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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 5/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 13 (previously claim 12) are currently amended. Claim 2-12 (should be 2-11), 14-22 (should be 13-22) have been cancelled. Claims 23-40 are newly added. Claims 1, 13 (should be 12), 23-40 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the Specification due to informalities has been withdrawn in light of applicant amended Abstract filed 5/15/2026.
The objection to claims 1, 5, 12, 19 due to informalities has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to the claims and cancellation of claims.
The rejection of claims 19, 22 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
Claim numeral errors
Original claim 12 has been re-numbered to claim 13, causing the amended claim numbers inconsistent with original claim set. The amended claim 13 should be numbered as claim 12. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-22 are cancelled. For the examination, examiner follows applicant’s claim numbers, but requests applicant to correct the claim numerals in next response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-19 of the Remarks filed 5/15/2026 with respect to claims rejected under non-statutory obviousness double patenting has been fully considered and asserted not persuasive. Therefore, the double patenting rejection is maintained and updated below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the Remarks filed 5/15/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 102/103 over prior arts of records has been fully considered but asserted fail to overcome the rejections. See the updated claim rejections under 35 USC 102 below for details.
Applicant is encouraged to further include innovative features into the independent claims to advance the case.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of US Patent No. 12,093,417 B2 (hereinafter “’417”), in view of Foley et al (US20170024408A1, hereinafter, "Foley").
Claims 1 and 2 of ‘417 discloses all of the limitations recited in Claim 1 (similarly claim 13) of the instant application, as seen in the table below, except those limitations as emphasized in bold, however Foley in the same area of network security teaches: selectively generate filtered events based on filtering criteria associated with a governance policy (Foley, discloses system and method for centralized monitoring and auditing remote file systems having user configured policies, [Abstract]. And [0047] The policy manager 508 in the collector 504 enables policy-based filtering based on one or more security policies 512 stored in the data store 506. In particular, file access control policies 512 dictate what folders, files and other file system objects (i.e. data objects) are monitored. And [0049] Typically, a policy (or “security policy”) has one or more rules that allow administrators (or “users”) to filter for specific operations, for specific files, or the like (i.e., filtered events). Preferably, the audited data includes information about the users performing a particular file system access operation, the machine wherein the file system resides, the particular file system changes, other file system constructs, and so forth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Foley in the hybrid approach to data governance of ‘417 by filtering for specific operation in monitoring and collecting data object based on security policy. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the security policies for the audit data and take given action (Foley, [Abstract]).
Claim Comparison
Instant Application 18/802,630
US Patent 12,093,417 B2
Claim 1 (similarly claim 13). In a cloud-based data governance system, a method for providing data governance of a remote data storage system associated with a remote file system, said method comprising:
establishing a connection with said remote data storage system over a wide area network (WAN);
deploying an event collection service to said remote data storage system, said event collection service being configured to detect file system operations executed on data objects of said remote data storage system and selectively generate filtered events based on filtering criteria associated with a governance policy;
receiving, from said event collection service, said filtered events;
processing said filtered events to determine whether one or more of said file system operations conflict with said governance policy of said data governance system;
and executing a set of remediation actions responsive to determining a conflict between said one or more file system operations and said governance policy.
Claim 1 (claim 11). A method by a data governance server of a multi-tenant, cloud-based data governance system, said method for providing data governance of a plurality of remote data storage systems each including a remote file system, said method comprising:
establishing a network connection between said data governance server and a first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems over a wide-area network (WAN); establishing a second network connection between said data governance server and a second one of said plurality of remote data storage systems over said WAN; receiving over said WAN first information from a first cloud client associated with a first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems; using said first information to customize a first set of data governance policies; associating said customized first set of data governance policies with said first cloud client; storing said customized first set of data governance policies in memory of said data governance server; receiving over said WAN a first metadata snapshot indicative of a first data set stored on said first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems; generating a first derivative data set based on said first metadata snapshot; associating said first derivative data set with said first cloud client; receiving over said WAN second information from a second cloud client associated with a second one of said plurality of remote data storage systems, said second cloud client being unaffiliated with said first cloud client; using said second information to customize a second set of data governance policies; associating said customized second set of data governance policies with said second cloud client; storing said customized second set of data governance policies in said memory of said data governance server; receiving over said WAN a second metadata snapshot indicative of a second data set stored on said second one of said plurality of remote data storage systems; generating a second derivative data set based on said second metadata snapshot; associating said second derivative data set with said second cloud client;
capturing an event over said WAN, said event being associated with a first remote file system stored on said first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems, said event being indicative of at least one change made to object metadata corresponding to a data object of said first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems;
processing said event using said first derivative data set to identify a conflict between said event and one or more of said customized first set of data governance policies;
and executing a set of remediation actions, based on said conflict.
Claim 2. wherein said step of capturing an event associated with said first remote file system includes: deploying an event collection service to said first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems, said event collection service being operative to detect file system operations executed on data objects of said first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems, generate events indicative of said file system operations, and push said events to said data governance server; and receiving said events from said first one of said plurality of remote data storage systems via said event collection service.
Claims 1, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of US Patent No. 11,494,503 B2 (hereinafter “’503”), in view of Foley et al (US20170024408A1, hereinafter, "Foley").
Claims 1 and 2 of ‘503 discloses all of the limitations recited in Claim 1 (similarly claim 13) of the instant application, as seen in the table below, except those limitations as emphasized in bold, however Foley in the same area of network security teaches: selectively generate filtered events based on filtering criteria associated with a governance policy (Foley, discloses system and method for centralized monitoring and auditing remote file systems having user configured policies, [Abstract]. And [0047] The policy manager 508 in the collector 504 enables policy-based filtering based on one or more security policies 512 stored in the data store 506. In particular, file access control policies 512 dictate what folders, files and other file system objects (i.e. data objects) are monitored. And [0049] Typically, a policy (or “security policy”) has one or more rules that allow administrators (or “users”) to filter for specific operations, for specific files, or the like (i.e., filtered events). Preferably, the audited data includes information about the users performing a particular file system access operation, the machine wherein the file system resides, the particular file system changes, other file system constructs, and so forth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Foley in the hybrid approach to data governance of ‘503 by filtering for specific operation in monitoring and collecting data object based on security policy. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the security policies for the audit data and take given action (Foley, [Abstract]).
Claim Comparison
Instant Application 18/802,630
US Patent 11,494,503 B2
Claim 1 (similarly claim 13). In a cloud-based data governance system, a method for providing data governance of a remote data storage system associated with a remote file system, said method comprising:
establishing a connection with said remote data storage system over a wide area network (WAN);
deploying an event collection service to said remote data storage system, said event collection service being configured to detect file system operations executed on data objects of said remote data storage system and selectively generate filtered events based on filtering criteria associated with a governance policy;
receiving, from said event collection service, said filtered events;
processing said filtered events to determine whether one or more of said file system operations conflict with said governance policy of said data governance system;
and executing a set of remediation actions responsive to determining a conflict between said one or more file system operations and said governance policy.
Claim 1 (claim 17). A method performed with a data governance server of a cloud-based, multi-tenant data governance system, said method for providing data governance of a plurality of remote data storage systems, each remote data storage system being associated with a particular one of a plurality of different cloud clients, being located geographically remotely from said data governance server, and having a particular associated remote file system stored thereon, said method comprising: receiving instructions from a first one of said cloud clients to customize a first set of data governance policies and to associate said customized first set of data governance policies with said first cloud client; establishing said customized first set of data governance policies associated with said first cloud client, said first cloud client being associated with a first one of said remote data storage systems and a first one of said remote file systems; storing said customized first set of data governance policies within said data governance server; receiving instructions from a second one of said cloud clients to customize a second set of data governance policies and to associate said customized second set of data governance policies with said second cloud client; establishing said customized second set of data governance policies associated with said second cloud client, said second cloud client being associated with a second one of said remote data storage systems and a second one of said remote file systems, said first cloud client being separate from and unaffiliated with said second cloud client; storing said customized second set of data governance policies within said data governance server;
establishing a network connection between said data governance server and said first one of said remote data storage systems over a public wide area network (WAN);
capturing a first event associated with said first remote file system, said first event being generated responsive to and indicative of at least one file system operation executed on a data object of said first remote data storage system, said file system operation being a modification or an access of said data object of said first remote data storage system;
processing at said cloud-based, multi-tenant data governance server said first event and not said data object of said first remote data storage system to determine whether said first event conflicts with a first data governance policy of said customized first set of data governance policies of said data governance system, said first data governance policy defining how said data governance server functions in response to processing said first event;
executing a first set of remediation actions, if said first event does conflict with said first data governance policy; establishing a second network connection between said data governance server and said second one of said remote data storage systems over a public WAN; capturing a second event associated with said second remote file system, said second event being generated responsive to and indicative of a second file system operation executed on a data object of said second remote data storage system, said second file system operation being a modification or an access of said data object of said second remote data storage system; processing at said cloud-based, multi-tenant data governance server said second event and not said data object of said second remote data storage system to determine whether said second event conflicts with a second data governance policy of said customized second set data governance policies of said data governance system, said second data governance policy defining how said data governance server functions in response to processing said second event; and executing a second set of remediation actions, if said second event does conflict with said second data governance policy.
Claim 2. wherein said step of capturing a first event associated with said first remote file system includes: deploying an event collection service to said first remote data storage system, said event collection service being operative to detect file system operations executed on data objects of said first remote data storage system, generate events indicative of said file system operations, and push said events to said data governance system; and receiving said events from said first remote data storage system via said event collection service.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foley et al (US20170024408A1, hereinafter, "Foley").
Regarding claim 1, Foley teaches:
In a cloud-based data governance system, a method for providing data governance of a remote data storage system associated with a remote file system (Foley, discloses system and method for centralized monitoring and auditing remote file systems having user configured policies, [Abstract]. e.g. Fig. 3 shows system in cloud, and [0041-43]), said method comprising:
establishing a connection with said remote data storage system over a wide area network (WAN) (See Fig.1 network 102. And [0025] the distributed data processing system 100 may also be implemented to include a number of different types of networks, such as for example, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN));
deploying an event collection service to said remote data storage system, said event collection service being configured to detect file system operations executed on data objects of said remote data storage system ([0043] the system enables the software TAP agent to be configured in various ways that can affect the overall architecture of the solution. Thus, for example, the software TAP agent 312 can be configured to relay the captured information to one collector, to two or more collectors,…. In one basic software TAP configuration option, the software TAP agent is configured to send traffic to one collector only. Traffic includes all of the relevant activity (access and results) that the agent observes between the client (application, user, and so on) and the database) and selectively generate filtered events based on filtering criteria associated with a governance policy ([0047] The policy manager 508 in the collector 504 enables policy-based filtering based on one or more security policies 512 stored in the data store 506. In particular, file access control policies 512 dictate what folders, files and other file system objects (i.e. data objects) are monitored. And [0049] Typically, a policy (or “security policy”) has one or more rules that allow administrators (or “users”) to filter for specific operations, for specific files, or the like (i.e., filtered events). Preferably, the audited data includes information about the users performing a particular file system access operation, the machine wherein the file system resides, the particular file system changes, other file system constructs, and so forth);
receiving, from said event collection service, said filtered events (e.g., [0048] The collector preferably stores the configuration (the policies that are being implemented), as well as the collected file system access data (sometimes referred to as the “audited” data). In other words, preferably the collector stores both the policies themselves as well as the audit trail, namely, the data that has been collected from the one or more monitored file systems);
processing said filtered events to determine whether one or more of said file system operations conflict with said governance policy of said data governance system (e.g., [0009] preferably the collector stores (in a database) the audit trail, so for review or further analysis that file data access audit data (i.e. trail data, not data object) is available to be searched, for example, for suspicious patterns or unauthorized intrusions (i.e. conflicts with governance policy). And [0045] a collector 504 includes …, and a policy manager component 508. The policy manager component 508 may execute on a collector appliance. And [0047] The policy manager 508 in the collector 504 enables policy-based filtering based on one or more security policies 512 stored in the data store 506. And [0050] The policy manager 508 is operative to apply a particular security policy 512 to the audit trail data that is collected and received at the central manager);
and executing a set of remediation actions responsive to determining a conflict between said one or more file system operations and said governance policy (e.g., [0008] In addition, preferably the collector also applies the security policy against the audit trail data received from at least one of the plural file systems and, in response thereto, takes a given action (i.e. remediation). The given action typically is one of: issuing an alert, performing an audit activity, restricting access to a file system resource, and reporting on the file system access activity. And [Claim 3] wherein the given action is one of: issuing an alert, performing an audit activity, restricting access to a file system resource, and reporting on the file system access activity).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is system claim that encompasses limitations that are similar to those limitations of the method claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against claim 1. In addition, Foley teaches a cloud-based data governance system (Foley, discloses system and method for centralized monitoring and auditing remote file systems having user configured policies, [Abstract]. See e.g. Fig. 3 shows system in cloud, see [0041-43]) comprising: a processing unit configured to execute code (Data processing system 200 is an example of a computer, such as server 104 or client 110 in FIG. 1, in which computer-usable program code or instructions ... data processing system 200 includes communications fabric 202, which provides communications between processor unit 204…); a network adapter electrically coupled to establish a connection with a remote data storage system associated with a remote file system over a wide-area network (WAN) (Fig. 2, Input/Output unit 212 (i.e. network adapter) is shown for each client device, Fig.1 network 102. And [0025] a wide area network (WAN)); and memory for storing data and said code (Fig. 2 Memory).
Regarding claim 23, similarly claim 32, Foley teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 13,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service is configured to selectively generate said filtered events based on one or more attributes associated with said file system operations ([0050] The policy manager 508 is operative to apply a particular security policy 512 to the audit trail data that is collected and received at the central manager… Thus, a particular security policy may be used to control the file system monitoring agents to discover and classify files containing sensitive data (or sensitive data of a given type, or that is created during a particular time period, or that involves particular types of files, etc.)).
Regarding claim 24, similarly claim 33, Foley teaches the method of Claim 23, the system of Claim 32,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service is configured to selectively generate said filtered events based on a type of file system operation executed on one or more of said data objects ([0049] Preferably, the audited data includes information about the users performing a particular file system access operation, the machine wherein the file system resides, the particular file system changes, other file system constructs, and so forth. In one particular embodiment, the file system access data that is collected includes one or more of the following: file name, file size, data created, owner, read user, write user, user privileges and rights, permissions, changes or other modifications to the data or to file system metadata, timestamps, and the like).
Regarding claim 25, similarly claim 34,Foley teaches the method of Claim 23, the system of Claim 32,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service is configured to selectively generate said filtered events based on a user identity associated with at least one file system operation executed on said data objects ([0054] The policy manager may then be enabled to alert or block when unauthorized users or processes attempt access. When the enterprise needs to protect files containing personally identifiable information (PII) or other proprietary information while not impacting day-to-day operations, the platform may be configured by policy to merely monitor access to identified sensitive data. Depending on the policy configuration, the data may then be aggregated, giving the administrator a view into the activity or to otherwise provide an alert in the case of suspicious activity. For egregious activity, the system may be configured according to the policy to block access (perhaps even to a given user) to specific folders and files).
Regarding claim 26, similarly claim 35, Foley teaches the method of Claim 23, the system of Claim 32,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service is configured to selectively generate said filtered events based on a metadata attribute of one or more of said data objects ([0049] In one particular embodiment, the file system access data that is collected includes one or more of the following: file name, file size, data created, owner, read user, write user, user privileges and rights, permissions, changes or other modifications to the data or to file system metadata, timestamps, and the like).
Regarding claim 27, similarly claim 36, Foley teaches the method of Claim 23, the system of Claim 32,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service is configured to selectively generate said filtered events based on a time that at least one file system operation was executed on said data objects ([0049] In one particular embodiment, the file system access data that is collected includes one or more of the following: file name, file size, data created, owner, read user, write user, user privileges and rights, permissions, changes or other modifications to the data or to file system metadata, timestamps, and the like).
Regarding claim 28, similarly claim 37, Foley teaches the method of Claim 1, the system of Claim 13,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service includes: a connector; and an agent configured to directly access said data objects of said remote data storage system, said agent being communicatively coupled to said connector; and wherein said agent and said connector are collectively configured to obtain information indicative of said file system operations, collect events based on said information, and filter said events (Refer to Fig. 6, [0052] the software TAP agent 602 is extended by a thin client driver 605 (i.e., connector)… As defined by the security policy file access operation, such as create file, rename file, read and write, and the like, is monitored by the driver 605. When monitoring, preferably the driver 605 provides the software TAP agent a log packet upon a file access identified in the security policy. Examiner notes, the claim does not define what the connector is).
Regarding claim 29, similarly claim 38, Foley teaches the method of Claim 28, the system of Claim 37,
Foley further teaches: wherein: said agent is configured to provide said information indicative of said file system operations to said connector; and said connector is configured to generate said events based on said information indicative of said file system operations (Refer to Fig. 6, [0052] the software TAP agent 602 is extended by a thin client driver 605 (i.e., connector)… As defined by the security policy file access operation, such as create file, rename file, read and write, and the like, is monitored by the driver 605. When monitoring, preferably the driver 605 provides the software TAP agent a log packet upon a file access identified in the security policy).
Regarding claim 30, similarly claim 39, Foley teaches the method of Claim 28, the system of Claim 37,
Foley further teaches: wherein: said agent is configured to collect said events and provide said events to said connector; and said connector is configured to filter said events ([0053] The software TAP agent provides the information about the file system access operation to the collector, preferably periodically and in bulk. Thus, preferably the software TAP is operative to store locally the log data or the filtered log data for some time period).
Regarding claim 31, similarly claim 40, Foley teaches the method of Claim 28, the system of Claim 37,
Foley further teaches: wherein said event collection service includes an application configured to analyze said events to identify a second conflict between said one or more file system operations and said governance policy ([0081] The file system activity monitor here may include a vulnerability assessment application that is operative to enable the enterprise to identify and address file system vulnerabilities in a consistent and automated fashion. This assessment process evaluates the health of the file system environment and may recommends improvement by assessing file system configuration(s) against best practices and finding vulnerabilities or potential threats to file system resources, including configuration and behavioral risks, finding any inherent vulnerabilities present in the IT environment, like missing security patches, recommending and prioritizing an action plan based on discovered areas of most critical risks and vulnerabilities).
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Bone et al (US20100145917A1) discloses systems and methods for managing objects (files and directories) in network file systems according to policies..
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. 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.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights