DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was filed before the mailing date of this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection based on a newly found prior art, Heshmati, US 2015/0288687.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-PGPUB No. 2021/0281572 A1 to Fernandez-Spadaro et al. (hereinafter “Fernandez”), USPAT No. 10345902 B1 to Yildiz et al. (hereinafter “Yildiz”), US-PGPUB No. 2021/0263309 A1 to Rivera Cintron et al. (hereinafter “Rivera”), US-PGPUB No. 2015/0288687 A1 to Heshmati et al. (hereinafter “Heshmati”), and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2020/0145825 A1 to Reimann
Regarding claim 1:
Fernandez discloses:
A method (see Fig. 4, method 200) for managing a device (¶125: “… a method 200 of authenticating and allowing a user (authorized user) to perform the allowed operations when the system 110 (mobile phone 110) is turned ON …”), the method comprising:
determining whether a user is detected and authenticated (¶21-22: “After the user has been authenticated … the system determines persistently and continuously that the authorized user is present.”) […];
However, Fernandez does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Yildiz:
[…] [determining whether a user is detected and authenticated] based on an evaluation of data from persistent presence monitors (Yildiz, col 3, lines 18-22: “If the brainwave detection controller … detects brainwave patterns are present, it may transmit an indication to a CPU of the head mounted display device that a user is present and has donned the head mounted display device.”, see Fig. 3, Brainwave Detection Controller 302) including a head-mounted device (Yildiz, see Figs. 2A-3, Head Mounted Display Device 200) with near-eye video displays (Yildiz, col 10, lines 56-60: “The GPU 314 … may operate to generate three-dimensional primitives within a virtual three-dimensional environment of digital content to be displayed within the head mounted display 110.”, see Fig. 3, Head Mounted Display 110) [….];
wherein the determining comprises detecting a presence of the user using one or more of the persistent presence monitors (Yildiz, col 3, lines 18-22: “… detects brainwave patterns are present, it may transmit an indication to a CPU of the head mounted display device that a user is present and has donned the head mounted display device.”) […..]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Fernandez by modifying the External Companion Device (ECD) 160 (of Fernandez) to incorporate the structure of the head mounted display device 200 of Yildiz which comprises a head mounted display capable of reflecting projected three-dimensional images, such modification would allow the user to interact with both the three-dimensional images projected through the head mounted display and other physical objects in the user’s physical environment, while enabling the system to determine the persistent presence of the user by simply detecting whether the head mounted device is donned or not by the user.
The combination of Fernandez and Yildiz does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Rivera:
[….] comprising a set of pressure sensors arrayed at a top of a view of the head-mounted device (Rivera, ¶291: “The wearable device 1150 can also include … pressure sensors, proximity sensors, … these sensors can be disposed on the frame of the wearable device 1150 … Data acquired by the sensors may be used to determine … whether the user is wearing the wearable device 1150.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Fernandez and Yildiz by substituting the brainwave detector sensors disclosed in Yildiz with the pressure sensors of the wearable device of Rivera to detect persistent presence of a user, such modification would allow the system to detect pressure on multiple parts such as on the nose bridge, on one or both ear stem/temple, on the band that holds the head-mounted display to the user, etc. which has more options than the brainwave detection sensors of Yildiz which is limited to the head.
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz and Rivera does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Heshmati:
and a heart rate monitor, connected with the [head-mounted] device (Heshmati, ¶66: “FIG. 5 illustrates a user 502 wearing wearable device 504 … status monitor 118 may receive a signal representing a state of wearable device 100 that is indicative of whether it is being worn or is otherwise physically associated with the user. … a heart rate monitor sensor … may be used to recognize a heartbeat pattern characteristic of a user.”), configured as both a persistent presence monitor (Heshmati, ¶67: “appropriate sensors may be used to measure … heart rate, … to determine whether wearable device 100 is being continuously worn.”) and an authentication device (Heshmati, ¶66: “… data from camera sensor 506 may be used by an authenticator associated with wearable device 504 … to identify the user. … In still another aspect, … a heart rate monitor sensor … may be used to recognize a heartbeat pattern characteristic of a user.”);
[wherein the determining comprises] […..] and authenticating the user based on evaluation of data from the heart rate monitor (Heshmati, ¶66: “… a heart rate monitor sensor … may be used to recognize a heartbeat pattern characteristic of a user.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Fernandez, Yildiz and Rivera by incorporating the architecture of the wearable device to include a heart-rate monitor, for authenticating and continuous presence monitoring of a user, as disclosed by Heshmati, such modification would allow the system to associate the wearable device to the user using heart-rate sensors than the more complicated brain signal sensors.
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera and Heshmati does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Reimann:
and based on a result of the determining, permitting the device to boot into an operating system of the device (Reimann, ¶13: “The firmware of the computing device does not boot the computing device when the computing device is not within the predetermined proximity of the target location. … the firmware of the computing device can boot the computing device on the condition that the computing device is at the target location.”, ¶17: “… the mechanisms disclosed herein may ensure that the computing device does not boot or operate when the computing device is not located at the target location.”) or shutting down the device without booting into the operating system (Riemann, ¶68: “… the processing device can refrain from booting the computing device and/or can shutting down the computing device.”, see Fig. 8, step 860).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera and Heshmati to incorporate the functionality of the computing device to detect the proximity (presence) of an NFC device at a target location by performing a handshaking process, as disclosed by Reimann, such modification would allow the system to continuously validate and determine whether credential information received matches credential information of an authenticated NFC device to protect the system from intrusion attacks by verifying the identity of the NFC device.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the determining is performed in response to detecting power-on of the device (Fernandez, ¶126: “… If the system 110 is turned ON, then the method 200 moves to step 208, where Persistent User Authentication (PUA) is spawned as a memory-resident program.”).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining includes determining whether a user is present based on the one or more persistent presence monitors, by determining whether input from the persistent presence monitors is consistent with a user being present (Fernandez, ¶119: “… to ensure that the ECD 160 is in proximity to the system 110, the system 110 might be configured in a way that the system 110 has to determine that the ECD 160 is communicatively connected to the system 110 via the short-range n
network protocols such as Bluetooth, RFID at the time of persistently authenticating the user.”).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining includes determining whether a user is present based on one or more authentication devices by determining whether input from the one or more authentication devices is consistent with credentials of a user (Fernandez, ¶27: “an authentication module comprised in the ECD may obtain biometric information of the user and compare it with stored biometric information. If the authentication module of the ECD determines that the biometric information match, then the ECD may send the determination to the system.”).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more persistent presence monitors include one or more of an optical heart rate monitor, a pressure sensor, a proximity detection sensor, and a temporal temperature sensor (Fernandez, see Fig. 2, Pulse Rate Sensor 156, Proximity Sensor 152).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is performed using one or more authentication devices that include one or more of a fingerprint sensor, an iris sensor, and an optical heart rate monitor (Fernandez, ¶78: “The at least one biometric sensor 166 may include a sensor such as … a fingerprint sensor, … a pulse rate sensor, ... The authentication module 168 may include a set of instructions that might be used to verify the biometric information captured by the at least one biometric sensor 166 ...”, see Fig. 2, Pulse Rate Sensor 156, Fingerprint 148).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to one or more persistent presence sensors indicating that a user is not present, or in response to one or more authentication devices indicating that a user is not authenticated, performing one or more of locking the device, disabling network access for the device, and encrypting data of the device (Fernandez, ¶112: “the system 110 might be configured with the accessibility protocol comprising a resolution process. … The resolution process might be initiated at any of the hierarchy layers of authentications/authorizations fails, indicating that a user who is not authorized to use the system i.e., an unauthorized user is trying to access the information on the system 110. … the information might be encrypted, or a preferred method of obfuscation is used to prevent the unauthorized user from accessing the information.”) until presence of the user is detected and the user is reauthenticated (Fernandez, ¶137: “… a resolution process is initiated (step 410), after which, the test for termination (step 612) determines if the system exits/ends (step 616) or the system 110 returns to the previous level in the hierarchy (step 614- Return to Top Level Authentication).”).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to all persistent presence sensors indicating that a user is present and all authentication devices indicating that a user is authenticated, allowing access to the device (Fernandez, ¶22: “If the user is authenticated, then the system allows the user, to view and/or gain control to the user's authorized operations assigned to the user and continue with the set of authorized operations assigned to the user on the allowable resources under allowed context-sensitive restriction, while the system determines persistently and continuously that the authorized user is present.”).
Regarding claim 10:
Fernandez discloses:
A device (see Fig. 3, ECD 160), comprising:
persistent presence monitors (¶47: “Each ECD 1460/1490 is capable of determining persistent presence of an authorized user …”) […]
an access control component (Fernandez, see Fig. 3, Second Processor), configured to:
However, Fernandez does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Yildiz:
[…] [persistent presence monitors] including a head-mounted device (Yildiz, see Fig. 3, Head Mounted Display Device 200) with near-eve video displays (Yildiz, see Fig. 3, Head Mounted Display 110) [….]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Fernandez by modifying the External Companion Device (ECD) 160 (of Fernandez) to incorporate the structure of the head mounted display device 200 of Yildiz which comprises a head mounted display capable of reflecting projected three-dimensional images, such modification would allow the user to interact with both the three-dimensional images projected through the head mounted display and other physical objects in the user’s physical environment, while enabling the system to determine the persistent presence of the user by simply detecting whether the head mounted device is donned or not by the user.
The combination of Fernandez and Yildiz does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Rivera:
[….] comprising a set of pressure sensors arrayed at a top of a view area of the head-mounted device (Rivera, ¶291: “The wearable device 1150 can also include … pressure sensors, … disposed on the frame of the wearable device 1150 …”) …;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Fernandez and Yildiz by substituting the brainwave detector sensors disclosed in Yildiz with the pressure sensors of the wearable device of Rivera to detect persistent presence of a user, such modification would allow the system to detect pressure on multiple parts such as on the nose bridge, on one or both ear stem/temple, on the band that holds the head-mounted display to the user, etc. which has more options than the brainwave detection sensors of Yildiz which is limited to the head.
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz and Rivera does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Heshmati:
and a heart rate monitor, connected with the [head-mounted] device (Heshmati, ¶66: “FIG. 5 illustrates a user 502 wearing wearable device 504 … status monitor 118 may receive a signal representing a state of wearable device 100 that is indicative of whether it is being worn or is otherwise physically associated with the user. … a heart rate monitor sensor … may be used to recognize a heartbeat pattern characteristic of a user.”), configured as both a persistent presence monitor (Heshmati, ¶67: “appropriate sensors may be used to measure … heart rate, … to determine whether wearable device 100 is being continuously worn.”) and an authentication device (Heshmati, ¶66: “… data from camera sensor 506 may be used by an authenticator associated with wearable device 504 … to identify the user. … In still another aspect, … a heart rate monitor sensor … may be used to recognize a heartbeat pattern characteristic of a user.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Fernandez, Yildiz and Rivera by incorporating the architecture of the wearable device to include a heart-rate monitor, for authenticating and continuous presence monitoring of a user, as disclosed by Heshmati, such modification would allow the system to associate the wearable device to the user using heart-rate sensors than the more complicated brain signal sensors.
In addition to the above limitations, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in the form of a device realizing the corresponding method, therefore it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claims 11-17:
Claims 11-17 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 2-8, respectively, in the form of a device realizing the corresponding method, therefore they are rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 9 and18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati, Reimann, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2022/0148009 A1 to Vyas et al. (hereinafter “Vyas”)
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Vyas:
further comprising,
operating an electromagnetic radiation emitter to interfere with recording of output of a display device of the device (Vyas, ¶25: “… when the machine-readable code is on a display of the user's mobile device, an output component … may emit IR light to prevent other devices from capturing the display having the machine-readable code.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Fernandez, Yildiz, Rivera, Heshmati and Reimann to incorporate the functionality of the output component to emit IR light to prevent other devices from capturing the display having a machine-readable code, as disclosed by Vyas, such modification would allow the system to prevent unauthorized copying of sensitive materials from a display device.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 9 in the form of a device realizing the corresponding method, therefore it is rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 28, 21-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-PGPUB No. 20220046023 A1 to Friend et al. (hereinafter “Friend”), and further in view of Reimann
Regarding claim 28:
Friend discloses:
(New) A method for managing a device (see the method of Fig. 6), the method comprising:
determining whether a user is detected (¶67: “wherein the user device determines that the user is detected based on information generated by a wearable device based on detecting a heartbeat of the user;”) and authenticated (¶67: “determining, by a user device, that a user has been authenticated;”) based on an evaluation of data received from one or more physical monitoring devices (see Fig. 5, second user device 504) associated with the user (¶67: “wherein the user device determines that the user is detected based on information generated by a wearable device based on detecting a heartbeat of the user;”) that comprise a wearable heart rate monitor (¶91: “a second user device 504 (e.g., a wearable device including hardware and software for detecting a heartbeat)”) configured as both a persistent presence monitor (¶98: “The wearable device may be leveraged to assure that the user is alive and well and wearing the wearable device in a substantially continuous fashion.”) and an authentication device (¶34: “The second application may transmit an indication that the user is wearing a wearable device and that the wearable device detects a heartbeat of the user. If both notifications are received within a threshold time period, then a server computer may issue a trust token indicating that the user is trusted and can be granted access to a resource.”), wherein the determining includes determining, based on the wearable heart rate monitor, a presence of the user based on a detection of a heartbeat signal and determining that the user is authenticated based on evaluation of a heart rate pattern of the user (¶11: “determining, by a user device, that a user has been authenticated; … determining, by the user device, that the user is detected, wherein the user device determines that the user is detected based on information generated by a wearable device based on detecting a heartbeat of the user; … wherein the server computer generates or maintains a trust token for the user based on receiving the two indications within a time period.”);
However, Friend does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Reimann:
and based a result of the evaluation of the data executed in the determining, controlling an operating state of the device to either boot (Reimann, ¶13: “The firmware of the computing device does not boot the computing device when the computing device is not within the predetermined proximity of the target location. … the firmware of the computing device can boot the computing device on the condition that the computing device is at the target location.”, ¶17: “… the mechanisms disclosed herein may ensure that the computing device does not boot or operate when the computing device is not located at the target location.”) or shutting down the device without booting into the operating system (Riemann, ¶68: “… the processing device can refrain from booting the computing device and/or can shutting down the computing device.”, see Fig. 8, step 860).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Friend to incorporate the functionality of the computing device to detect the proximity (presence) of an NFC device at a target location by performing a handshaking process, as disclosed by Reimann, such modification would allow the system to continuously validate and determine whether credential information received matches credential information of an authenticated NFC device to protect the system from intrusion attacks by verifying the identity of the NFC device.
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein the determining includes determining whether a user is present based on the one or more persistent presence monitors, by determining whether input from the persistent presence monitors is consistent with a user being present (Friend, ¶99: “… the wearable device and/or associated application on the user device may analyze the detected heartbeat. For example, the user device may analyze the pattern and continuity of the heartbeat to assure it matches that of the authorized user, based on collected historical data associated with the user's heartbeat. The historical data may correspond to stored heartbeats of the user.”).
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein the determining includes determining whether a user is present based on one or more authentication devices by determining whether input from the one or more authentication devices is consistent with credentials of a user (Friend, ¶41: “… may prompt the user to enter a password, personal identification number (PIN), biometric data, or the like. This data may then be used to authenticate the user.”).
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein the one or more persistent presence monitors includes one or more of an optical heart rate monitor (Friend, ¶40: “The second user device 104 may include functionality to detect and/or monitor a pulse or other data about the user wearing the device.”), a pressure sensor, and a temporal temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein determining is performed using the one or more authentication devices that include one or more of a finger print sensor, an iris sensor, and an optical heart rate monitor (Friend, ¶11: “determining, by the user device, that the user is detected, wherein the user device determines that the user is detected based on information generated by a wearable device based on detecting a heartbeat of the user;”).
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses:
The method of claim 28, further comprising:
wherein allowing or denying access to the device includes:
in response to all persistent presence sensors indicating that a user is present and all authentication devices indicating that a user is authenticated, allowing access to the device (Friend, ¶110: “access to the resource may be granted based on identifying a valid trust token at step 618. The trust token may be used to assure an entity that the user is authenticated and behaving in a normal fashion, i.e., should remain authenticated. ”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend, Reimann, and further in view of Fernandez
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses the method of claim 28, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Fernandez:
wherein:
the determining is performed in response to detecting power-on of the device (Fernandez, ¶126: “If the system 110 is turned ON, then the method 200 moves to step 208, where Persistent User Authentication (PUA) is spawned as a memory-resident program.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Friend and Reimann to incorporate the functionality of method to check for the Persistent User Authentication (PUA) if the system is turned ON, and turning ON or booting the Operating System once the authorized user is authenticated, as disclosed by Fernandez, such modification would provide a higher level of security than simply relying on OS-level login screens, and creates a trusted, locked-down environment before the main operating system even loads.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend, Reimann, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2013/0167212 A1 to Azar et al. (hereinafter “Azar”)
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Friend and Reimann discloses the method of claim 28, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Azar:
further comprising:
wherein allowing or denying access to the device includes:
in response to one or more persistent presence sensors indicating that a user is not present (Azar, ¶31: “If an authenticated user steps out of the field of view of the camera 307, …”), or in response to one or more authentication devices indicating that a user is not authenticated, locking the device (Azar, ¶31: “… an optional delayed locking timer process is initiated 309. ... After this process is complete, the device is locked 311.”, ¶35: “… the delayed locking timer permits the user to set how quickly the system locks to match the user's usage requirements.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Friend and Reimann to incorporate the functionality of method to provide a delayed locking timer when an authenticated user is not detected, as disclosed by Fernandez, such modification provides a simplified means of maintaining security of a user device while the user is situated outside the persistent monitoring device’s field of view..
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend, Reimann, and further in view of Vyas
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Friend and Reimann teaches the method of claim 28, but does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Vyas:
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
operate an electromagnetic radiation emitter to interfere with recording of output of a display device of the device (Vyas, ¶25: “… when the machine-readable code is on a display of the user's mobile device, an output component … may emit IR light to prevent other devices from capturing the display having the machine-readable code.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Friend and Reimann to incorporate the functionality of the output component to emit IR light to prevent other devices from capturing the display having a machine-readable code, as disclosed by Vyas, such modification would allow the system to prevent unauthorized copying of sensitive materials from a display device.
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 MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, William R. Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights