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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
No new IDS was filed by the Applicant.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2,4-6,8,10-12,14-16,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barday et al. (US 10,282,559 B2) (hereinafter, “Barday”) in view of Abramson et al. (US 10,853,717 B2) (hereinafter, “Abramson”).
As to claim 1, Barday discloses a method, comprising:
identifying, by a device, an intended action that a user wishes to perform with respect to a service (“… the system may be configured to modify the questionnaire based at least in part on the one or more responses. The system may, for example, substantially dynamically add and/or remove one or more questions to/from the questionnaire based at least in part on the one or more responses (e.g., one or more response received by a user completing the questionnaire). For example, the system may, in response to the user providing a particular inventory attribute or new asset, generates additional questions that relate to that particular inventory attribute or asset. The system may, as the system adds additional questions, substantially automatically map one or more responses to one or more other inventory attributes or assets. For example, in response to the user indicating that personal data for a particular asset is stored in a particular location, the system may substantially automatically generate one or more additional questions related to, for example, an encryption level of the storage, who has access to the storage location, etc.” -e.g., see, col. 23, lines 4-22; herein, the system (i.e., the device) identifies the user’s intended processing activity/action with respect to the data assets/service by automatically generating questions about the activity; see also: co;. 21, lines 47-58; herein, he system is configured to generate the questionnaire (e.g., a questionnaire template) based at least in part on one or more processing activity attributes);
making, by the device, a first determination as to whether the user is authorized to access the service (“The system may then be configured to modify the processing activity inventory 1310A to include the one or more responses, and store the modified inventory in computer memory. In various embodiments, the system may be configured to approve a processing activity assessment 1340A (e.g., receive approval of the assessment) prior to feeding the processing activity inventory attribute values into one or more fields and/or cells of the inventory.” -e.g., see, col. 24, lines 10-17; herein, the device/system performs the first determination of whether the user/action is authorized by requiring approval of the processing activity assessment before allowing the workflow to proceed);
…
making, by the device and based on the information from the ... [questionnaires], a second determination as to whether the intended action would violate an access control policy (“… the system may modify the data model to include one or more additional assets, data attributes, inventory attributes, etc. in response to one or more questionnaire responses. For example, the system may modify a data inventory for a particular asset to include a storage encryption data element (which specifies whether the particular asset stores particular data in an encrypted format) in response to receiving such data from a questionnaire.” -e.g., see, col. 23, lines 23-32; see also: “The system may, for example: (1) identify and/or detect one or more potential risk triggers; (2) assess and analyze the potential risk triggers to determine a relevance of the risk posed by the risk triggers; (3) use data modelling techniques to identify particular processing activities and/or data assets that may be affected by the risk; (4) determine based on a relevance of the risk and the affected systems/processes whether to take one or more actions; and (5) take a suitable action in response to the risk triggers, if necessary.” -e.g., see, col. 6, lines 50-58; see also, abstract; herein, The system/device makes a second determination based on the information from the questionnaires responses, whether the intended action would violate an access control/privacy policy by assessing risk triggers and determining a risk level or compliance status); and
preventing, by the device, performance of the intended action based on the first determination and on the second determination (“… a Data Model Adaptive Execution System may be configured to take one or more suitable actions to remediate an identified risk in view of one or more regulations (e.g., one or more legal regulations, one or more binding corporate rules, etc.). For example, in order to ensure compliance with one or more standards related to the collection and/or storage of personal data, an entity may be required to modify one or more aspects of a way in which the entity collects, stores, and/or otherwise processes personal data (e.g., in response to a change in a legal or other requirement). In order to identify whether a particular change or other risk trigger requires remediation, the system may be configured to assess a relevance of the risk posed by the risk and identify one or more processing activities or data assets that may be affected by the risk.” -e.g., see, abstract; see also: “… determining, based at least in part on the one or more identified data assets and the relevance of the risk, whether to take one or more actions in response to the one or more potential risk triggers; and (5) taking a suitable action to remediate the risk …” -e.g., see, col. 2, lines 26-31; herein, Barday teaches a questionnaires-based system for identifying processing activities, requiring approval (e.g., first determination), assessing privacy risks (e.g., second determination) and remediating/blocking non-compliant actions).
Although Barday discloses generating and presenting questions in a guided questionnaire format, Barday doesn’t explicitly disclose causing, by the device, a chat session with the user to obtain information indicative of a data set, an intended use of the data set, and a data processor to perform the intended action;
However, in an analogous art, Abramson discloses causing, by the device, a chat session with the user to obtain information indicative of a data set, an intended use of the data set, and a data processor to perform the intended action (“The social data may be used to create or modify a special index in the theme of the specific person's personality. The special index may be used to train a chat bot to converse and interact in the personality of the specific person. During such conversations, one or more conversational data stores and/or APIs may be used to reply to user dialogue and/or questions for which the social data does not provide data.” -e.g., see, col. 1, lines 32-39);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Barday by incorporating the teaching of Abramson in order to improve user experience, increase completion rates of compliance assessments and enable real-time follow-up questions.
As to claims 11 and 20, these are rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 2, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday further discloses wherein the intended action comprises training a machine learning model using the data set and by the data processor (“Continuing to Step 2640, the system is configured to use one or more machine learning techniques to categorize one or more data elements from the generated catalog, analyze a flow of the data among the one or more data repositories, and/or classify the one or more data elements …” -e.g., see, col. 30, lines 57-62; see also: col. 12, lines 38-45; herein, generate a data model).
As to claim 12, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 4, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday further discloses wherein the access control policy comprises at least one of: an industry regulation or a legal regulation (“… the data model generation and population system may be implemented in the context of any suitable privacy management system that is configured to ensure compliance with one or more legal or industry standards related to the collection and/or storage of private information. In various embodiments, a particular organization, sub-group, or other entity may initiate a privacy campaign or other activity (e.g., processing activity) as part of its business activities. In such embodiments, the privacy campaign may include any undertaking by a particular organization (e.g., such as a project or other activity) that includes the collection, entry, and/or storage (e.g., in memory) of any personal data associated with one or more individuals.” -e.g., see, col. 4, lines 54-67; herein, privacy management system constitutes access control policy ensures compliance with one or more industry standards).
As to claim 14, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 5, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday further discloses wherein the chat session asks the user to specify the data set, the intended use of the data set, and the data processor to perform the intended action (“… in response to the user indicating that personal data for a particular asset is stored in a particular location, the system may substantially automatically generate one or more additional questions related to, for example, an encryption level of the storage, who has access to the storage location, etc.” -e.g., see, col. 23, lines 4-22). Abramson further discloses the chat session asks the user to specify the data set (“The social data may be used to create or modify a special index in the theme of the specific person's personality. The special index may be used to train a chat bot to converse and interact in the personality of the specific person. During such conversations, one or more conversational data stores and/or APIs may be used to reply to user dialogue and/or questions for which the social data does not provide data.” -e.g., see, Abramson: col. 1, lines 32-39);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Barday by incorporating the teaching of Abramson in order to improve user experience, increase completion rates of compliance assessments and enable real-time follow-up questions.
As to claim 15, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 6, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 5, Abramson further discloses wherein the device causes the chat session via a different endpoint associated with the user than that used by the user to indicate the intended action (“Data/information generated or captured by the mobile computing device 500 and stored via the system 502 may be stored locally on the mobile computing device 500, as described above, or the data may be stored on any number of storage media that may be accessed by the device via the radio interface layer 552 or via a wired connection between the mobile computing device 500 and a separate computing device associated with the mobile computing device 500, for example, a server computer in a distributed computing network, such as the Internet. As should be appreciated such data/information may be accessed via the mobile computing device 500 via the radio interface layer 552 or via a distributed computing network. Similarly, such data/information may be readily transferred between computing devices for storage and use according to well-known data/information transfer and storage means, including electronic mail and collaborative data/information sharing systems.” -e.g., see, Abramson: col. 15, lines 24-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Barday by incorporating the teaching of Abramson in order to improve user experience, increase completion rates of compliance assessments and enable real-time follow-up questions.
As to claim 16, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 8, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday further discloses wherein the access control policy restricts performance of the intended action based on a geolocation of one of: the user, the data set, or the data processor (“… the one or more similarly-situated entities may include, for example: (1) one or more other entities in a geographic location similar to a geographic location of the entity that has identified the one or more potential risk triggers (e.g., a similar country, jurisdiction, physical location, etc.); (2) one or more other entities in a similar industry (e.g., banking, manufacturing, electronics, etc.); (3); one or more entities of a similar size (e.g., market capitalization, number of employees, etc.); (4) one or more entities that are governed by one or more similar regulations (e.g., such as any suitable regulation discussed herein); and/or (5) any other suitably similarly situated entity.” -e.g., see, Barday: col. 47, lines 19-31).
As to claim 18, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 10, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday further discloses wherein the data set includes personally identifiable information (“… the system may be configured to utilize one or more credential management techniques to access one or more privileged network portions. The system may, in response to identifying particular assets or personally identifiable information via a scan, be configured to retrieve schema details such as, for example, an asset ID, Schema ID, connection string, credential reference URL, etc. In this way, the system may be configured to identify and store a location of any discovered assets or personal data during a scan.” -e.g., see, Abramson: col. 33, lines 28-37).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barday in view of Abramson as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hall (US 10,142,338 B2).
As to claim 3, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday in view of Abramson doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein making the first determination comprises performing multifactor authentication of the user.
However, in an analogous art, Hall discloses wherein making the first determination comprises performing multifactor authentication of the user (“… determining, by the server, authentication data to be obtained from a user associated with the user account based on the user data of the user account and the credential information to be authenticated; transmitting, by the server over the electronic network to the user, a request for authentication data; determining, by the server, an assurance level associated with the authentication request based on the authentication request and the relying party, wherein a single-factor authentication is required for lower assurance levels and a multi-factor authentication is required for higher assurance levels; receiving, at the server over the electronic network, authentication data associated with the user, wherein the authentication data is associated with a lifetime value” -e.g., see, Hall: claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Barday and Abramson by incorporating the teaching of Hall in order to create a more secure compliance gatekeeper that first verifies the user’s identity with MFA before collecting contextual data and assessing policy compliance.
As to claim 13, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7, 9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barday in view of Abramson as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Siebel et al. (US 12,111,859 B2) (hereinafter, “Siebel”).
As to claim 7, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday in view of Abramson doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the access control policy comprises a data minimization rule.
However, in an analogous art, Siebel discloses wherein the access control policy comprises a data minimization rule (“Where the initial results include data for which access by the user is restricted, the enterprise access control module 514 can determine how such restricted data is to be handled, such as to omit the restricted data entirely, omit the restricted data but indicate the results include data for which access by the user is restricted, or provide information related to all of the initial results. In the example where restricted data is omitted entirely, a final set of results may be returned for presentation to the user, where the final set of results does not inform the user that a portion of the initial results have been omitted.” -e.g., see, Siebel: col. 23, lines 21-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Barday and Abramson by incorporating the teaching of Siebel in order to help users understand the reason for denial (e.g., regulatory violation, data minimization rule, geolocation restrictions), enabling them to correct the request or seek appropriate approvals, which is a predictable and beneficial improvement.
As to claim 17, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 9, Barday in view of Abramson discloses the method as in claim 1, Barday in view of Abramson doesn’t explicitly disclose comprising: providing, by the device, an indication to the user as to why performance of the intended action was prevented.
However, in an analogous art, Siebel discloses providing, by the device, an indication to the user as to why performance of the intended action was prevented (“… the enterprise access control module 514 may evaluate (e.g., using access control lists) whether a user is authorized to access all or only a portion of a result (e.g., answer). For example, a user can provide a query associated with a first department or sub-unit of an organization. Members of that department or sub-unit may be restricted from accessing certain pieces of data, types of data, data models, or other aspects of a data domain in which a search is to be performed. Where the initial results include data for which access by the user is restricted, the enterprise access control module 514 can determine how such restricted data is to be handled, such as to omit the restricted data entirely, omit the restricted data but indicate the results include data for which access by the user is restricted, or provide information related to all of the initial results. In the example where restricted data is omitted entirely, a final set of results may be returned for presentation to the user, where the final set of results does not inform the user that a portion of the initial results have been omitted.” -e.g., see, Siebel: col. 23, lines 21-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Barday and Abramson by incorporating the teaching of Siebel in order to help users understand the reason for denial (e.g., regulatory violation, data minimization rule, geolocation restrictions), enabling them to correct the request or seek appropriate approvals, which is a predictable and beneficial improvement.
As to claim 19, it is rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
Claim 1: “identifying, by a device, an intended action that a user wishes to perform with respect to a service”
Applicant argues Barday’s questionnaires populate a data model/processing activity inventory and do not identify a proposed service related action tat the user wishes to perform. Applicant cites Barday col. 21, lines 37-59 and col. 23, lines 4-22 (Remarks page 7).
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully would like to point out that the claim does not require a runtime service call, an API invocation, or a particular species of action. The Office Action mapped this limitation to Barday’s system identifying the user’s processing activity; action with respect to data assets; the privacy management service by generating questions about that activity. Barday col. 23, lines 4-22: “in response to the user indicating that personal data for a particular asset is stored in a particular location, the system may substantially automatically generate one or more additional questions related to, for example, an encryption level of the storage, who has access to the storage location.” Also Barday col. 21, lines 47-58: questionaries generated based at least in part on one or more processing activity attributes.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the user’s indication of a processing activity, new asset, inventory attribute, or storage of personal data on an asset is identification of an intended action with respect to Barday’s privacy management, processing activity services. Applicant’s distinction between “inventory population” and “identification of an intended action” is a difference in characterization of the same disclosure already cited.
Applicant’s argument:
Claim 1: “making, by the device, a first determination as to whether the user is authorized to access the service”
Applicant argues processing activity assessment 1340A is an inventory template/assessment whose approval populates inventory fields, not a determination that a particular user is authorized to access a service. Applicant cites Barday col. 24, lines 40-49 and Office Action page 4 (Remarks page 8).
Examiner’s response:
The Office Action mapped this limitation to Barday col. 24, lines 10-17: “the system may be configured to approve a processing activity assessment 1340A (e.g., receiving approval of the assessment) prior to feeding the processing activity inventory attribute values into one or more fields and/or cells of the inventory.” The system withholds further processing in the service until that approval occurs. That is a determination that the user/request is authorized to proceed with access to the service. The does not require multifactor authentication, identity provider login or a named “service account.” These narrower embodiments appear in dependent claims 3 and 13, which were separately rejected over Hall.
Applicant’s citation to col. 24, lines 40-49 describing how the assessment is launched and mapped to inventory fields does not negate the approval before proceed disclosure at col. 24, lines 10-17 already relied upon.
Applicant’s argument:
Claim 1-“causing, by the device, a chat session with the user to obtain information indicative of a data set, an intended use of the data set, and a data processor to perform the intended action.”
Applicant argues: (i) Barday’s questionaries are not chat sessions and are not used to decide whether an intended service action should be permitted; (ii) the Office Action conceded Barday lacks an express chat session and relied on Abramson; (iii) Abramson is a personality chatbot trained on a special index/social data and does not obtain information indicative of a data set, an intended use of the data set, and a data processor for a compliance decision; and (iv) the Office Action is silent as to a data processor (Remarks pages 8-9).
Examiner’s response:
The Office Action didn’t rely on Barday alone for the chat session limitation. Barday was cited for collecting, by interactive questioning, information about the asset and personal data (data set), the processing activity (intended use), and who has access to and where the data is stored and processed (data processor). See Barday col. 23, lines 4-22 (additional questions on encryption level of storage and who has access to the storage location, generated in response to the user indicating personal data for an asset is stored in a location); col. 21, lines 47-58 (questions based on processing activity attributes). Abramson was cited only for causing that intake to occur in a chat session: “The special index may be used to train a chat bot to converse and interact in the personality of the specific person. During such conversations, one or more conversational data stores and/or APIs may be used to replay to user dialogue and/or questions for which the social data does not provide data.” Abramson col. 1, lines 32-29.
Applicant attacks Abramson as if it must itself be a compliance chatbot that lists the three claimed data items. The rejection is combination. Barday supplies the information obtained; Abramson supplies the chat session as the mechanism for obtaining it. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking refences individually.
As to “data processor,” the Office Action’s Barday citation already includes “who has access to the storage location” and storage of the asset that holds the personal data (col. 23, lines 4-22). Under BRI, the arty or system that has access to and stores/processes that data is a data processor that would perform the intended action.
Applicant’s argument:
Claim 1: “making, by the device and based on the information from the chat session, a second determination as to whether the intended action would violate an access control policy”
Applicant argues Barday’s risk trigger analysis operates on stored processing activity/data asset information and is not a second determination based on chat-obtained information about a data set, intended use, and data processor in an access time workflow (Remarks page 9).
Examiner’s response:
The Office action mapped the second determination to Barday’s assessment of risk triggers and determination whether to take action, using information obtained from the questionnaire. Barday col. 6, lies 50-58; identify risk triggers; assess relevance; identify processing activities and/or data assets affected; “determine based on a relevance of the risk and the affected systems/processes whether to take one or more actions.” Also Barday col. 23, lines 23-32 (modify the data model/inventory in response to questionnaire responses); abstract. In the combination of record, the intake is Abramson’s chat session used to obtain Barday’s questionnaire information. The second determination is there based on the information from that chat session. The claim does not recite “access time” or otherwise exclude Barday’s risk/compliance determination on the collected processing activity information.
Applicant’s argument:
Claim 1: “preventing, by the device, performance of the intended action based on the first determination and on the second determination.”
Applicant argues Barday’s remediation (modify inventories, quarantine, change encryption, generate reports) is not prevention of the user’s intended action based on both a user-access determination and a policy determination derived from chat-session information (Remarks page 9).
Examiner’s response:
The Office Action mapped prevention to Barday’s taking a suitable action to remediate an identified risk in view of regulations, including determining whether to take action. Abstract; col. 2, lines 26-31; col. 6, lines 50-58. Under BRI, remediating or declining to proceed with a processing activity that fails approval (first determination) and fails the risk/policy assessment (second determination) is preventing performance of that intended action based on both determinations. The claim does not require a particular enforcement point.
Applicant’s argument:
Motivation to combine Barday and Abramson
Applicant argues the Office action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify Barday’s questionnaire/data-model system with Abramson’s personality chatbot to arrive at the claimed workflow and does not identify where the combination obtains the three chat items and then makes the second determination (Remarks page 9).
Examiner’s response:
The motivation of record is unchanged: modify Barday by incorporating Abramson “in order to improve user experience, increase completion rate of compliance assessments and enable real-time follow up questions.”. Barday already dynamically adds and maps questions from prior responses (col. 23, lines 4-22). Abramson teaches conducting that kind of question-and-answer interaction as a chat session with follow-up via conversational data stores and/or APIs (co. 1, lines 32-39). Substituting a chat interface for Barday’s questionnaire interface to collect the same processing activity, asset, use and access/storage information and then running Barday’s existing risk/policy determination on that information is the combination of record. Applicant’s “personality chatbot” characterization of Abramson does not negate the chat-session teaching actually relied upon.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claim 2, Examiner would like to point out that Barday’s disclosure of using machine learning techniques on the cataloged data set, by the system that processes that data, meets the additional limitation under BRI as applied in the Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claim 8, Examiner would like to point out that Barday uses that geographic/jurisdictional information in determining risk relevance and what action to take. Under BRI, a policy that treats geographic location/jurisdiction of the processing entity (and thus of the user, data set, or processor associated with that entity) as basis to restrict or remediate the processing activity restricts performance of the intended action based on a geolocation of one of the users, the data set, or the data processor. The specification cannot read unclaimed ML/GenAI training and data transfer details into claim 8. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
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 SUMAN DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1256. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
SUMAN DEBNATH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2495
/FARID HOMAYOUNMEHR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2495
/S.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2495
