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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/066,777 filed on 2/28/2025.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending; claims 21, 37, and 38 are the independent claims; claims 21-40 have been examined. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 21-40 of the instant application are encompassed by limitations recited in claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,502 (see table below).
US 12,271,502 (17/488,175)
Instant Application No. 19/066,777
1. A method comprising:
based on a request associated with an originating entity, generating, by a centralized document system, a document package, wherein a first set of document permissions is assigned to a first receiving entity and a second set of document permissions is assigned to a second receiving entity, the first set and second set of document permissions defining respective actions that are executable by the first and second receiving entities with a document of the document package; and
based on a determination that the first receiving entity is unavailable and a determination that a policy of the first receiving entity specifies that the second receiving entity is authorized to receive the document package:
determining, by the centralized document system, a sensitivity level of the document using a model and a plurality of document attributes of the document, wherein the plurality of document attributes comprises content within the document;
determining, by the centralized document system, that the sensitivity level satisfies a first threshold from a policy of the originating entity and does not satisfy a second threshold from the policy of the originating entity; and
based on the determining that the sensitivity level satisfies the first threshold and does not satisfy the second threshold:
removing, by the centralized document system, sensitive content within the document to generate a modified document; and
providing, by the centralized document system, the modified document to a user device associated with the second receiving entity.
Claim 21. (New): A method comprising:
based on an instruction to generate a document package for an originating entity to be sent to a first receiving entity, determining, by one or more processors and based on one or more conditions of a first policy for the first receiving entity, the first policy includes an authorization for delegation of one or more permissions from the first receiving entity to a second receiving entity;
determining, by the one or more processors and based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization; and
based on determining to override the authorization:
providing an electronic document of the document package to a first user device associated with the first receiving entity; and
refraining from providing the electronic document to a second user device associated with the second receiving entity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically discloses as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 25, 26, 31-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marano (US20090292930), filed April 24, 2009, in view of Lim (US10387669), filed September 16, 2016.
Regarding claim 21, Marano discloses a method, comprising:
identifying, by a device, a facial area of an individual (Matsimanis, paragraph 0012, “The program code provides the functionality of, in response to receiving an initial confidence value indicating the presence of a candidate face having a spatial dimension: detecting at least one of: a distance from the electronic device to the candidate face and a temperature of the candidate face.”);
based on an instruction to generate a document package for an originating entity to be sent to a first receiving entity, (Marano, paragraph 0023, documents on shared document server may be accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications; paragraph 0021, shared document server and user computers work together with security servers, collaborative server environment; paragraph 0026 downloaded from and/or uploaded to a share document server 6; paragraph 0035, shared document servers 6)
determining, by one or more processors and based on one or more conditions of a first policy for the first receiving entity, the first policy includes an authorization for delegation of one or more permissions from the first receiving entity to a second receiving entity; (Marano, paragraph 0094, Some embodiments of the invention may enable authorized users and groups of users having an authorized role to delegate document permissions for trusted users outside the computing network 2, e.g., for a partner or affiliated group outside the company network.)
based on determining to override the authorization: (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”);
providing an electronic document of the document package to a first user device associated with the first receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”);
refraining from providing the electronic document to a second user device associated with the second receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”).
Marano does not explicitly disclose determining, by the one or more processors and based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization.
However, in an analogous art, Lim discloses determining, by the one or more processors and based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization (Lim, col. 45, lines 4-9, In step 1312, the policy engine combines the first policy decision and the second policy decision using a combining algorithm to produce a third policy decision. Examples of combining algorithms include centralized policies override, discretionary policies override, highest authority level override, and others; Col. 46, lines 26-29, In an example, a centralized policy may be assigned an authority level in an emergency situation allowing it to override other relevant policies before the emergency situation is addressed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lim with the method/ non-transitory computer-readable media/ system of Marano to include determining, by the one or more processors and based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization to provide users with the benefits of protecting documents at rest, in motion and in distribution (Lim: col. 1, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 22, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 21, further comprising: based on determining to override the authorization, refraining from delegating the one or more permissions to the second receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0029, user security level may define the ability of a user to user or not user a subset of documents).
Regarding claim 23, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 21, wherein determining to override the authorization comprises comparing a determined sensitivity level for the electronic document to a sensitivity level indicated by the second policy (Marano, paragraph 0037, comparison, user security level, document security level, document security policy; paragraph 0053, override policy settings).
Regarding claim 25, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 23, wherein determining to override the authorization comprises generating the determined sensitivity level based on a model and a plurality of document attributes of the electronic document, wherein the plurality of document attributes comprises content within the electronic document. (Lim, col. 27, line 34, through col. 28, line 3, attributes, data protection, policy decision, document, col. 28, lines 4-23, model, digital rights management, document, access, allowed).
Regarding claim 26, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 25, the plurality of document attributes includes at least one of an author of the electronic document, a document type for the electronic document, or a date at which the electronic document was generated. (Lim, col. 27, line 34, through col. 28, line 3, attributes, data protection, policy decision, document, col. 28, lines 4-23, author of document).
Regarding claim 31, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 25, wherein the model is a rules-based model configured according to a plurality of rules that specify the electronic document has one of a plurality of sensitivity levels based on the plurality of document attributes, wherein a first sensitivity level indicates that the electronic document is not sensitive (Lim, col. 28, lines 4-13, rules, document,; col. 27, line 54, through col. 28, line 3, attributes).
Regarding claim 32, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 31, wherein a rule of the rules-based model specifies that the electronic document has a second level of sensitivity based on determining that an author of the electronic document has a title of authority associated with high sensitivity documents (Marano, paragraph 0037, comparison, security level, user, document; paragraph 0053, override).
Regarding claim 33, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 21,wherein determining the first policy authorizes delegation of one or more permissions comprises determining that the first receiving entity is unavailable (Marano, paragraph 0047, network 10 unavailable).
Regarding claim 35, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 21, further comprising causing a user device of the first receiving entity to render a graphical user interface comprising identifiers of a plurality of document packages received for execution by the first receiving entity and a plurality of user inputs for filtering the plurality of document packages provided to the second receiving entity for execution on behalf of the first receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0052, documents, graphical user interface; paragraph 0073, graphical user interface, access to documents, shared document servers).
Regarding claim 36, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 21, wherein the first policy limits the delegation of the one or more permissions to the second receiving entity from a start date to an end date (Lim, col. 13, lines 10-39, access control policy, access resource, time period).
Regarding claim 37, Marano discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to: (Marano, paragraph 0092, instructions, processor, retrieve, store)
based on an instruction to generate a document package for an originating entity to be sent to a first receiving entity, (Marano, paragraph 0023, documents on shared document server may be accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications; paragraph 0021, shared document server and user computers work together with security servers, collaborative server environment; paragraph 0026 downloaded from and/or uploaded to a share document server 6; paragraph 0035, shared document servers 6)
determine, based on one or more conditions of a first policy for the first receiving entity, the first policy includes an authorization for delegation of one or more permissions from the first receiving entity to a second receiving entity; (Marano, paragraph 0094, Some embodiments of the invention may enable authorized users and groups of users having an authorized role to delegate document permissions for trusted users outside the computing network 2, e.g., for a partner or affiliated group outside the company network.);
based on the determination to override the authorization: (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”);
provide an electronic document of the document package to a first user device associated with the first receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”);
refrain from providing the electronic document to a second user device associated with the second receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”).
Marano does not explicitly disclose determine, based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization.
However, in an analogous art, Lim discloses determine, based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization (Lim, col. 45, lines 4-9, In step 1312, the policy engine combines the first policy decision and the second policy decision using a combining algorithm to produce a third policy decision. Examples of combining algorithms include centralized policies override ,discretionary policies override, highest authority level override, and others; Col. 46, lines 26-29, In an example, a centralized policy may be assigned an authority level in an emergency situation allowing it to override other relevant policies before the emergency situation is addressed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lim with the method/ non-transitory computer-readable media/ system of Marano to include determine, based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization to provide users with the benefits of protecting documents at rest, in motion and in distribution (Lim: col. 1, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 38, Marano discloses a system comprising one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: (Marano, paragraph 0092, instructions, processor, retrieve, store)
based on an instruction to generate a document package for an originating entity to be sent to a first receiving entity, (Marano, paragraph 0023, documents on shared document server may be accessed, edited, and/or otherwise modified using any of a number of applications; paragraph 0021, shared document server and user computers work together with security servers, collaborative server environment; paragraph 0026 downloaded from and/or uploaded to a share document server 6; paragraph 0035, shared document servers 6);
determine, based on one or more conditions of a first policy for the first receiving entity, the first policy includes an authorization for delegation of one or more permissions from the first receiving entity to a second receiving entity; (Marano, paragraph 0094, Some embodiments of the invention may enable authorized users and groups of users having an authorized role to delegate document permissions for trusted users outside the computing network 2, e.g., for a partner or affiliated group outside the company network.);
based on the determination to override the authorization (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”);
provide an electronic document of the document package to a first user device associated with the first receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”);
refrain from providing the electronic document to a second user device associated with the second receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0053, a corporate policy may read, “Authorized recipients of research division may open, print, and save the PDF file, but are not permitted to forward the document to any other user.”).
Marano does not explicitly disclose determine, based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization.
However, in an analogous art, Lim discloses determine, based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization (Lim, col. 45, lines 4-9, In step 1312, the policy engine combines the first policy decision and the second policy decision using a combining algorithm to produce a third policy decision. Examples of combining algorithms include centralized policies override, discretionary policies override, highest authority level override, and others; Col. 46, lines 26-29, In an example, a centralized policy may be assigned an authority level in an emergency situation allowing it to override other relevant policies before the emergency situation is addressed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lim with the method/ non-transitory computer-readable media/ system of Marano to include determine, based on one or more override conditions of a second policy for the originating entity, to override the authorization to provide users with the benefits of protecting documents at rest, in motion and in distribution (Lim: col. 1, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 39, Marano and Lim disclose the system of claim 38, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to, based on the determination to override the authorization, refrain from delegating the one or more permissions to the second receiving entity (Marano, paragraph 0028, restricted set of permissions; paragraph 0029, permissions, restrictions, set of restrictions).
Regarding claim 40, Marano and Lim disclose the system of claim 38, wherein to determine to override the authorization, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to compare a determined sensitivity level for the electronic document to a sensitivity level indicated by the second policy(Marano, paragraph 0037, comparison, user security level, document security level, document security policy; paragraph 0053, override policy settings).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marano (US20090292930), filed April 24, 2009, in view of Lim (US10387669), filed September 16, 2016, and further in view of Chari (US20140196103), filed March 13,2013.
Regarding claim 24, Marano and Lim discloses the method of claim 23.
Marano and Lim do not explicitly disclose wherein the determined sensitivity level is generated based on a plurality of entity attributes of the second receiving entity, wherein the plurality of entity attributes includes one or more of a title in an organization, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, an indication of one or more historical document packages executed by the second receiving entity, a name of the organization, an organization chart of the organization, or a policy of the organization.
However, in an analogous art, Chari discloses wherein the determined sensitivity level is generated based on a plurality of entity attributes of the second receiving entity, wherein the plurality of entity attributes includes one or more of a title in an organization, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, an indication of one or more historical document packages executed by the second receiving entity, a name of the organization, an organization chart of the organization, or a policy of the organization (Chari, paragraph 0038, organization, attributes, job title, security clearance level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chari with the method/ non-transitory computer-readable media/ system of Marano and Lim to include wherein the determined sensitivity level is generated based on a plurality of entity attributes of the second receiving entity, wherein the plurality of entity attributes includes one or more of a title in an organization, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, an indication of one or more historical document packages executed by the second receiving entity, a name of the organization, an organization chart of the organization, or a policy of the organization to provide users with the benefits of generating role-based access control policies that minimize a risk profile (Chari: paragraph 0003).
Claims 27-30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marano (US20090292930), filed April 24, 2009, in view of Lim (US10387669), filed September 16, 2016, and further in view of Muras (US20220035728), filed September 7, 2021 .
Regarding claim 27, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 25.
Marano and Lim do not explicitly disclose wherein the model comprises a machine-learned model trained using labeled representations of historical documents characterized by respective document attributes, wherein a plurality of labels associated with the labeled historical documents indicates respective sensitivity levels.
However, in an analogous art, Muras discloses wherein the model comprises a machine-learned model trained using labeled representations of historical documents characterized by respective document attributes, wherein a plurality of labels associated with the labeled historical documents indicates respective sensitivity levels (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muras with the method/ non-transitory computer-readable media/ system of Marano and Lim to include wherein the model comprises a machine-learned model trained using labeled representations of historical documents characterized by respective document attributes, wherein a plurality of labels associated with the labeled historical documents indicates respective sensitivity levels to provide users with the benefits of discovering semantic relationships in computer programs (Muras: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 28, Marano, Lim, and Muras disclose the method of claim 27, wherein generating the determined sensitivity level comprises:
generating a document feature representation using the plurality of document attributes (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes);
applying the machine-learned model to the document feature representation, wherein the machine-learned model is configured to output a confidence score associated with the sensitivity level of the document (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes); and
based on the confidence score exceeding a threshold score, determining that the electronic document has the determined sensitivity level. (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes)
Regarding claim 29, Marano, Lim, and Muras disclose the method of claim 27, wherein the machine learning model is trained by:
generating a plurality of document feature representations for each historical document of the historical documents, the document feature representations comprising numerical representations of the respective document attributes (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes);
labeling the plurality of document feature representations using the plurality of labels (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes);
creating a first set of training data using the labeled plurality of document feature representations (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes); and
training the machine-learned model using the first set of training data (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes).
Regarding claim 30, Marano, Lim, and Muras disclose the method of claim 29, wherein the machine-learned model is further trained by:
receiving user feedback indicating a measure of approval of the determined sensitivity level (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes);
creating a second set of training data based on the user feedback (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes); and
re-training the machine-learned model using the second set of training data. (Muras, paragraph 0111, training data, machine learning models, labeled data, confidence levels, paragraph 0120, confidence levels, feedback, paragraph 0046, document, attributes).
Regarding claim 34, Marano and Lim disclose the method of claim 33.
Marano and Lam do not explicitly disclose wherein determining that the first receiving entity is unavailable is based on one or more of an automated reply to electronic communication received by the first receiving entity, an indication of time sensitivity associated with the electronic document, or a current date falling within an out-of-office schedule.
However, in an analogous art, Muras discloses wherein determining that the first receiving entity is unavailable is based on one or more of an automated reply to electronic communication received by the first receiving entity, an indication of time sensitivity associated with the electronic document, or a current date falling within an out-of-office schedule (Muras, paragraph 0116, time sensitive, form).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muras with the method/ non-transitory computer-readable media/ system of Marano and Lim to include wherein determining that the first receiving entity is unavailable is based on one or more of an automated reply to electronic communication received by the first receiving entity, an indication of time sensitivity associated with the electronic document, or a current date falling within an out-of-office schedule to provide users with the benefits of discovering semantic relationships in computer programs (Muras: paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER J MALINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5368. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:30 MTWH.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LUU PHAM can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/W.J.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights