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 .
Claim Objection (Duplicate Claims)
Claims 5 and 6 are objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112d rejection for not further limiting.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) [ 1 -20 ] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balakrishnan et al. (Pub. No. US 20230252189 A1)(hereinafter Balakrishnan).
Regarding Claim 1, Balakrishnan teaches, an apparatus configured for automated masking of personally identifiable information (PII) data, the apparatus comprising: a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions embodied thereon; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions to(Balakrishnan [0031] “FIG. 1 illustrates an example computing environment 100 that includes a database system in the example form of a network-based database system 102(i.e. apparatus), in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. For some embodiments, the network-based database system 102(i.e. apparatus), implements part of a data platform configured for tag-based application of masking policies as described herein. …the computing environment 100 may include a cloud computing platform 101 with the network-based database system 102, and a storage platform 104 (also referred to as a cloud storage platform).”)
([0015] “Conventional data platforms, such as database systems, permit for masking of stored information or data stored on the data platform. For instance, a policy (e.g., masking policy) can be defined to mask certain types (e.g., text, number, timestamp, blob, PII, payment information, account number, or financial data) of data stored in a database”)
([0072]“ FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating operations of a data platform in performing an example method 400 for tag-based application of a masking policy, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. Method 400 may be embodied in computer-readable instructions for execution by one or more hardware components (e.g., one or more processors) such that the operations of the method 400 may be performed by components of the network-based database system 102, such as tag-based masking policy component 132 ...and may be configured with an application connector performing the disclosed functions.”)
receive input data comprising PII data associated with an input data label([0073] “At operation 402 (disclosed in FIG. 4 in example method 400), a processing device (e.g., comprising a hardware processor) generates an individual tag(i.e. PII data), which can be generated in association with a single database or generated at a system level (e.g., shareable across multiple databases of a data platform). Operation 402 can be performed based on or in response to a user request, a user instruction, or a user selection. For instance, a user can enter the following instruction (e.g., SQL instruction) to generate a new tag ‘PII’ intended for assignment to entities (e.g., tables, columns, etc.) that store PII data: “CREATE TAG PII.” wherein a tag may comprise PII data associated with an input data label as disclosed in [0019] “In accordance with some embodiments, a user (e.g., data steward or administrator) can cause a masking policy (e.g., a PII masking policy to mask PII data) to be generated (e.g., created), which can be added or stored to a database schema. …A user can cause the generated tag(i.e. PII data) to be assigned to one or more columns (e.g., employee_ssn of a table employee_info and contractor_ssn columns of a table contractor_info) to indicate that the columns contain certain type of data associated with the tag(e.g., PII data)(e.g. input data label). The ability of a user can cause the generated tag to be assigned to one or more columns (e.g., employee_ssn of a table employee_info and contractor_ssn columns of a table contractor_info) to indicate that the columns contain certain type of data associated with the tag (e.g., PII data). ”)([0026]“ A masking policy (or data masking policy) can define one or more parameters for applying a mask to data stored by an object (e.g., column object). ”); automatically assign a masking process for the PII data based on a comparison of the input data label with stored masking parameters and based on a set of stored masking processes, the set of stored masking processes being mapped to a set of input data labels comprising the input data label associated with the PII data([0017]“ According to some embodiments, a framework is provided for tag-based application of a masking policy(e.g. a masking process), where an assignment (e.g., mapping, association, or application) of a tag(i.e. PII data) to a particular entity (e.g., particular column) can implicitly enforce one or more masking policies that are directly assigned to the tag(i.e. PII data). With tag-based application (e.g., enforcement) of a masking policy, the masking policy can be assigned to one or more tags, and any entity (e.g., column) associated (e.g., assigned) with those one or more tags can automatically inherit the masking policy. By assigning a masking policy to a tag(i.e. PII data), a user (e.g., data steward) can map the masking policy on one or more columns associated with the tag(i.e. PII data) while obviating the need for the user explicitly mapping the masking policy to those one or more columns. In this way, tag-based application of a masking policy can implement conditional masking policy mapping on one or more entities (e.g., one or more column objects). For some embodiments, a tag-based application of a policy mask is performed at runtime, such as when a query is being executed on an object (e.g., column object) that is assigned a tag and the tag is assigned to the policy mask. Additionally, for some embodiments, a masking policy can be assigned to an individual tag and, based on lineage of the individual tag, the masking policy can be automatically applied to one or more (e.g., all) entities descending from an entity that is assigned to the individual tag. For example, by some embodiments, a tag can be assigned to a database, a masking policy can be assigned to the tag, and based on the assignment of the masking policy to the tag, the masking policy can be implicitly assigned to the database (e.g., all columns of all tables of the database), thereby permitting database-level enforcement of the masking policy.”)
([0079]“Operations 412 through 416 can be performed during runtime, such as execution of the query plan accessed by operation 410. At operation 412, the processing device determines a set of tags assigned to the specified entity. For instance, based on the assignment of the individual tag to the specified entity by operation 404, the set of tags determined by operation 412 includes the individual tag. For instance, continuing with the example from above, the set of tags determined by operation 412 for the column EMPLOYEE_SSN would include the tag PII (e.g., based on the assignment by operation 404). For some embodiments, operation 412 comprises accessing tag-to-entity mapping data that describes a set of assignments between one or more tags and one or more entities (e.g., database, table, row, or column entity or object) of the database system. The tag-to-entity mapping data can describe tag-to-entity assignments based on entity (e.g., object dependencies (e.g., a column entity of a table entity depends from the table entity).”); automatically create and execute one or more masking jobs associated with the masking process.([0077] and fig. 4); and generate masked PII data based on execution of the one or more masking jobs.([0077]“ At operation 408, the processing device assigns an individual masking policy (e.g., an existing masking policy or the new masking policy generated by operation 406) to the individual tag that was assigned to the specified entity by operation 404. Operation 408 can be performed based on or in response to a user request, a user instruction, or a user selection. For example, a user can enter the following instruction (e.g., SQL instruction) to assign a masking policy ‘SSN_MASK’ to a tag ‘PII’ that is intended for assignment to entities (e.g., tables, columns, etc.) that store PII data: “ALTER TAG PII SET MASKING POLICY SSN_MASK.” According to various embodiments, by assigning the individual tag to the specified entity (e.g., column entity or object) and by assigning the individual masking policy to the individual tag (or vice versa), an implicit association between the individual masking policy and the specified entity is created (e.g., the column entity or object is implicitly mapped to the individual masking policy based on the individual tag). This implicit association can enable the individual masking policy to be applied (e.g., enforced) on the specified entity (e.g., column entity or object) during runtime (e.g., during execution of a query or a query plan that references the specified entity). With respect to the example above, the column EMPLOYEE_SSN of table EMPLOYEE_INFO can be implicitly mapped to the masking policy SSN_MASK at runtime based on the assignment (e.g., association) between the column EMPLOYEE_SSN association with the tag PII and the assignment (e.g., association) between the tag PII and the masking policy SSN_MASK. The use of implicit association as described herein can provide a scalable solution for applying a masking policy to entities (e.g., databases, tables, rows, columns, etc.).”)
([0080]“ For operation 414, the processing device determines a set of masking policies assigned to at least one tag in the set of tags determined by operation 412. In particular, for each tag in the set of tags, operation 414 can determine every masking policy assigned to the tag. For instance, based on the assignment of the individual masking policy to the specified entity by operation 404, the set of tags determined by operation 412 includes the individual tag. For instance, continuing with the example from above, the set of tags determined by operation 412 for the column EMPLOYEE_SSN would include the tag PII (e.g., based on the assignment by operation 404). For some embodiments, operation 414 comprises accessing policy-to-entity mapping data that describes a set of assignments between one or more policies and one or more entities of a database system. The policy-to-entity mapping data can describe direct assignment between a masking policy entity or object and a tag entity or object.”)
([0084] “a definition of a masking policy defines a masking function that, when executed on the specified entity, is configured to access the stored data from the specified entity, generate masked data by applying the mask to at least the portion of the stored data, and return the masked data. For some such embodiments, applying the mask of the masking policy to at least the portion of the data comprises (e.g., prior to the stored data being accessed for the query plan) providing access to the stored data by returning the masking function in place of a reference to the specified entity.”)
([0085] (“For some embodiments, operation 416 applies a masking policy on the specified entity by determining whether another masking policy is directly assigned to the specified entity, and in response to determining that the other masking policy is directly assigned to the specified entity, applying the other masking policy on the specified entity instead of the at least one masking policy. In this way, masking policies directly assigned to the specified entity can take precedence over masking policies that are assigned to the specified entity based on tags.”)
Regarding Claim 19, claim 19 a non-transient computer-readable storage medium that further recites limitations as claim 1 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, Balakrishnan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: automatically create and execute the one or more masking jobs based on a data classification associated with the PII data. (Balakrishnan [0026] “As used herein, assignment (e.g., mapping, associating, or application) of a masking policy to a tag can comprise assigning the masking policy (e.g., a corresponding masking policy object) to the tag (e.g., a corresponding tag object). Depending on the embodiment, two or more masking policies can be assigned to an individual tag. A masking policy (or data masking policy) can define one or more parameters for applying a mask to data stored by an object (e.g., column object). For example, a masking policy called ‘SSN_MASK’ can be generated and directly assigned to a column (e.g., column object) storing social security numbers to mask some or all of the data access from the column. A masking policy can define a policy function to mask data from an entity (e.g., a column of a table) when the masking policy is assigned to the entity, where the policy function can consider one or more conditions (e.g., attributes) for determining whether masking is applied to the data from the entity (e.g., mask the data for certain tags or for all users except an admin user) or how the masking is applied to the data from the entity (e.g., mask only a first portion of the data). For some embodiments, an individual masking policy can be data-type specific (e.g., text or number data type). For instance, two or more masking policies (e.g., masking policy objects) for different data types can be applied to an individual tag (e.g., tag object), the individual tag can be associated with an individual column (e.g., column object), and an embodiment can appropriately apply, from the two or more masking policies, to those one or more masking policies that match the individual column's data type.”)
Regarding Claim 13, claim 13 is directed to the method of claim 10, that further recites limitations as claim 2 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Balakrishnan the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: receive input data comprising PII data associated with a plurality of input data labels(Balakrishnan [0019] “In accordance with some embodiments, a user (e.g., data steward or administrator) can cause a masking policy (e.g., a PII masking policy to mask PII data) to be generated (e.g., created), which can be added or stored to a database schema. …A user can cause the generated tag(i.e. PII data) to be assigned to one or more columns (e.g., employee_ssn of a table employee_info and contractor_ssn columns of a table contractor_info) to indicate that the columns contain certain type of data associated with the tag(e.g., PII data). The ability of a user can cause the generated tag to be assigned to one or more columns (e.g., employee_ssn of a table employee_info and contractor_ssn columns of a table contractor_info) to indicate that the columns contain certain type of data associated with the tag (e.g., PII data). ”) for each of the plurality of input data labels, automatically assign, based on a comparison of the input data label with stored data masking parameters([0026] “As used herein, assignment (e.g., mapping, associating, or application) of a masking policy to a tag can comprise assigning the masking policy (e.g., a corresponding masking policy object) to the tag (e.g., a corresponding tag object). Depending on the embodiment, two or more masking policies can be assigned to an individual tag. A masking policy (or data masking policy) can define one or more parameters for applying a mask to data stored by an object (e.g., column object). For example, a masking policy called ‘SSN_MASK’ can be generated and directly assigned to a column (e.g., column object) storing social security numbers to mask some or all of the data access from the column. A masking policy can define a policy function to mask data from an entity (e.g., a column of a table) when the masking policy is assigned to the entity, where the policy function can consider one or more conditions (e.g., attributes) for determining whether masking is applied to the data from the entity (e.g., mask the data for certain tags or for all users except an admin user) or how the masking is applied to the data from the entity (e.g., mask only a first portion of the data). For some embodiments, an individual masking policy can be data-type specific (e.g., text or number data type). For instance, two or more masking policies (e.g., masking policy objects) for different data types can be applied to an individual tag (e.g., tag object), the individual tag can be associated with an individual column (e.g., column object), and an embodiment can appropriately apply, from the two or more masking policies, to those one or more masking policies that match the individual column's data type.”), a masking process for the PII data based on a comparison of the input data label and the set of stored masking processes([0021] “During runtime, when a query (e.g., query plan) is being executed on a specified entity (e.g., column of a table), some embodiments determine (e.g., identify) a set of tags assigned to (e.g., associated with) the specified entity, determine (e.g., identify) a set of masking policies assigned to (e.g., associated with) at least one tag in the set of tags, and apply the set of masking policies on the specified entity. For some embodiments, applying a masking policy (e.g., from the set of masking policies) to the specified entity comprises determining whether a data type associated with (e.g., defined by) the masking policy matches a data type associated with the specified entity, and applying a mask to at least a portion of data stored by (e.g., in) the specified entity (e.g., enforce the masking policy on the specified entity) in response to the data types matching. In this way, the set of masking policies can comprise multiple masking policies for different data types that can mask data of the specified entity (e.g., data accessed from the specified entity) according to the data's type. The masking policy may not be applied where the data types do not match.”).
Regarding Claim 11, claim 11 is directed to the method of claim 10, that further recites limitations as claim 3 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Balakrishnan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: automatically assign the masking process based on the input data and based on the comparison of the input data label with the stored data masking parameters. (Balakrishnan [0026] “As used herein, assignment (e.g., mapping, associating, or application) of a masking policy to a tag can comprise assigning the masking policy (e.g., a corresponding masking policy object) to the tag (e.g., a corresponding tag object). Depending on the embodiment, two or more masking policies can be assigned to an individual tag. A masking policy (or data masking policy) can define one or more parameters for applying a mask to data stored by an object (e.g., column object). For example, a masking policy called ‘SSN_MASK’ can be generated and directly assigned to a column (e.g., column object) storing social security numbers to mask some or all of the data access from the column. A masking policy can define a policy function to mask data from an entity (e.g., a column of a table) when the masking policy is assigned to the entity, where the policy function can consider one or more conditions (e.g., attributes) for determining whether masking is applied to the data from the entity (e.g., mask the data for certain tags or for all users except an admin user) or how the masking is applied to the data from the entity (e.g., mask only a first portion of the data). For some embodiments, an individual masking policy can be data-type specific (e.g., text or number data type). For instance, two or more masking policies (e.g., masking policy objects) for different data types can be applied to an individual tag (e.g., tag object), the individual tag can be associated with an individual column (e.g., column object), and an embodiment can appropriately apply, from the two or more masking policies, to those one or more masking policies that match the individual column's data type.”)
Regarding Claim 12, claim 12 is directed to the method of claim 10, that further recites limitations as claim 4 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 5, Balakrishnan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: compare the received PII data and the masked PII data to determine whether masking properly occurred. [0082] Accordingly, operation 416 can comprise determining whether a first data type associated with a masking policy matches a second data type associated with the specified entity and, in response to determining that the first data type matches the second data type, applying a mask to at least a portion of the stored data (e.g., some or all of the stored data accessed) from the specified entity prior to the stored data being accessed for the query plan. For instance, operation 416 can obtain the first data type associated with the masking policy (e.g., the definition of which can specify the first data type the policy is associated with), and determine whether the obtained first data type matches the second data type of the specified entity. Alternatively, the data type check can form part of a logic defined for the masking policy, or can be performed prior to application of the masking policy. When an embodiment detects that multiple masking policies of a same data type are assigned to multiple tags and those multiple tags are assigned to a same column (e.g., policy1(NUMBER) assigned to tag1, tag1 assigned to column c1, policy2(NUMBER) assigned to tag2, and tag2 assigned to column c1), the embodiment can cause a warning or an error to be generated regarding the conflict this creates (e.g., error of “MULTIPLE_POLICIES_ASSIGNED_TO_COLUMN”). In response to the warning or error, a user (e.g., admin user) can resolve the conflict (e.g., the user can cause all but one of the multiple policies to apply to the column c1). The warning or error can be presented to a user via a discovery mechanism or tool used by the user. Additionally or alternatively, when an embodiment detects that multiple masking policies of a same data type are assigned to multiple tags and those multiple tags are assigned to a same column, the embodiment can automatically select one of the multiple policies using a conflict resolution mechanism (e.g., selecting the first of the multiple policies identified).
Regarding Claim 20, claim 20 the non-transient computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 that further recites limitations as claim 5 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 is directed to the method of claim 10, that further recites limitations as claim 5 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 6, claim 6 is the apparatus of claim 1 that recites same limitations as claim 5 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Balakrishnan teaches the apparatus of claim 6 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: generate a validation report based on the comparing the received PII data and the masked data for one or more masking operations. (Balakrishnan [0082] “When an embodiment detects that multiple masking policies of a same data type are assigned to multiple tags and those multiple tags are assigned to a same column (e.g., policy1(NUMBER) assigned to tag1, tag1 assigned to column c1, policy2(NUMBER) assigned to tag2, and tag2 assigned to column c1), the embodiment can cause a warning or an error to be generated regarding the conflict this creates (e.g., error of “MULTIPLE_POLICIES_ASSIGNED_TO_COLUMN”)(e.g. generate a validation report). In response to the warning or error, a user (e.g., admin user) can resolve the conflict (e.g., the user can cause all but one of the multiple policies to apply to the column c1). The warning or error can be presented to a user via a discovery mechanism or tool used by the user. Additionally or alternatively, when an embodiment detects that multiple masking policies of a same data type are assigned to multiple tags and those multiple tags are assigned to a same column, the embodiment can automatically select one of the multiple policies using a conflict resolution mechanism (e.g., selecting the first of the multiple policies identified).”
Regarding Claim 15, claim 15 is the method of claim 14, that further recites limitations as claim 7 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 8, Balakrishnan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: intercept the input data comprising the PII data before the input data is passed to a lower environment. (Balakrishnan [0084] “For some embodiments, a definition of a masking policy defines a masking function that, when executed on the specified entity, is configured to access the stored data from the specified entity, generate masked data by applying the mask to at least the portion of the stored data, and return the masked data. For some such embodiments, applying the mask of the masking policy to at least the portion of the data comprises (e.g., prior to the stored data being accessed for the query plan) providing access to the stored data by returning the masking function in place of a reference to the specified entity.”)
([0085] “For some embodiments, operation 416 applies a masking policy on the specified entity by determining whether another masking policy is directly assigned to the specified entity, and in response to determining that the other masking policy is directly assigned to the specified entity, applying the other masking policy on the specified entity instead of the at least one masking policy. In this way, masking policies directly assigned to the specified entity can take precedence over masking policies that are assigned to the specified entity based on tags.”)
Regarding Claim 16, claim 16 is the method of claim 10, that further recites limitations as claim 8 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Balakrishnan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: when the input data label comprises a field name, automatically assign the masking process based on a comparison of the field name and the set of stored masking processes, the set of stored masking processes being mapped to a set of field names comprising the field name associated with the PII data or comprising an alternative field name similar to the field name associated with the PII data. [0017] According to some embodiments, a framework is provided for tag-based application of a masking policy, where an assignment (e.g., mapping, association, or application) of a tag to a particular entity (e.g., particular column) can implicitly enforce one or more masking policies that are directly assigned to the tag. With tag-based application (e.g., enforcement) of a masking policy, the masking policy can be assigned to one or more tags, and any entity (e.g., column) associated (e.g., assigned) with those one or more tags can automatically inherit the masking policy. By assigning a masking policy to a tag, a user (e.g., data steward) can map the masking policy on one or more columns associated with the tag while obviating the need for the user explicitly mapping the masking policy to those one or more columns. In this way, tag-based application of a masking policy can implement conditional masking policy mapping on one or more entities (e.g., one or more column objects). For some embodiments, a tag-based application of a policy mask is performed at runtime, such as when a query is being executed on an object (e.g., column object) that is assigned a tag and the tag is assigned to the policy mask. Additionally, for some embodiments, a masking policy can be assigned to an individual tag and, based on lineage of the individual tag, the masking policy can be automatically applied to one or more (e.g., all) entities descending from an entity that is assigned to the individual tag. For example, by some embodiments, a tag can be assigned to a database, a masking policy can be assigned to the tag, and based on the assignment of the masking policy to the tag, the masking policy can be implicitly assigned to the database (e.g., all columns of all tables of the database), thereby permitting database-level enforcement of the masking policy.
[0020] For some embodiments, assignment of an individual masking policy to one or more tags (or the assignment of an individual tag to one or more masking policies) comprises a storing data regarding the assignment (e.g., a record of the assignment or mapping) in policy-to-tag mapping data (e.g., policy-to-tag mapping table). Alternatively, or additionally, for some embodiments, assignment of an individual masking policy to one or more tags comprises specifying a set of tags (e.g., set of values corresponding to different tags) in a definition of the individual masking policy.
Regarding Claim 17, claim 17 is the method of claim 10, that further recites limitations as claim 9 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 10, Balakrishnan teaches the method of automated masking of personally identifiable information (PII) data ([0072] “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating operations of a data platform in performing an example method 400 for tag-based application of a masking policy,”), further, claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is being rejected based on the same rational as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 18, Balakrishnan teaches the method of claim 10 further comprising: automatically providing a project status update based on completion of the one or more masking jobs. ([0082] Balakrishnan “the data type check can form part of a logic defined for the masking policy, or can be performed prior to application of the masking policy. When an embodiment detects that multiple masking policies of a same data type are assigned to multiple tags and those multiple tags are assigned to a same column (e.g., policy1(NUMBER) assigned to tag1, tag1 assigned to column c1, policy2(NUMBER) assigned to tag2, and tag2 assigned to column c1), the embodiment can cause a warning or an error to be generated regarding the conflict this creates (e.g., error of “MULTIPLE_POLICIES_ASSIGNED_TO_COLUMN”).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
CHICKERUR et al. (Pub. No. US 20200233977 A1) teaches classification and management of personally identifiable data.
Lynch et al. (US 10607726 B2) teaches system for anonymizing and aggregating protected health information.
Dobrin et al. (Pub. No. US 20230418970 A1) Selectively masking personally identifiable information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALA BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-6450. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/Mala Boyd/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights