources (HR) SaaS application to obtain HR data of the users...the HR data identifying roles of the users... applying a third machine learning model to the roles of the users identified by the HR data to predict normalized job functions based on the roles of the users; wherein analyzing the roles of the users by the first machine learning model includes analyzing the normalized job functions in order to determine the expense records representing software purchases; wherein analyzing the roles of the users by the second machine learning model...; see col. 6, lines 3-14)
receive, by the authentication service and from the external API, an API response comprising the API data associated with the user. (Aggarwal, see fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 57-67 where typically by calling their exposed Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).; see claim 1 where accessing an application programming interface (API) of a human resources (HR) SaaS application to obtain HR data of the users...the HR data identifying roles of the users... applying a third machine learning model to the roles of the users identified by the HR data to predict normalized job functions based on the roles of the users; wherein analyzing the roles of the users by the first machine learning model includes analyzing the normalized job functions in order to determine the expense records representing software purchases; wherein analyzing the roles of the users by the second machine learning model...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Subramanian-Jiang-Lang and Aggarwal to provide the technique of sending, by the authentication service and to an external Application Programming Interface (API), an API request for the API data associated with the user and receiving, by the authentication service and from the external API, an API response comprising the API data associated with the user of Aggarwal in the system of Subramanian-Jiang-Lang in order to provide obtain and compare data efficiently and accurately (Aggarwal, see col. 4, lines 22-38).
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 MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443