DETAILED ACTION
This communication responsive to the Application No. 18/881,480 filed on 07/24/2026. Claims 1-8 are pending and are directed towards COMPUTER SYSTEM AND SECURITY MEASURES EVALUATION METHOD
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 Arguments
Claim rejection on 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hence, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Claim rejection on 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim rejections 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The amendments do not clarify what the term “effectiveness” is and what “evaluation pairs” requires. Hence, the rejection is being maintained.
Claim rejection on 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A new reference Moore et al. (US 20140351939 A1), discloses a system to score to each countermeasure by the count of asset-threat instances it covers, using rules held in a stored scoring model and displays the result which is an index per security measure computed from the number of evaluation pairs. Moore scan a network to build an asset inventory, matches each asset against a threat model to form asset threat pairs, identifies the countermeasure for each pair, then applies a stored scoring model that computes each countermeasures effectiveness index from how many of those pairs it covers such as 50 of 100 assets (0.5 coverage x weighting =score) and outputs the countermeasures with their scores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.-Th specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claim is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as
required in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The title of the article
in which the design is embodied or applied is too ambiguous and therefore indefinite for the
examiner to make a proper examination of the claim under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject
to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation: "an index indicating effectiveness of a
security measure". The term "effectiveness" in claim 1 and 5 is a relative term which
renders the claim indefinite. The term "effectiveness" is not defined by the claim, the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one
of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the
invention. Hence, claims 1 and 5 are rendered indefinite and are rejected under 35
U.S.C 112(b).
Claims 1 and 5 recite the limitation: "storing an evaluation pair". It is not clearly
defined in the claims as to what an "evaluation pair" requires. It is unclear whether the
"evaluation pair" is an association between two elements such as a threat and an
element. Hence, claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected for being dependent on at least one
independent claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 20110302657 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ikegami in view of
Basavapatna et al. (US 20130096980 A1), hereinafter referred to as Basavapatna in further view of Moore et al. (US 20140351939 A1), hereinafter referred to as Moore.
As per claim 1, Ikegami discloses a computer system comprising: at least one computer that includes a processor, a storage device connected to the processor, and a network interface connected to the processor, wherein
the processor; (Processing apparatus, Ikegami, para [0005])
performs threat analysis by using the configuration management information to identify the threat to each of a plurality of the elements, and stores an evaluation pair, which is associated (In response to an operation performed with the input unit 11 by an estimator, the threat model generation unit 14 extracts threat information representing a possible threat from document data in the threat evaluation index DB 23 (ST15) and the threat model generation unit 14 generates threat analysis result data, Ikegami, para [0151], [0156]. Threat analysis is performed by associating threat information with transition paths and then generating threat analysis intermediate data and threat analysis result data which corresponds to identifying threats for multiple analyzed elements/states).
generates the security measure for the evaluation pair, and stores the evaluation pair in the storage device in association with the security measure, (The countermeasure policy information is written for reducing an execution condition described in the information about the executioner of the threat and the execution condition in the threat analysis result data in response to an operation performed with the input unit 11 by an estimator while the sufficient condition table model-form information is displayed, Ikegami, para [0163]. Here, countermeasure policy information is written for reducing the execution condition described in the threat analysis result data and stores sufficient countermeasure information in the database which is analogous to generating the security measure for the threat-associated pair and storing them in association)
aggregates evaluation pairs associated with a same security measure, (The evaluation point calculation unit 15 calculates a mean value of points in the evaluation results for respective functions of each piece of countermeasure policy information, writes the mean value to a mean value field of the calculation table, calculates a summation of all the mean values, and calculates an evaluation point, Ikegami, para [0177]. Here, a mean value of evaluation results for respective function of each piece of countermeasure policy information is calculated, then a summation of those mean values is calculated into an evaluation point. This is interpreted as aggregating multiple state, threat evaluation results tied to the same countermeasure policy).
However, Ikegami does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
generates display information for presenting the security measure and the index
Basavapatna discloses:
generates display information for presenting the security measure and the index (Turning to FIG. 5B, user interface 505 is shown presenting declaration rules window 525. Declaration rules window 525 can present declaration rules that have been created in connection with the definition of user-defined countermeasures in a system, Basavapatna, para [0065]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami with Basavapatna by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) with user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami with Basavapatna in order to effectively assess risk for assets in the system (See Basavapatna, para [0065]).
However, Ikegami in view of Basavapatna does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
the computer system holds configuration management information for managing an element constituting an object to be analyzed for a security risk, and evaluation rule management information for managing a plurality of evaluation rules respectively calculating, based on a combination of the element and a threat to the element, an index indicating an effectiveness degree of a security measure to avoid the threat, at least one of the evaluation rules indicates the index is to be calculated based on a number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure, and
calculates the index for each security measure by using the evaluation pair associated with the security measure and at least the number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure as indicated by the evaluation rule management information, and
Moore discloses:
the computer system holds configuration management information for managing an element constituting an object to be analyzed for a security risk, and (The scanner 110 can include one or more software modules or tools that can scan the network environment 100 and the computer assets 102. The scanner 110 can be configured to determine the structure of the network environment 100 and identify the computer assets 102, Moore, para [0022]. Here, element is the computer asset 102 and the object analyzed is the network environment 100. The stored inventory plus per -asset configuration, settings, policies and installed software is configuration management information)
evaluation rule management information for managing a plurality of evaluation rules respectively calculating, based on a combination of the element and a threat to the element, an index indicating an effectiveness degree of a security measure to avoid the threat, (The score model 114 can include the necessary logic, commands, algorithms, and code utilized by the security assessment tool 108 to determine the overall security assessments and provide recommendations as described herein. The score model 114 can include a listing of the counter measures to security threats and a weighting value associated with each of the counter measures. The weighting value can represent the effectiveness of a particular counter measure, Moore, para [0024]. Score model 114 is the held rule repository. Multiple evaluation rules are the five distinct formulas)
at least one of the evaluation rules indicates the index is to be calculated based on a number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure, and (The weighting value can represent the effectiveness of a particular counter measure. Actual effectiveness is the product of percentage coverage and weighting value, Moore, para [0024]. Here, the computed quantity is an effectiveness figure with a security measure)
calculates the index for each security measure by using the evaluation pair associated with the security measure and at least the number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure as indicated by the evaluation rule management information, and (Percentage coverage is the actual deployment or the possible deployment. If, for example, the network environment 100 included “100” (possible deployment) computer assets 102 and only “50” (actual deployment) of these computer assets included antivirus, then the percentage coverage would be “50%”, Moore, para [0047]. This is the counting rule, and it lives in the rule store. For a given threat, the assets that face it are the evaluation pairs “50” and “100” are counts of those pairs, taken over the pairs the antivirus counter measure is associated with. The stored rule dictates that the index be derived from those counts)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami and Basavapatna with Moore by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) and user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna) with security assessment of network assets (Moore). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami and Basavapatna with Moore in order to effectively obtain the benefit of ranking countermeasures by breadth of coverage (See Moore, para [0047]).
As per claim 2, Ikegami and Basavapatna discloses the computer system according to claim 1, wherein
Furthermore, Ikegami discloses:
the evaluation rule is a rule for calculating the index by using at least one of the number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure, a risk value indicating a level of risk of the threat constituting the evaluation pair associated with the security measure, and importance of the element constituting the evaluation pair associated with the security measure (A number of the same pieces of transition source security state information is adopted as a denominator value, and a number of the same pieces of transition destination security state information having a common transition source is adopted as a numerator value, Ikegami, para [0012]. Here, a transition probability is calculated using a denominator equal toa number of the same pieces of transition source security state information and a numerator equal to a number of the same pieces of transition destination security state information having a common transition source. This is a count-based rule which discloses the number of associated entries or pairs).
As per claim 3, Ikegami and Basavapatna discloses the computer system according to claim 2, wherein the processor:
calculates the index by using each evaluation rule registered in the evaluation rule management information, and (When a plurality of security countermeasure functions are implemented on an information processing apparatus, the evaluation point calculation unit 15 may have a function (f15-13) for calculating an ultimate evaluation point by adding, for each piece of countermeasure policy information, the evaluation point calculated for each piece of countermeasure policy information regarding each security countermeasure function, Ikegami, para [0089]).
Furthermore, Basavapatna discloses:
generates the display information for each evaluation rule (Selection of hyperlink 550a would display the three declaration rules. Declaration rules window 525 can present declaration rules. The declaration rules can include a subset of rules and can be enabled or disabled or invalidated, Basavapatna, para [0064]. Here, the declaration rule is interpreted as the evaluation rules).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami with Basavapatna by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) with user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami with Basavapatna in order to effectively assess risk for assets in the system (See Basavapatna, para [0065]).
As per claim 4, Ikegami and Basavapatna discloses the computer system according to claim 2, wherein the computer system holds history information for managing the security measure implemented to the object, and the processor:
Furthermore, Basavapatna discloses:
refers to the history information to determine whether the security measure is implemented, and (Assessment engine 205 can be recorded in assessment records stored in data store 280. Assessment records 298 can, in turn, be accessed by other tools, including risk calculator 260, countermeasure modeling engine 265, and risk diagnostics engine 270, and used in subsequent modeling and diagnostic assessments. Information is used in identifying the particular countermeasure during subsequent scans, Basavapatna, para [0052]. Here, the stored assessment records along with the stored countermeasure-definition information used in subsequent scans and later assessments is analogous to history information. To determine whether the security measure is implemented, the system identifies a countermeasure during a subsequent scan and the enabled/disabled rule status tied to a live deployment or current deployment)
corrects the index to reduce the effectiveness of the security measure when the security measure is implemented (The degree is considered in the risk assessment does not fully mitigate risk. Protection score is for low level of mitigation and coverage is undermined. Protection scores somewhere between 0 and 100 when some but less than all coverage is provided, Basavapatna, claim 14, para [0039]. The treatment of a countermeasure as only partially effective, using a lower degree/ protection score when the deployed countermeasure does not fully mitigate the threat, is analogous to corrected index to reduce effectiveness. The scoring input for countermeasures real world protection level is adjusted, instead of assuming full effectiveness).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami with Basavapatna by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) with user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami with Basavapatna in order to effectively assess risk for assets in the system (See Basavapatna, para [0065]).
As per claim 5, Ikegami and Basavapatna A security measures evaluation method to be executed by a computer system,
the computer system including at least one computer that includes a processor, a storage device connected to the processor, and a network interface connected to the processor, and (Processing apparatus, Ikegami, para [0005]. Database unit serving as a storage device, Ikegami, para [0011])
the security measures evaluation method comprising:
a first step of the processor performing threat analysis using the configuration management information to identify the threat to each of a plurality of the elements, and storing an evaluation pair, which is the element associated with the threat (In response to an operation performed with the input unit 11 by an estimator, the threat model generation unit 14 extracts threat information representing a possible threat from document data in the threat evaluation index DB 23 (ST15) and the threat model generation unit 14 generates threat analysis result data, Ikegami, para [0151], [0156]. Threat analysis is performed by associating threat information with transition paths and then generating threat analysis intermediate data and threat analysis result data which corresponds to identifying threats for multiple analyzed elements/states)
a second step of the processor generating the security measure for the evaluation pair, and storing the evaluation pair in the storage device in association with the security measure; (The countermeasure policy information is written for reducing an execution condition described in the information about the executioner of the threat and the execution condition in the threat analysis result data in response to an operation performed with the input unit 11 by an estimator while the sufficient condition table model-form information is displayed, Ikegami, para [0163]. Here, countermeasure policy information is written for reducing the execution condition described in the threat analysis result data and stores sufficient countermeasure information in the database which is analogous to generating the security measure for the threat-associated pair and storing them in association)
a third step of the processor aggregating evaluation pairs associated with a same security measure; (The evaluation point calculation unit 15 calculates a mean value of points in the evaluation results for respective functions of each piece of countermeasure policy information, writes the mean value to a mean value field of the calculation table, calculates a summation of all the mean values, and calculates an evaluation point, Ikegami, para [0177]. Here, a mean value of evaluation results for respective function of each piece of countermeasure policy information is calculated, then a summation of those mean values is calculated into an evaluation point. This is interpreted as aggregating multiple state, threat evaluation results tied to the same countermeasure policy).
However, Ikegami does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
a fourth step of the processor calculating the index for each security measure by using the evaluation pair associated with the security measure and at least the number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure as indicated by the evaluation rule management information; and
a fifth step of the processor generating display information for presenting the security measure and the index
Basavapatna discloses:
a fourth step of the processor calculating the index for each security measure by using the evaluation pair associated with the security measure and at least the number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure as indicated by the evaluation rule management information; and (Calculate a score representing risk in the particular computing system, consideration of a set of countermeasures, threat definition data 282 can describe identified threats, what countermeasures (if any) protect assets from the threats and vulnerabilities, and the severity of the threat, a listing of user-defined countermeasures (e.g., 530a-c) can be presented to a user, Basavapatna, para [0013], [0053], [0063]. Here, the index is mapped to the score representing risk, the security measure is analogous to a countermeasure and the evaluation pair associated with the security measure aligns with the stored association among an asset, a threat and the countermeasure that protects against it).
a fifth step of the processor generating display information for presenting the security measure and the index (Turning to FIG. 5B, user interface 505 is shown presenting declaration rules window 525. Declaration rules window 525 can present declaration rules that have been created in connection with the definition of user- defined countermeasures in a system, Basavapatna, para [0065]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami with Basavapatna by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) with user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami with Basavapatna in order to effectively assess risk for assets in the system (See Basavapatna, para [0065]).
Ikegami in view of Basavapatna does not explicitly disclose the limitation:
the computer system holding configuration management information for managing an element constituting an object to be analyzed for a security risk, and evaluation rule management information for managing a plurality of evaluation rules , respectively, based on a combination of the element and a threat to the element, an index indicating an effectiveness degree of a security measure to avoid the threat, at least one of the evaluation rules indicates the index is to be calculated based on a number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure,
Moore discloses:
the computer system holding configuration management information for managing an element constituting an object to be analyzed for a security risk, and (The scanner 110 can include one or more software modules or tools that can scan the network environment 100 and the computer assets 102. The scanner 110 can be configured to determine the structure of the network environment 100 and identify the computer assets 102, Moore, para [0022]. Here, element is the computer asset 102 and the object analyzed is the network environment 100. The stored inventory plus per -asset configuration, settings, policies and installed software is configuration management information)
evaluation rule management information for managing a plurality of evaluation rules , respectively, based on a combination of the element and a threat to the element, an index indicating an effectiveness degree of a security measure to avoid the threat, (The score model 114 can include the necessary logic, commands, algorithms, and code utilized by the security assessment tool 108 to determine the overall security assessments and provide recommendations as described herein. The score model 114 can include a listing of the counter measures to security threats and a weighting value associated with each of the counter measures. The weighting value can represent the effectiveness of a particular counter measure, Moore, para [0024]. Score model 114 is the held rule repository. Multiple evaluation rules are the five distinct formulas)
at least one of the evaluation rules indicates the index is to be calculated based on a number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure, (The weighting value can represent the effectiveness of a particular counter measure. Actual effectiveness is the product of percentage coverage and weighting value, Moore, para [0024]. Here, the computed quantity is an effectiveness figure with a security measure)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami and Basavapatna with Moore by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) and user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna) with security assessment of network assets (Moore). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami and Basavapatna with Moore in order to effectively obtain the benefit of ranking countermeasures by breadth of coverage (See Moore, para [0047]).
As per claim 6, Ikegami and Basavapatna discloses the security measures evaluation method according to claim 5, wherein
Furthermore, Ikegami discloses:
the evaluation rule is a rule for calculating the index by using at least one of the number of evaluation pairs associated with the security measure, a risk value indicating a level of risk of the threat constituting the evaluation pair associated with the security measure, and importance of the element constituting the evaluation pair associated with the security measure (A number of the same pieces of transition source security state information is adopted as a denominator value, and a number of the same pieces of transition destination security state information having a common transition source is adopted as a numerator value, Ikegami, para [0012]. Here, a transition probability is calculated using a denominator equal toa number of the same pieces of transition source security state information and a numerator equal to a number of the same pieces of transition destination security state information having a common transition source. This is a count-based rule which discloses the number of associated entries or pairs).
As per claim 7, Ikegami and Basavapatna disclose the security measures evaluation method according to claim 6, wherein the fourth step includes the processor calculating the index by using each evaluation rule registered in the evaluation rule management information, and (When a plurality of security countermeasure functions are implemented on an information processing apparatus, the evaluation point calculation unit 15 may have a function (f15-13) for calculating an ultimate evaluation point by adding, for each piece of countermeasure policy information, the evaluation point calculated for each piece of countermeasure policy information regarding each security countermeasure function, Ikegami, para [0089]).
Furthermore, Basavapatna discloses:
the fifth step includes the processor generating the display information for each evaluation rule (Selection of hyperlink 550a would display the three declaration rules. Declaration rules window 525 can present declaration rules. The declaration rules can include a subset of rules and can be enabled or disabled or invalidated, Basavapatna, para [0064]. Here, the declaration rule is interpreted as the evaluation rules)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami with Basavapatna by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) with user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami with Basavapatna in order to effectively assess risk for assets in the system (See Basavapatna, para [0065]).
As per claim 8, Ikegami, Basavapatna and disclose the security measures evaluation method according to claim 6, wherein the computer system holds history information for managing the security measure implemented to the object, and the fourth step includes:
Furthermore, Basavapatna discloses:
the processor referring to the history information to determine whether the security measure is implemented, and (Assessment engine 205 can be recorded in assessment records stored in data store 280. Assessment records 298 can, in turn, be accessed by other tools, including risk calculator 260, countermeasure modeling engine 265, and risk diagnostics engine 270, and used in subsequent modeling and diagnostic assessments. Information is used in identifying the particular countermeasure during subsequent scans, Basavapatna, para [0052]. Here, the stored assessment records along with the stored countermeasure-definition information used in subsequent scans and later assessments is analogous to history information. To determine whether the security measure is implemented, the system identifies a countermeasure during a subsequent scan and the enabled/disabled rule status tied to a live deployment or current deployment)
the processor correcting the index to reduce the effectiveness of the security measure when the security measure is implemented (The degree is considered in the risk assessment does not fully mitigate risk. Protection score is for low level of mitigation and coverage is undermined. Protection scores somewhere between 0 and 100 when some but less than all coverage is provided, Basavapatna, claim 14, para [0039]. The treatment of a countermeasure as only partially effective, using a lower degree/ protection score when the deployed countermeasure does not fully mitigate the threat, is analogous to corrected index to reduce effectiveness. The scoring input for countermeasures real world protection level is adjusted, instead of assuming full effectiveness)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Ikegami with Basavapatna by applying security countermeasure function evaluation program (Ikegami) with user-defined countermeasures (Basavapatna). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikegami with Basavapatna in order to effectively assess risk for assets in the system (See Basavapatna, para [0065]).
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 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 RAGHAVENDER CHOLLETI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8AM-5PM EST & Friday variable.
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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/RAGHAVENDER NMN CHOLLETI/Examiner, Art Unit 2492
/RUPAL DHARIA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights