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 .
This Office Action is in response to application 18/894,162 filed on 9/24/2024.
Claims 1-21 have been examined and are pending in this application.
The examiner notes the IDS(s) filed on 12/27/2024 have been considered.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,815. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12,135,815:
The examiner notes that claim 1, and representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15, of U.S. patent No. 12,135,815 anticipates, more specifically:
A method comprising: storing a table in a first account of a multi-tenant network-based data system, the table having a first row level security policy attached, the table and the first row level security policy being stored independently; sharing, by the first account, the table with the attached first row level security policy with a second account in the multi-tenant network-based data system, the first row level security policy limiting at least one row from being accessible to the second account; attaching a second row level security policy to the shared table by the second account, the second row level security policy being stored independently of the table; receiving a query relating to the table; generating, by at least one server of the network-based data system, a plan to execute the query, the plan including a set of operators and arranging a first operator over a second operator of the set of operators to not reveal information restricted by the first row level security policy or the second row level security policy; and executing, by one or more execution nodes assigned by the at least one server, the plan to generate a result for the query.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,868,502:
The examiner notes that claim 1, and representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15, of U.S. patent No. 11,868,502 anticipates, more specifically:
A method comprising: storing a first row level security policy in a network-based data system, the first row level security policy being created by a first user; storing a table in a provider account of the network-based data system, the table and the first row level security policy being stored independently; attaching the first row level security policy to the table by a second user, the second user being associated with the provider account; sharing, by the provider account, the table with the attached first row level security policy with a consumer account in the network-based data system, the first row level security policy limiting at least one row from being accessible to the consumer account; attaching a second row level security policy to the shared table by the consumer account; receiving, from a third user, a query relating to the table, the third user being associated with the consumer account; creating, by a server of the network-based data system, a plan to execute the query, the plan including a set of operators; modifying, by the server, the plan arranging a first operator over a second operator of the set of operators to not reveal information restricted by the first row level security policy or the second row level security policy; and executing the modified plan to generate a result for the query.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,727,139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,727,139:
The examiner notes that claim 1, and representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15, of U.S. patent No. 11,727,139 anticipates, more specifically:
A method comprising: receiving, from a user associated with a consumer account, a query relating to a table stored by a provider account in at least one data storage element in a multi-tenant database system and shared by the provider account with an attached provider row level security policy, the provider row level security policy being independent of the table, including a Boolean-valued expression, and restricting at least one row from being accessible by the consumer account, wherein a consumer row level security is also attached to the table; creating, by a compute service manager, a plan to execute the query, the plan including a set of operators; determining a role of the user in the consumer account; modifying, by the compute service manager, the plan based on the provider row level security policy and consumer row level security policy corresponding to the determined role, the modified plan includes arranging a first operator over a second operator to not reveal information restricted by the provider row level security policy; assigning, by the compute service manager, a plurality of tasks to one or more execution nodes to execute the modified plan; and generating a result for the query based on execution of the assigned plurality of tasks.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,494,513. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 11,494,513:
The examiner notes that claim 1, and representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15, of U.S. patent No. 11,494,513 anticipates, more specifically:
A method comprising: storing a table by a provider account in at least one data storage device; attaching a provider row level security policy to the table by a first user associated with the provider account, the provider row level security policy being independent of the table and including a Boolean-valued expression; sharing the table with the attached provider row level security policy with a consumer account, the provider row level security policy limiting at least one row from being accessible to the consumer account; attaching a consumer row level security policy to the shared table; receiving, from the consumer account, a query relating to the table; creating, by a compute service manager, a plan to execute the query, the plan including a set of operators; modifying, by the compute service manager, the plan based on the provider row level security policy and consumer row level security policy, the modified plan includes arranging a first operator over a second operator to not reveal information restricted by the provider row level security policy; dividing, by the compute service manager, the modified plan into multiple discrete tasks; assigning, by the compute service manager, each of the multiple discrete tasks to one or more execution nodes; and generating a result for the query based on execution of the assigned multiple discrete tasks.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,397,826. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-21 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-18 of US Patent No. 11,397,826:
The examiner notes that claim 1, and representative independent claim(s) 7 and 13, of U.S. patent No. 11,397,826 anticipates, more specifically:
A method comprising: storing a table by a provider account in at least one data storage device; attaching a provider row level security policy to the table by a first user associated with the provider account; sharing the table with the attached provider row level security policy with a consumer account, the provider row level security policy limiting at least one row from being accessible to the consumer account; attaching a consumer row level security policy to the shared table, the consumer row level security policy restricting access based on roles in the consumer account; receiving, from a second user associated with the consumer account, a query relating to the table; creating, by a compute service manager, a plan to execute the query, the plan including a set of operators; modifying, by the compute service manager, the plan based on a role of the second user in the consumer account, the provider row level security policy, and consumer row level security policy; defining the provider row level security policy independent of the table, the provider row level security policy including a Boolean-valued expression evaluating a policy condition and returning a Boolean as a result by a third user with a security administrative rights role; prioritizing, by the computer service manager, a first operator relating to the provider row level security policy over a second operator related to the query to not reveal information restricted by the provider row level security policy; dividing, by the compute service manager, the modified plan into multiple discrete tasks; assigning, by the compute service manager, each of the multiple discrete tasks to one or more execution nodes; executing, by the one or more execution nodes, the assigned multiple discrete tasks using the table; and generating a result for the query based on the execution of the assigned multiple discrete tasks.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of claim 1, representative independent claim(s) 8 and 15 of the Instant Application.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18-20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yalamanchi (US 2009/0199273 A1) in view of Dutta et al. (US 2005/0177570 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Yalamanchi discloses a method comprising:
storing a table in a first account of a multi-tenant network-based data system, the table having a first row level security policy attached, the table and the first row level security policy being stored independently (FIG. 5 – depicts the table and the first row level security policy being stored independently (i.e., Database table w/ Expression Column (i.e., the table having a first row level security policy attached) and Access Control Policy w/ Access Control Expression) and [0074]-[0075] - Thus, in one example, the access control policy logic 520 is to create an access control policy 560 for the database table 530. The access control policy 560 may contain a set of access control expressions (e.g., access control expression 562, and access control expressions 564 through 568). At different points in time and/or from different points of view the access control policy 560 may or may not be associated with database table 530. Thus, in one example, row level security may be switched on/off by controlling whether access control expressions in access control policy 560 are associated with database table 530);
sharing, by the first account, the table with the attached first row level security policy with a second account in the multi-tenant network-based data system, the first row level security policy limiting at least one row from being accessible to the second account (FIG. 3 and FIG. 5 and [0018] - An expression may be crafted in light of a vocabulary. In one example, the vocabulary may be user-defined and/or application specific. A DBA, security administrator, application developer, and so on, may define a vocabulary for an access control policy and [0074]-[0075] - While a single access control policy 560 is illustrated, it is to be appreciated that system 500 may produce different access control policies. Therefore, database table 530 may be associated with different access control policies under different conditions. For example, a first access control policy may be associated with database table 530 when access statements are generated by a low level manager while a second access control policy may be associated with database table 530 when access statements are generated by an executive. Different access control expressions in access control policy 560 may be placed in expression column 532 in database table 530);
receiving, from a first user associated with the second account, a query relating to the table (FIG. 1 and [0058] - For example, if the access statement was a query, then row content may be provided as a query result and [0074]-[0075] - For example, a first access control policy may be associated with database table 530 when access statements are generated by a low level manager while a second access control policy may be associated with database table 530 when access statements are generated by an executive);
generating parameters for executing the query, at least one timestamp-related function of the parameters being associated with the first account (FIG. 1 and [0055] - Method 100 may also include, at 120, creating a predicate for the access statement... In one example, the predicate is an SQL WHERE clause. The predicate may include various functions. For example, the predicate may include a user defined function, a system defined function, and so on and [0063] - For example, the vocabulary may include data that describes how an attribute can be configured to accept a time of day value, a location value, and so on. Thus, row control may be dynamic based on factors like the time of day when a row is accessed, from where the access statement is received, and so on);
executing, by one or more execution nodes assigned by the at least one server, ... a result for the query (FIG. 1 and [0058] - For example, if the access statement was a query, then row content may be provided as a query result and [0074]-[0075]).
Yalamanchi fails to explicitly disclose:
generating, by at least one server of the network-based data system, a plan to execute the query based on the parameters, the plan including a set of operators arranged to not reveal information restricted by the first row level security policy; and
executing, by one or more execution nodes assigned by the at least one server, the plan to generate a result for the query.
However, in an analogous art, Dutta teaches:
generating, by at least one server of the network-based data system, a plan to execute [a] query based on the parameters, the plan including a set of operators arranged to not reveal information restricted by the first row level security policy ([0047] - The query manager 210 can augment a query by grafting an expression composed of the disjunction of Boolean expressions that are granted, wherein respective expressions are conjugated with an associated security principal to whom the grant is made, and conjuncting the resultant disjunction with the conjunction of the complement of respective Boolean expressions denied, wherein respective expressions are conjuncted with a security principal to whom the deny is made and [0065] - The optimizer 210 can move expressions, including security expressions, within the received query in order to optimize performance. In general, security expressions are tagged in order to discriminate between security expressions and non-security expressions and predicate rules are utilized to define the scope of how to incorporate security expressions within a query. The predicate rules allow the optimizer 210 to pull non-security expressions above security expressions or push non-security expressions below security expressions only after ensuring that unsafe expressions cannot be utilized to return data prior to executing security expressions); and
executing, by one or more execution nodes assigned by the at least one server, the plan to generate a result for the query ([0067] - The query manager 110 can facilitate the query by applying the security expression and only returning data that satisfies the criteria).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dutta to the table having a first row level security policy attached of Yalamanchi to include generating, by at least one server of the network-based data system, a plan to execute the query based on the parameters, the plan including a set of operators arranged to not reveal information restricted by the first row level security policy; and executing, by one or more execution nodes assigned by the at least one server, the plan to generate a result for the query.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dutta to Yalamanchi to do so as it provides / allows to optimize performance and mitigate data leaks (Dutta, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 4;
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta disclose the method to Claim 1.
Dutta further teaches wherein arranging the first operator over the second operator prevents disclosure of an error channel (Dutta, [0065] - The optimizer 210 can move expressions, including security expressions, within the received query in order to optimize performance. In general, security expressions are tagged in order to discriminate between security ex pressions and non-security expressions and predicate rules are utilized to define the scope of how to incorporate security expressions within a query. The predicate rules allow the optimizer 210 to pull non-security expressions above security expressions or push non-security expressions below security expressions only after ensuring that unsafe expressions cannot be utilized to return data prior to executing security expressions. Typically, logical operations commonly are deemed "safe," and the optimizer 210 can order such operations above or below security expressions). As noted by pulling the non-security expression (i.e., first operator) above the security expression (i.e.., second operator) only after ensuring that unsafe expressions cannot be utilized to return data prior to executing security expressions. Typically, logical operations commonly are deemed "safe," and the optimizer 210 can order such operations above or below security expressions; thus, preventing an “error channel.” This is consistent with Applicant’s specification [0064] - Error channels are a type of covert channel where the presence or absence of an error reveals information.
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dutta to Yalamanchi in view of Dutta, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 5;
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta disclose the method to Claim 1.
Dutta further teaches wherein the query is executed without accessing a mapping table that defines the provider row level security policy (Dutta, [0047] - The query manager 210 can augment a query by grafting an expression composed of the disjunction of Boolean expressions that are granted, wherein respective expressions are conjugated with an associated security principal to whom the grant is made, and conjuncting the resultant disjunction with the conjunction of the complement of respective Boolean expressions denied, wherein respective expressions are conjuncted with a security principal to whom the deny is made). As noted by grafting an expression to a query; no mapping table is needed.
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dutta to Yalamanchi in view of Dutta, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 6;
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta disclose the method to Claim 5.
Dutta further teaches wherein a policy expression of the provider row level security policy is evaluated using permission privilege of an owner role of the provider row level security policy ([0028] - Such security can be created by the owner of data within the data repository, wherein the created security provides security for that owner's data and [0029] - The foregoing enables the owner of data the ability to selectively determine who can access which portions of his data. In addition, the querier can be attributed with an exempt status such that the security does not apply to the querier and the querier can essentially access all the data. Typically the owner of the table is exempt in this manner from all row level security restrictions and [0048] - It is to be appreciated that a security expression for data in the database 430 can be created by the owner or manager of the data and linked to one or more users. This link can be established as an outcome of a direct grant to the user or indirectly to the user through a grant to one or more user roles, servers, groups, etc. and [0090] and [0192] – As noted above, it can be useful to grant certain users the ability to query the table without augmenting the query with the predicates. In addition, it can be useful to temporarily disable row level security without having to add, remove and/or alter some or all predicates. This can be done by granting a ExemptRowSec permission. Table Owners, members of the db_owner and sysadmin roles and users with CONTROL permission have this permission by default.).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Dutta to Yalamanchi in view of Dutta, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim(s) 8 and 11-13; claim(s) 8 and 11-13 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1 and 4-6. Claim(s) 8 and 11-13 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1 and 4-6, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 15 and 18-20; claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method 1 and 4-6. Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1 and 4-6, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yalamanchi (US 2009/0199273 A1) in view of Dutta et al. (US 2005/0177570 A1) and further in view of Vogelsgesang et al. (US 2020/0201860 A1).
Regarding Claim 2;
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta disclose the method to Claim 1.
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta fail to explicitly disclose wherein the table is stored in at least one data storage device decoupled from one or more exaction nodes to execute the plan.
However, in an analogous art, Vogelsgesang teaches wherein the table is stored in at least one data storage device decoupled from one or more exaction nodes to execute the plan. (Vogelsgesang, [0049] - ...the database engine's optimizer and query engine are decoupled from the database storage layer. This enables the database engine to work on a large set of different storage formats).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vogelsgesang to the execution nodes of Yalamanchi in view of Dutta to include wherein the table is stored in at least one data storage device decoupled from one or more exaction nodes to execute the plan.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Vogelsgesang to Yalamanchi in view of Dutta to do so as it provides / allows to improve query execution performance (Vogelsgesang, [0002]).
Regarding Claim(s) 9; claim(s) 9 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 2. Claim(s) 9 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 2, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 16; claim(s) 16 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method 2. Claim(s) 16 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 2, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yalamanchi (US 2009/0199273 A1) in view of Dutta et al. (US 2005/0177570 A1) and further in view of Dageville et al. (US 2018/0196955 A1).
Regarding Claim 3;
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta disclose the method to Claim 1.
Yalamanchi in view of Dutta fail to explicitly disclose wherein the second account is provide access to the table without copying data in the table.
However, in an analogous art, Dageville teaches wherein the second account is provide access to the table without copying data in the table. (Dageville, [0054] - In one embodiment, the processing component 910 performs processing of shared data without creating a duplicate table or other data source in the requesting account. Generally, data must be first ingested into an account that wishes to process that data or perform operations against the data. The processing component 910 may save processing time, delay, and/or memory resources by allowing a target account to access shared resources in a sharer account without creating a copy of a data resource in the target account.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dageville to the consumer account of Yalamanchi in view of Dutta to include wherein the second account is provide access to the table without copying data in the table.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dageville to Yalamanchi in view of Dutta to do so as it provides / allows secure storage and access of database data may be provided by encrypting and/or storing data in an encrypted form to prevent unauthorized access and in some cases, data sharing may be desirable to let other parties perform queries against a set of data (Dageville, [0002]).
Regarding Claim(s) 10; claim(s) 10 is/are directed to a/an medium associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 3. Claim(s) 10 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 3, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 17; claim(s) 17 is/are directed to a/an system associated with the method 3. Claim(s) 17 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 3, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter (Reasons for No Prior Art Rejection)
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7, and similar representative claims 14 and 21, the prior art of record as cited within this Office Action, nor those cited, in the additional references cited , alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the feature of: “further comprising: attaching a second row level security policy to the shared table by the second account, the second row level security policy being stored independently of the table, wherein the second row level security policy restricts access based on roles in the second account.”
Thus, claim 7, and similar representative claims 14 and 21, are being objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; however as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439