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 action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 3/4/25.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-27, 31-32 and 38-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,889. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 21, 31 & 32 of Instant Application: (Claim 21) A method, comprising:
Claim 1 of U.S. 12,164,889: A method, comprising:
storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks;
storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks;
inserting a first custom function block associated with the custom function into a first playbook based on a first input received by an IT and security operations application via a visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the first playbook; inserting a second custom block associated with the custom function into a second playbook, different from the first playbook, based on a second input received by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the second playbook.
causing, by an information technology (IT) and security operations application, a visual playbook editor interface to be presented, the visual playbook editor interface allowing for user-configuration of a playbook for use in responding to a security or operational issue in an IT environment, wherein the visual playbook editor interface displays identifiers of multiple custom functions from the repository, including the custom function, that are available for inclusion in the playbook; receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from a first user indicating a request to insert a custom function block associated with the custom function into the playbook;
(Claim 31) detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment.
detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment;
(Claim 32) executing at least the first playbook or the second playbook comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository.
and executing the playbook, comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository.
Dependent Claims of Instant Application:
Dependent Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,889:
Claim 22: wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a first user different from a second user providing the first input or the second input.
Claim 2: wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a second user, the second user being a different user from the first user indicating the request to insert the custom function block associated with the custom function into the playbook.
Claim 23: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function.
Claim 3: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input from the first user indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function.
Claim 24: wherein the one or more input parameters associated with the custom function include: one or more data elements associated with one or more upstream function blocks of the first playbook; one or more data elements associated with an incident container; one or more globally accessible data elements.
Claim 4: wherein the one or more input parameters associated with the custom function include: one or more data elements associated with one or more upstream function blocks of the playbook; one or more data elements associated with an incident container; one or more globally accessible data elements.
Claim 25: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the first playbook.
Claim 5: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input from the first user indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the playbook.
Claim 26: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input modifying the user-provided code defining the custom function; and storing the modified user-provided code as a separate copy of the custom function in the repository.
Claim 6: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input from the first user modifying the user-provided code defining the custom function; and storing the modified user-provided code as a separate copy of the custom function in the repository.
Claim 27: causing, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an option to be presented to store the modified user-provided code as the separate copy of the custom function in the repository.
Claim 7: causing, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an option to be presented to store the modified user-provided code as the separate copy of the custom function in the repository.
Independent Claim 38 of Instant Application: A computing device, comprising: a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform operations including:
Independent Claim 15 of U.S. 12,164,889: A computing device, comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform operations including:
storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks;
storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks;
causing, by an information technology (IT) and security operations application, a visual playbook editor interface to be presented, the visual playbook editor interface allowing for user-configuration of a playbook for use in responding to a security or operational issue in an IT environment, wherein the visual playbook editor interface displays identifiers of multiple custom functions from the repository, including the custom function, that are available for inclusion in the playbook; receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from a first user_indicating a request to insert a custom function block associated with the custom function into the playbook;
causing, by an information technology (IT) and security operations application, a visual playbook editor interface to be presented, the visual playbook editor interface allowing for user-configuration of a playbook for use in responding to a security or operational issue in an IT environment, wherein the visual playbook editor interface displays identifiers of multiple custom functions from the repository, including the custom function, that are available for inclusion in the playbook; receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from a first user_indicating a request to insert a custom function block associated with the custom function into the playbook;
detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment;
detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment;
and executing the playbook, comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository.
and executing the playbook, comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository.
Dependent Claim 39 of Instant Application: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input modifying the user-provided code defining the custom function; and storing the modified user-provided code as a separate copy of the custom function in the repository.
Dependent Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,889: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input from the first user modifying the user-provided code defining the custom function; and storing the modified user-provided code as a separate copy of the custom function in the repository.
Claims 33-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,164,889 in view of Gil (2017/0207926).
Claim 33 of Instant Application: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to implement an information technology (IT) and security operations application to perform operations comprising:
Claim 8 of U.S. 12,164,889: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to implement an information technology (IT) and security operations application to perform operations comprising:
storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks;
storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks;
inserting a first custom function block associated with the custom function into a first playbook based on a first input received by an IT and security operations application via a visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the first playbook; inserting a second custom block associated with the custom function into a second playbook, different from the first playbook, based on a second input received by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the second playbook.
causing a visual playbook editor interface to be presented, the visual playbook editor interface allowing for user-configuration of a playbook for use in responding to a security or operational issue in an IT environment, wherein the visual playbook editor interface displays identifiers of multiple custom functions from the repository, including the custom function, that are available for inclusion in the playbook; receiving, via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from a first user indicating a request to insert a custom function block associated with the custom function into the playbook;
Claim 33 of Instant Application does not explicitly teach detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment or executing the playbook, comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository.
However, Gil teaches detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment; and executing the playbook, comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository (par. 0044 and 0049).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Claim 33 of Instant Application to include detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment; and executing the playbook, comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository using the teaching of Gil The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve building system efficiency and supporting linear asset networks (Gil, par. 0006).
Dependent Claims of Instant Application:
Dependent Claims of U.S. No. 12,164,889:
Claim 34: wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a first user different from a second user providing the first input or the second input.
Claim 9: wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a second user, the second user being a different user from the first user indicating the request to insert the custom function block associated with the custom function into the playbook.
Claim 35: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function.
Claim 10: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input from the first user indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function.
Claim 36: wherein the one or more input parameters associated with the custom function include: one or more data elements associated with one or more upstream function blocks of the first playbook; one or more data elements associated with an incident container; one or more globally accessible data elements.
Claim 11: wherein the one or more input parameters associated with the custom function include: one or more data elements associated with one or more upstream function blocks of the playbook; one or more data elements associated with an incident container; one or more globally accessible data elements.
Claim 37: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the first playbook.
Claim 12: receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input from the first user indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the playbook.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: “user_indicating” on line 16 of the claim should be “user indicating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The 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.
Claims 21-37 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a request” on line 11 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the request refers to the request on line 6 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-32 are rejected for dependency upon rejected base claim 21 above.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “a request” on line 14 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the request refers to the request on line 9 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 34-37 are rejected for dependency upon rejected base claim 33 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-31 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21 and 33 recite storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks; inserting a first custom function block associated with the custom function into a first playbook based on a first input received by an IT and security operations application via a visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the first playbook; inserting a second custom block associated with the custom function into a second playbook, different from the first playbook, based on a second input received by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the second playbook.
The limitation of inserting a first custom function block and second custom block, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (in claim 33) and “one or more processors” (in claim 33) nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (in claim 33) and “one or more processors” (in claim 33) language, inserting custom blocks in the context of these claims encompass a user mentally performing the insertion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional step of storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks.
The storing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing code) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of this additional step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the medium and processor). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor is a generic computer processor which performs the storing step. The only additional element of storing step which is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d) and WURC as data gathering, which is covered by court cases in MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites "wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a first user different from a second user providing the first input or the second input" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 23 recites "receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 24 recites "wherein the one or more input parameters associated with the custom function include: one or more data elements associated with one or more upstream function blocks of the first playbook; one or more data elements associated with an incident container; one or more globally accessible data elements" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 25 recites "receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the first playbook" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 26 recites "receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, another input modifying the user-provided code defining the custom function; and storing the modified user-provided code as a separate copy of the custom function in the repository" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 27 recites "causing, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an option to be presented to store the modified user-provided code as the separate copy of the custom function in the repository" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 28 recites "wherein the first input is received by a first user and the second input is received by a second user different from the first user" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 29 recites "receiving a selection of the first play book and the second playbook" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 30 recites "further comprising providing a custom function configuration panel to enable a user to create the custom function including specifying a name for the custom function, providing a description associated with the custom function, and/or configuring one or more input parameters or one or more output variables associated with the custom function" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 31 recites "further comprising detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 34 recites "wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a first user different from a second user providing the first input or the second input" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 35 recites "receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 36 recites "wherein the one or more input parameters associated with the custom function include: one or more data elements associated with one or more upstream function blocks of the first playbook; one or more data elements associated with an incident container; one or more globally accessible data elements" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 37 recites "receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the first playbook" (mental processes). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 28, 29-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gil (2017/0207926).
Per Claim 21:
Gil teaches:
- storing a user-provided code in a repository, wherein the user-provided code defines a custom function available for use in user-configurable playbooks (par. 0044-0045 and 0047-0048)
- inserting a first custom function block associated with the custom function into a first playbook based on a first input received by an IT and security operations application via a visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the first playbook; inserting a second custom block associated with the custom function into a second playbook, different from the first playbook, based on a second input received by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface indicating a request to insert the custom function into the second playbook (par. 0044 and 0062).
Per Claim 22:
Gil teaches:
- wherein the user-provided code defining the custom function is generated by a first user different from a second user providing the first input or the second input (par. 0044).
Per Claim 23:
Gil teaches:
- receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input indicating one or more input parameters associated with the custom function (par. 0044).
Per Claim 25:
Gil teaches:
- receiving, by the IT and security operations application via the visual playbook editor interface, an input from indicating one or more output values associated with the custom function, wherein the one or more output values are used as inputs into a downstream function block of the first playbook (par. 0044).
Per Claim 28:
Gil teaches:
- wherein the first input is received by a first user and the second input is received by a second user different from the first user (par. 0044).
Per Claim 29:
Gil teaches:
- further comprising receiving a selection of the first play book and the second playbook (par. 0043-0044).
Per Claim 30:
Gil teaches:
- further comprising providing a custom function configuration panel to enable a user to create the custom function including specifying a name for the custom function, providing a description associated with the custom function, and/or configuring one or more input parameters or one or more output variables associated with the custom function (par. 0044 and 0062).
Per Claim 31:
Gil teaches:
- further comprising detecting the security or operational issue in the IT environment (par. 0049).
Per Claim 32:
Gil teaches:
- further comprising executing at least the first playbook or the second playbook comprising obtaining and executing the user-provided code from the repository (par. 0044 and 0049).
Per Claims 33, 35 & 37:
These are medium versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 21, 23 and 25, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also anticipated by Gil.
Per Claim 34:
This is a medium version of the claimed method discussed above (claims 22 and 28), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also anticipated by Gil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is 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.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under double patenting, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Claims 24, 26, 27 and 36 are rejected under double patenting, 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and the rejections under double patenting, 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art taken alone or in combination fail to teach, in combination with the other claimed limitations, causing, by an information technology (IT) and security operations application, a visual playbook editor interface to be presented, the visual playbook editor interface allowing for user-configuration of a playbook for use in responding to a security or operational issue in an IT environment, wherein the visual playbook editor interface displays identifiers of multiple custom functions from the repository, including the custom function, that are available for inclusion in the playbook as recited in independent claim 38.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharon (US 2019/0260769) teaches a method for performing security operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights