Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 2-25 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 07/03/2025.
4. Claims 2, 10 and 18 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. Applicant’s IDS submissions are deemed excessive and not conforming to the best practices for IDS submissions, as detailed below.
Applicant has no "duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim", and information is material to patentability only "when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application". See 37 CFR 1.56(a) & (b). Further, applicant is requested to "eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information [and] if a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance". See MPEP 2004(14). An applicant’s duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real-world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
MPEP 609 states that "consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search." Because applicant did not submit any explanatory remarks along with the IDS which provide an indication of how the IDS submissions are "material to the patentability of any existing claim" nor did applicant “highlight those documents [having the] most significance", given the volume of the submissions, the examiner has conducted only a cursory review and has not reviewed the documents thoroughly or in any particularized or individualized detail. Applicant is invited and requested to submit explanatory remarks “highlighting” those portion(s) of the document(s) that are of particular relevancy to the "patentability of any existing claim".
By signing the accompanying 1449 forms, Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made. Finally, applicant should further note that nothing in this section is intended by the examiner to indicate a requirement for information for information under 37 CFR 1.105, but applicant is otherwise required to conform to other rules, requirements, and best practices regarding the submission of IDS documents, as noted above.
Double Patenting
7. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 2-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S Patent No 12248434. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
19/071,587 (present application)
17/304,086 (U.S Patent No 12248434)
Claim 2. (new) A method comprising:
(1) requesting a report from (2) an analytics system with access to a lineage index that stores a lineage between multiple files corresponding to a user action, including a first file and a temporary file generated responsive to the user action; and
(3) obtaining, from the analytics system, the report including at least one metric adjusted based on operation of an application associated with the user action,
(4) obtaining the report further comprising obtaining a number of files in a file system queried by the analytics system, the number of files excluding the temporary file generated responsive to the operation of the application associated with the user action.
Claim 26. A method comprising:
(2) generating a lineage index comprising a lineage between multiple files corresponding to a user action, including a first file requested in the user action and a temporary file generated at least in part responsive to the user action corresponding to the first file, wherein the generating further includes establishing a lineage between the first file and the temporary file;
accessing the lineage index comprising a set of events from a file system pertaining to the multiple files including the first file and the temporary file; (3) filtering the set of events to retain selected events corresponding to the user action and remove at least one event ancillary to the user action; and
(1) reporting based at least on the selected events,
(4) wherein the reporting comprises providing a number of files associated with the file system, the number of files determined by excluding at least the temporary file based at least on the lineage index.
Claims 3-9
Claims 27, 32, 39, 1, 29, 31, 1 respectively.
Same applied for claims 1-17 and 18-25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Software per se
10. Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10-17 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to “A system comprising: a distributed file server comprising a cluster of file server virtual machines (FSVMs); an analytics system comprising an analytics datastore”. The specification is silent about the definition of the terms “a distributed file server comprising a cluster of file server virtual machines (FSVMs)”and “an analytics system comprising an analytics datastore”, and when read broadly in light of the specification could include software only. File Server Virtual Machines (FSVMs) are generally classified as software-based instances or virtualized software environments that operate on top of a physical, hardware-based server. The claims do not define structural and functional descriptive material used in interrelationship between the computer software and the hardware like a memory or processor. Software per se does not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter therefore it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Computer readable media/medium as Signal
11. Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim(s) encompass non-statutory subject matter. Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212, dated February 23, 2010, states "the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium...typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media."
Claims 18-25 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a computer readable media encoded with instructions. However, the computer readable media is limited to statutory embodiments.
The specification did not limit “computer readable media” to hardware embodiment, and could include non-statutory embodiments such as a signal.
[0230] The memory 806 and the local storage 808 are computer-readable storage media. In this embodiment, the memory 806 includes random access memory RAM 814 and cache 816. In general, the memory 806 can include any suitable volatile or non-volatile computer-readable storage media. In an embodiment, the local storage 808 includes an SSD 822 and an HDD 824.
[0231] or any other computer-readable storage media that is capable of storing program instructions or digital information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable media typically covers forms of non-transitory media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
12. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
13. Claims 2-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 2 recites the steps or acts…, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 10 recites a system comprising: …. The claim may not be directed to a physical circuit, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and not falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: NO).
Claim 18 recites A computer readable media encoded with instructions. A computer readable media may not fall within the “manufacture” category of invention. (Step 1: NO).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the step “requesting a report from an analytics system with access to a lineage index that stores a lineage between multiple files corresponding to a user action, including a first file and a temporary file generated responsive to the user action; and obtaining, from the analytics system, the report including at least one metric adjusted based on operation of an application associated with the user action, obtaining the report further comprising obtaining a number of files in a file system queried by the analytics system, the number of files excluding the temporary file generated responsive to the operation of the application associated with the user action”.
using an index to locate desired information in a computer database, such as organizing information using specific tags, have been held to be directed to an abstract idea.
"Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory" is generally considered an abstract idea.
Thus, requesting, generating, or producing a report is considered an abstract idea and thus ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Under the Alice/Mayo framework, this is often deemed a "method of organizing human activity" or a mental process, which are recognized exceptions to patentability.
The above steps of claims 2, 10 and 18 appear to recite an abstract idea as a form of “a mental process” or "method of organizing human activity". One can mentally requesting, generating, or producing a report showing a count of the number of files excluding the temporary file by running a query or using a filter filtering the files by type, for example excluding the .tmp type. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims 2, 10 and 18 recite the additional elements of “an analytics system”, “distributed file server comprising a cluster of file server virtual machines (FSVMs)”, “an analytics system”, “an analytics system”, “an analytics datastore”, “a user interface”, and “computer readable media”. is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), and
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements were found to be mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 3-9, 11-17 and 19-25, (insignificant extra-solution activity).
Examiner Note
14. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
17. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik (US 20150356094 A1) hereinafter as Gorelik in view of Weinstein et al (US 20150234885 A1) hereinafter as Weinstein.
18. Regarding claim 2, Gorelik teaches A method comprising:
requesting a report from an analytics system with access to a lineage index that stores a lineage between multiple files corresponding to a user action (Abstract, “a lineage relationship between file pairs, indicating whether one file is derived from another, can be determined for several files.”, [0008], “File purpose discovery seeks to determine lineage: whether a “derived from” relationship exists between a pair of files. Lineage information is an important type of metadata, and it can facilitate determining the origin of a data to determine whether that data is fit for a specified purpose. Lineage information can also be used in impact analysis:”, [0067], “Various modules 156, such as “File lineage” determination modules, Profile and metrics module, etc., can generate a desired view of the underlying data files (a report). For example, the file lineage module can display lineage of files in a specified directory (a report).”, Fig 2A, [0068], “discovering lineage”, Fig 2B, [0069], “The computed lineage score can indicate a likelihood that File_B1 was derived from or is based on File_A1, a higher lineage score typically indicating a greater likelihood.”, [0098], “once the format becomes known, whether discovered automatically or specified by the user, the system profiles the file and searches for matching patterns and values in the database of known formats and patterns.”, [0110], “[0110], “In general in a data platform, data is stored, published, or accessed, e.g., via a query or subscription on an on-going basis. The data is usually contained in files that have formats and names. Ontologies can be associated with the data, and typically additional information about the data is derived from the metadata associated with the various data structures such as files, tables, etc., and properties of these structures.”), including a first file and a temporary file generated responsive to the user action ([0004], “processes data, many temporary files are created on the cluster.”, [0007-0008], “The inferred lineage information can be integrated with existing enterprise metadata repositories to provide complete lineage. The lineage information can be useful in determining the validity of changes in files, and to distinguish between temporary files and those to be used for data science analysis.”, [0015], “The method can further include identifying a file in the lineage having one or more ancestors and one or more descendants. The identified file can be designated as temporary, e.g., if a number of descendants of the identified file does not meet a threshold”, [0090-0092]).
Gorelik didn’t specifically teach obtaining, from the analytics system, the report including at least one metric adjusted based on operation of an application associated with the user action; obtaining the report further comprising obtaining a number of files in a file system queried by the analytics system, the number of files excluding the temporary file generated responsive to the operation of the application associated with the user action.
However, Weinstein teaches obtaining, from the analytics system, the report including at least one metric adjusted based on operation of an application associated with the user action ; obtaining the report further comprising obtaining a number of files in a file system queried by the analytics system, the number of files excluding the temporary file generated responsive to the operation of the application associated with the user action ([examiner interpretation], removing/excluding the temporary files from the file count is the one metric adjusted based on operation of an application associated with the user action . see [0004], “the audit system outputs a report”, Table 4, “File Count Number of files”, [0085], “A directory's file count may be recorded as one or both of a count of the number of data files and archive files present in the directory ("Shallow File Count") and a count of the number of data files and archive files present in the directory and all sub-directories ("Deep File Count"). In some implementations, a directory's file count omits archive files.”, [0074], “exclude temporary or auto-save files using element selection criteria for a string descriptor type may be defined by "include" and/or "exclude" rules, e.g., as one or more regular expressions or filters specifying criteria for inclusion or exclusion of elements.”, [0135], “generates audit data for reporting the analysis (step 1130)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Weinstein’s system into Gorelik’s and by incorporating Weinstein into Gorelik because both systems are related to file analytics would compare sets of files using signatures (Weinstein, [0001-0002]).
19. Regarding claim 3, Gorelik and Weinstein teach the invention as claimed in claim 10 above and Gorelik further teaches wherein said requesting the report comprises providing a query to the file system for operations performed by a user ([0110], “In general in a data platform, data is stored, published, or accessed, e.g., via a query or subscription on an on-going basis.”, [0114]).
20. Regarding claims 10 and 11, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 2 and 3 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
21. Regarding claims 18 and 19, those claims recite a computer readable media encoded with instructions performs the method of claims 2 and 3 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
22. Claims 4-9, 12-17 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik (US 20150356094 A1) hereinafter as Gorelik in view of Weinstein et al (US 20150234885 A1) hereinafter as Weinstein and further in view of BEDHAPUDI et al (US 20190109870 A1) hereinafter as BEDHAPUDI.
23. Regarding claim 4, Gorelik and Weinstein teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above, Gorelik and Weinstein did not specifically teach wherein said obtaining the report comprises obtaining a count of operations performed by a user, including the user action.
However, BEDHAPUDI teaches wherein said obtaining the report comprises obtaining a count of operations performed by a user, including the user action ([0309], “100 renaming operations performed over 5 minutes” [0320], “file system operations associated with temporary files are excluded from consideration by the anomaly detection engine 320 for file activity anomaly detection.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in BEDHAPUDI’s system into Gorelik and Weinstein combined system and by incorporating BEDHAPUDI into Gorelik and Weinstein combined system because all systems are related to file analytics would automated ransomware detection (BEDHAPUDI, [0004]).
24. Regarding claim 5, Gorelik, Weinstein and BEDHAPUDI teach the invention as claimed in claim 4 above, and BEDHAPUDI further teaches wherein the count of operations excludes certain operations performed by the application responsive to the user action ([0309], [0320], “file system operations associated with temporary files are excluded from consideration by the anomaly detection engine 320 for file activity anomaly detection.”).
25. Regarding claim 6, Gorelik and Weinstein teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above, Gorelik and Weinstein did not specifically teach wherein said obtaining the report comprises obtaining events performed in the file system associated with the file analytics system.
However, BEDHAPUDI teaches wherein said obtaining the report comprises obtaining events performed in the file system associated with the file analytics system ([0236], “information generated by the file system and/or operating system of client computing device 102, and can include, for example, file system data (e.g., regular files, file tables, mount points, etc.), operating system data (e.g., registries, event logs, etc.), and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in BEDHAPUDI’s system into Gorelik and Weinstein combined system and by incorporating BEDHAPUDI into Gorelik and Weinstein combined system because all systems are related to file analytics would automated ransomware detection (BEDHAPUDI, [0004]).
26. Regarding claim 7, Gorelik, Weinstein and BEDHAPUDI teach the invention as claimed in claim 6 above, and BEDHAPUDI further teaches wherein said obtaining the events comprises obtaining a filtered set of events based on the operation of the application associated with the user action ([0299], “The ransomware may enumerate the existing directories and files and filter the files based on their extensions (e.g., by selecting only those files with specific extensions such as .doc, .pdf, .txt, .jpg, and etc., or those associated with specific applications, for encryption, and not selecting the other files in the system).”, [0311]).
27. Regarding claim 8, Gorelik and Weinstein teach the invention as claimed in claim 2 above, Gorelik and Weinstein did not specifically teach wherein the user action comprises a write and the operation of the application comprises creation of the temporary.
However, BEDHAPUDI teaches wherein the user action comprises a write and the operation of the application comprises creation of the temporary file ([0301], [0319]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in BEDHAPUDI’s system into Gorelik and Weinstein combined system and by incorporating BEDHAPUDI into Gorelik and Weinstein combined system because all systems are related to file analytics would automated ransomware detection (BEDHAPUDI, [0004]).
28. Regarding claim 9, Gorelik, Weinstein and BEDHAPUDI teach the invention as claimed in claim 8 above, and Weinstein further teaches wherein the at least one metric adjusted based on the operation of the application comprises a count of files excluding at least the temporary file ([examiner interpretation], removing/excluding the temporary files from the file count is the one metric adjusted based on operation of an application associated with the user action. see [0004], “the audit system outputs a report”, Table 4, “File Count Number of files”, [0085], “A directory's file count may be recorded as one or both of a count of the number of data files and archive files present in the directory ("Shallow File Count") and a count of the number of data files and archive files present in the directory and all sub-directories ("Deep File Count"). In some implementations, a directory's file count omits archive files.”, [0074], “exclude temporary or auto-save files using element selection criteria for a string descriptor type may be defined by "include" and/or "exclude" rules, e.g., as one or more regular expressions or filters specifying criteria for inclusion or exclusion of elements.”, [0135], “generates audit data for reporting the analysis (step 1130)”).
29. Regarding claims 12-17, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 4-9 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
30. Regarding claims 20-25, those claims recite a computer readable media encoded with instructions performs the method of claims 4-9 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
CONCLUSION
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Petri et al (US 20080040388 A1)
Peake et al (US 20020174140 A1)
Nachenberg (US 8510836 B1)
Mookherjee (US 20220253783 A1)
Gordon et al (US 20180330108 A1)
Knapp et al (US 20110276656 A1),
Geipel et al (US 20030200098 A1),
Lyon (US 20070250671 A1)
Castellano et al (US 20110047525 A1)
Palus et al (US 11275755 B2)
Lefever et al (US 10025878 B1)
Gopalapura Venkatesh et al (US 20170235589 A1)
Habouzit et al (US 20150347440 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164