Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 17 and 19 – 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments in the 16 June 2026 amendment:
At Step 2A, Prong One, the Office Action has alleged that the limitations of "generating a first set of indicators" and "generating a second set of indicators" are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. Applicant submits this characterization is incorrect. The claimed indicators are horizontal partition boundaries embedded as metadata values in database table columns-database-specific data structures that guide how a distributed database performs sharding operations. As described in the specification, "the horizontal partition boundaries can be specified by values of a special metadata column maintained in each table, such that a first metadata value (e.g., 0) would indicate that the current row needs to be kept with the next one, while a second metadata value (e.g., 1) would indicate that the table can be split after the current row." (Specification, paragraph [0021]). These are operations on database- specific structures with no meaningful analog in the human mind. A person cannot practically "generate indicators" that are embedded as metadata values in distributed database table columns to guide automated horizontal partitioning across physical or virtual nodes.
Furthermore, amended claim 1 now recites "responsive to detecting a partition trigger, identifying a horizontal partition boundary to perform a horizontal partition operation on the database node based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators" and "performing a horizontal partition operation in relation to the identified horizontal partition boundary." These are inherently computer-bound database operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Similarly here, the specification identifies a specific technical problem: "such a partitioning technique system might fail to account for specific relationships between data when generating the split boundaries, which can lead to separating child table data from the related parent table data. This causes increased latency when querying the distributed database since the security analytics platform now queries to multiple nodes to obtain the desired data." (Specification, paragraph [0020]). The specification further explains the technical solution: "the aspects of the present disclosure prevent splitting related data during horizontal partitions of a regional database. This results in a decreased latency when querying the distributed database since a security analytics platform only needs to query a single node to obtain the desired data. "(Id., paragraph [0022]). The MPEP states that "an indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim." MPEP § 2106.05(a). The specification does exactly this.
At Step 2B, the Office Action analyzed each limitation in isolation and dismissed each individually as insignificant extra-solution activity. However, the MPEP instructs that "the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.' When performing this evaluation, examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100). Viewed as an ordered combination, the claims recite a specific sequence: receiving two types of data, storing them in separate but associated database tables, generating separate sets of partition indicators for each table, and then using those indicators to identify a horizontal partition boundary and perform a partition operation SO that related partitions remain co-located on the same database node. This ordered combination provides significantly more than any individual element considered in isolation.
During the telephonic interview on June 9, 2026, the Examiner indicated that the amendments to claim 1, which are reflected herein, appear to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar features as claim 1. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as their respective dependent claims, are patentable over Sorenson in view of Hanckel for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. As such, the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
With respect to applicant’s argument A, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The independent claims do not recite that the indicators are embedded within the database table, and would be a feature not claimed. Claim 5 does sufficiently disclose that the indicator(s) is stored in a column associated with the first database table. This limitation does not necessarily disclose the associated column is part of the first database table itself, but would include such interpretation along with other interpretations of a column in another table or data structure. However, even with such interpretation as disclosed by the specification, the cited portion from [0021] does not disclose a process for determining the indicator that is beyond what is capable to be performed as analysis and judgement within the human mind. Recording values into a table or otherwise performing operations on a table, whether written down or computerized, are processes that can be performed manually by a human based on the mental process performed in said human’s mind and amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. For example, recording a “0” or a “1” in a table does not amount to significantly more than the mental process, such as the analysis and judgement to determine whether a “0” or “1” applies to that row, itself. Further disclosure of the process for determining which indicators should be recorded in which rows and/or further integration into a practical application may be sufficient in overcoming the current 35 USC 101 rejection.
With respect to applicant’s argument B, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. “Identifying a horizontal partition boundary” to perform the horizontal partition based on the set of indicators is analysis and judgement that could be performed within the human mind. A human can read the data in a table and determine rows in which to perform the horizontal partition between based on reading the values of the column of indicators, previously given as an example as ‘0’ and ‘1’ in the column. Currently as claimed, “responsive to detecting a partition trigger” amounts to mere insignificant extra solution activity to the abstract idea of identifying a boundary for the horizontal partition based on indicators associated with the first and second database tables. Further clarification of the trigger and/or the detection of the trigger process may potentially amount to significantly more, however, with the current claim language and the non-limiting examples for the trigger mechanism in [0054] of the specification, the current interpretation does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or an improvement to the technology itself, and currently amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the limitation directed to partitioning of the tables themselves in response to the determination of the partition boundaries, the current claim language does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (i.e. the identification of the boundary among other limitations) and appears to be a process that can be manually performed by the human processing the identification that amounts to insignificant extra solution activity to the mental process itself. Further clarification the process for performing the partitioning and/or the improvements to the technology of the process for performing of the partitioning may be sufficient in overcoming the current 35 USC 101 rejection.
With respect to applicant’s argument C, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argued improvement to the technology is directed to reducing latency by only requiring the querying of a single node rather than multiple nodes. However, claims themselves are directed determining boundaries for performing horizontal partitioning of multiple tables on the same database node, and the partitioning thereafter based on the determination of the boundaries. However, the claim’s structure is directed to the process being claimed within the same node, and further, partitioning of tables on a database node has no inherent need for moving of table partitions to other nodes. Additionally, it is well understood that table partitioning, splits, merges, cloning, and other database operations can be contained within a single node long before the current application was filed. Therefore, it is unclear as to how a process that is contained within a single node and has no prior requirement to include other nodes for execution of a partitioning operation is an improvement by not requiring querying of multiple nodes. Further clarification of the database/node structure to make clear the technological environment that the identification of indicators and the partitioning boundaries results in the improvement of only querying of a single node rather than previously required querying of multiple nodes, as argued, may be sufficient in overcoming the current 35 USC 101 rejection.
With respect to applicant’s argument D, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior 35 USC 101 analysis performed did consider the elements as an ordered combination and the steps disclosed in Applicant’s arguments were properly analyzed as the identified abstract ideas and the extra-solution activity as supported by the MPEP and related decisions. See arguments above and rejections below.
With respect to applicant’s argument E, see updated 35 USC 103 rejection below as necessitated by the amendments to the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “receiving, by a processing device of a security analytics platform, first data associated with a computing resource; storing the first data in a first database table associated with the computing resource; generating a first set of indicators associated with the first database table, wherein each indicator of the first set of indicators identifies a corresponding horizontal partition associated with the first database table; receiving second data associated with the computing resource; storing the second data in a second database table associated with the first database table; generating a second set of indicators associated with the second database table, wherein each indicator of the second set of indicators specifies a corresponding horizontal partition associated with the second database table; responsive to detecting a partition trigger, identifying a horizontal partition boundary to perform a horizontal partition operation on the database node based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators; performing a horizontal partition operation in relation to the identified horizontal partition boundary to generate a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table and storing a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table on a same database node.”
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process which falls under one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The following limitations are abstract idea: "generating a first set of indicators associated with the first database table, wherein each indicator of the first set of indicators identifies a corresponding horizontal partition associated with the first database table" is a mental process and can be performed in the human mind. "Generating a second set of indicators associated with the second database table, wherein each indicator of the second set of indicators specifies a corresponding horizontal partition associated with the second database table" is a mental process and can be performed in the human mind. “Identifying a horizontal partition boundary to perform a horizontal partition operation on the database node based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators” is a mental process and can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations are additional limitations. "Receiving, by a processing device of a security analytics platform, first data associated with a computing resource;” this limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. "Storing the first data in a first database table associated with the computing resource" and "storing the second data in a second database table associated with the first database table" and “responsive to detecting a partition trigger” and “performing a horizontal partition operation in relation to the identified horizontal partition boundary to generate a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table” and "storing a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table on a same database node" recites at a high level of generality and instructions to apply an exception, or insignificant extra-solution activity, "storing and retrieving information in memory" as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, these recited additional limitations do not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. With respect to the "receiving” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Furthermore, the “storing” limitations are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Furthermore, the “memory” and “processing device, coupled to the memory” of claim 8 as well as the “computer-readable medium” and “processing device” of claim 15 are identified as the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “ii. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” and “v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 receive the same analysis of the independent claims above with regards to Steps 1, 2A and 2B of the analysis, and furthering the Step 2B analysis, the claims further disclose additional element as “wherein the first data comprises telemetry data.” Designation of the data as telemetry data is the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as disclosed as insignificant extra-solution activity in 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 receive the same analysis of the dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 above with regards to Steps 1, 2A and 2B of the analysis. Furthering the Step 2B analysis, the claims further disclose additional element as “wherein the second data comprises change log data associated with the telemetry data.” Designation of data as change log data associated with the telemetry data is the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as disclosed as insignificant extra-solution activity in 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 receive the same analysis of the independent claims above with regards to Steps 1, 2A and 2B of the analysis. The claims further disclose additional element as “wherein at least one indicator of the set of indicators is stored in a column associated with the first database table.”
Furthering the analysis,
Step 2A, prong one
The abstract ideas identified in the independent claims above.
Step 2A, prong two
The following limitations are additional limitations “wherein at least one indicator of the set of indicators is stored in a column associated with the first database table.” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
The additional element of a “first database table” is the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as disclosed as insignificant extra-solution activity in 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 receive the same analysis of the independent claims above with regards to Steps 1, 2A and 2B of the analysis. The claims further disclose additional element as “wherein the first set of indicators is generated in response to determining a data type of the first data.”
Furthering the analysis,
Step 2A, prong one
The abstract ideas identified in the independent claims above.
Step 2A, prong two
The following limitations are additional limitations “wherein the first set of indicators is generated in response to determining a data type of the first data” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
The additional element of a “data type of the first data” is the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as disclosed as insignificant extra-solution activity in 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 7 and 14 receive the same analysis of the independent claims above with regards to Steps 1, 2A and 2B of the analysis. The claims further disclose additional element as “wherein the first set of indicators is generated based on time data.”
Furthering the analysis,
Step 2A, prong one
The abstract ideas identified in the independent claims above.
Step 2A, prong two
The following limitations are additional limitations “wherein the first set of indicators is generated based on time data” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
The additional element of a “time data” is the selecting of a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as disclosed as insignificant extra-solution activity in 2106.05(g).
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 as a whole are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 17 and 19 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,928,099 issued to Sorenson, III et al (hereinafter Sorenson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0125572 issued to Hanckel et al (hereinafter Hanckel).
As to claim 1, Sorenson discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processing device of a security analytics platform, first data associated with a computing resource (receiving data sets for items and storing in the database service, including security services, see Sorenson: Col. 2 lines 16 – 53 and Col. 3 lines 40 – Col. 4 line 3);
storing the first data in a first database table associated with the computing resource (storing the data sets for items in tables within the primary storage of a database service, see Sorenson: Col. 3 line 40 – Col. 4 line 39, Col. 10 lines 23 – 48);
generating a first set of indicators associated with the first database table, wherein each indicator of the first set of indicators identifies a corresponding horizontal partition associated with the first database table (partitioning database by rows and generating snapshots for the data partitions, and further partitioning partitions as needed, including partition IDs, see Sorenson: Col. 6 line 12 – Col. 7 line 28, and partitioning including sharding, see Sorenson: Col. 10 lines 13 – 22, sharding is horizontal partitioning, and partition snapshots and partition changelogs together makeup partition backups, see Sorenson: Col. 7 line 54 – Col. 8 line 11);
receiving second data associated with the computing resource (change log data for the data sets/items including various updates to the items, see Sorenson: Col. 2 lines 27 – 53);
storing the second data in a second database table associated with the first database table (storing the change log data in an in-memory table related to the database, see Sorenson: Col. 2 lines 27 – 53, Col. 10 lines 23 – 48);
generating a second set of indicators associated with the second database table, wherein each indicator of the second set of indicators specifies a corresponding horizontal partition associated with the second database table (partition snapshots and partition changelogs together makeup partition backups, see Sorenson: Col. 7 line 54 – Col. 8 line 11, and change logs utilize key-value pairs and time values for mapping updates to the items of the data sets, see Sorenson: Col. 12 lines 6 – 25, and partitions have unique partition IDs (first data tables) and version numbers (based on updates/changes to the data when the partitions go through a reconfiguration), see Sorenson: Col. 7 lines 16 – 35);
responsive to detecting a partition trigger, identifying a horizontal partition location to perform a horizontal partition operation on the database node (trigger for a partition split, see Sorenson: Col. 7 lines 29 – 53 and Col. 11 line 20 – 41);
performing a horizontal partition operation to generate a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table (partitions are split and moved, additional partition backups including both snapshot of data and change logs, are sharded and stored across multiple locations (nodes, backup nodes, etc.), see Sorenson: Col. 7 lines 16 – 35 and Col. 10 lines 13 – 60); and
storing, based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators, a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table on a same database node (partitions are split and moved, additional partition backups including both snapshot of data and change logs, are sharded and stored across multiple locations (nodes, backup nodes, etc.), see Sorenson: Col. 7 lines 16 – 35 and Col. 10 lines 13 – 60, see also the functionality of a given system or service component (e.g., a component of database service 210) may be implemented by a particular node … a given node may implement the functionality of more than one service system component (e.g., more than one data store component), see Sorenson: Col. 4 lines 4 – 20).
While Sorenson discloses the use of security services, Sorenson does not explicitly disclose a security analytics platform.
Hanckel teaches a security analytics platform (IoT devices including smart security systems and data streams of telemetry data from the IoT devices with analytical functionality, and analyzing the data streams from the IoT devices, see Hanckel: Para. 0005 – 0006, 0009, 0022, 0046, 0056 – 0062).
Hanckel and Sorenson are analogous due to their disclosure of partitioning of data (including horizontal/sharding) and managing of data storage nodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sorenson’s use of sharding of table partitions and change logs across multiple locations with Hanckel’s use of horizontal partition of telemetry data for analysis in order to provide applications with an efficient processing model without loss of horizontal scalability relating to large transactional tables in a database system with non-transactional data streams (see Hanckel: Para. 0010).
However, Sorenson modified by Hanckel does not explicitly disclose responsive to detecting a partition trigger, identifying a horizontal partition boundary to perform a horizontal partition operation on the database node based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators; and performing a horizontal partition operation in relation to the identified horizontal partition boundary to generate a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table.
Ng teaches responsive to detecting a partition trigger, identifying a horizontal partition boundary to perform a horizontal partition operation on the database node based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators (when rebalancing of partitions is recognized (i.e. detecting a trigger), boundary values/limit keys between rows for which to partition the data are extrapolated (i.e. identified) based on unique limit key values for per partition balancing, see Ng: Para. 0013 – 0015, 0022, 0029, 0032 – 0036 and 0041 – 0048 and Fig. 4);
performing a horizontal partition operation in relation to the identified horizontal partition boundary to generate a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table (rebalancing of partitions within a database node using the boundary values of the unique limit keys to move rows between the table partitions, see Ng: Para. 0013 – 0015, 0022, 0029, 0032 – 0036 and 0041 – 0048 and Fig. 4); and
storing, based on the first set of indicators and the second set of indicators, a first partition of the first database table and a corresponding second partition of the second database table on a same database node (storing the rebalanced partitions on the same database node, see Ng: Para. 0013 – 0015, 0022, 0029, 0032 – 0036 and 0041 – 0048 and Fig. 4).
Ng, Hanckel and Sorenson are analogous due to their disclosure of partitioning of data (including horizontal/sharding) and managing of data storage nodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sorenson’s use of sharding of table partitions and change logs across multiple locations with Hanckel’s use of horizontal partition of telemetry data for analysis further with Ng’s use of partitioning boundaries based on indicators for partitioning between rows of a table in order to allow for parallel processing and faster execution of data requests while the user can send a data request without needing to know the specifics of the partitioning of the database and providing of rebalancing of partitioned data in a database management system.
As to claim 2, Sorenson in view of Hanckel and Ng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first data comprises telemetry data (telemetry data from IoT devices and other data sources for analysis, see Hanckel: Para. 0005 – 0006 and 0009).
As to claim 3, Sorenson in view of Hanckel and Ng discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second data comprises change log data associated with the telemetry data (change log for the data items, see Sorenson: Col. 2 lines 16 – 41).
As to claim 5, Sorenson in view of Hanckel and Ng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one indicator of the set of indicators is stored in a column associated with the first database table (items comprise columns and identifiers stored as keys in key-value pairs, see Sorenson: Col. 2 line 27 – 41).
As to claim 6, Sorenson in view of Hanckel and Ng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of indicators is generated in response to determining a data type of the first data (values are according to the type of data, items identified by key-value pairs, see Sorenson: Col. 2 lines 27 – 41).
As to claim 7, Sorenson in view of Hanckel and Ng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of indicators is generated based on time data (items key-value pairs are assigned time values (e.g. timestamps), see Sorenson: Col. 2 lines 27 – 41).
Claims 8 – 10 and 12 - 14 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 7 above. In addition, Sorenson discloses a memory and a processing device (see Sorenson: Col. 14 line 44 – Col. 15 line 53).
Claims 15 – 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 above. In addition, Sorenson discloses memory comprising instructions (see Sorenson: Col. 15 lines 27 – 53).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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 (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights