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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to 35 USC 101 on page 7 filed 09/03/2025, and on page 6 filed 09/09/2025, the 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
In response to 35 USC 103 on page 8, filed 09/03/2025, applicant argues that Sheets fails to teach each of the user devices is configured for at least one of peer-to-peer enrollment and peer-to-peer authentication.
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot, because the newly recited amendment does not rely on the newly recited reference being applied to the prior rejection of record or any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to 35 USC 103 on page 8, filed 09/03/2025, applicant argues that Sheets fails to teach under a condition wherein only the public data of a given one of the first and second user devices is shared with other devices.
The Examiner does not concede. Sheets teaches “under a condition wherein only the public data of a given one of the first and second user devices is shared with other devices”. Sheets the reference biometric template can be transmitted to a second user device, such that biometric authentication can be used at the second user device without having to establish another reference biometric template or otherwise repeat the enrollment process [0011][0055]. Allowing sharing biometric data or completing biometric authentication for any other suitable purpose. Biometric data can be shared form one personal user device to another [0148]”. Sheets discloses public data of a given first and second user devices is shared with other devices.
Examiner indicated from the interview that the applicant should amend the public data. As drafted, the claim recites biometric public key data and not a biometric public key. The claim language biometric public key data is being interpreted as biometric data. Furthermore, Sheets discloses an authentication based on biometric data.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain the claim language “if”. This claim language “if” is not a positive recited language. It is unknown whether the function after the if is necessary. Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (EP 3504859) in view of Krieger et al. (US 20180137267, hereinafter Krieger).
Re. claim 1, Sheets discloses a system including first and second devices, each user device comprising: a processor (Sheets discloses a processor [0033]); an instruction memory (Sheets discloses a memory [0034]); and a transducer (Sheets discloses an antenna [0033]);
an individual has been enrolled using biometric information of the individual that is stored on the first user device, and the second user device is configured for use by a subject purporting to be the individual (Sheets discloses methods and systems for storing and sharing biometric data [0011]. The system 100 comprises a first user device 110 that is operated by a user and that includes a service provider application 120K. The system 100 also includes a second user device 120 that is also operated by the user and includes a copy of the same service provider application 120K [0029]. A user may enroll into a biometric authentication [0037]), each user devices is configured to execute computer instructions, stored in its instruction memory, establishing computer processes pursuant to a protocol (Sheets discloses the mobile device 130 may also comprise display 130B for displaying data to a user and processor 130A for processing data and executing instructions to complete tasks [0033]), the computer processes comprising: receiving, directly by the second user device, of biometric information of the subject (Sheets discloses the first user device 110 and/or the second user device 120 may be any suitable type of device operated by a user [0031]. a user device in the form of a mobile device 130. The mobile device 130 may further comprise a biometric reader 130G for reading biometrics of a user and a biometric interface 130F for transmitting data between the biometric reader 130G and an application of the user device [0032]); generating, by each of the first and second user devices, public data corresponding to biometric data received by such user device (Sheets discloses receiving biometric data from the biometric reader 130G (e.g., via the biometric interface 130F) and generating a biometric template from the biometric data. The biometric template can be data comprising features of a biometric required for accurate matching [0036]); under a condition wherein only the public data of a given one of the first and second user devices is shared with other devices, (Sheets discloses the reference biometric template can be transmitted to a second user device, such that biometric authentication can be used at the second user device without having to establish another reference biometric template or otherwise repeat the enrollment process [0011][0055]. Allowing sharing biometric data or completing biometric authentication for any other suitable purpose. Biometric data can be shared form one personal user device to another [0148]), determining if a function of the public data developed by the first user device matches a function of the public data developed by the second user device above a predetermined confidence threshold, and if so, authenticating the subject as the individual (Sheets discloses a first biometric template stored during enrollment may be compared to a second biometric template to authenticate a user. In one embodiment, two biometric templates may be considered a match if a predetermined number of data elements of the biometric templates match. comparing data elements of two biometric templates and determining a match if the data elements match within a predetermined threshold (e.g. at least 90% of characters matching between two strings), In some embodiments, the biometric templates can be compared by using less data than the entire biometric template, and the comparison process can use a "zero-knowledge proof" protocol [0056][0082][0087][0106]).
Although Sheets discloses enrollment, authentication, and under a condition wherein only the public data of a given one of the first and second user devices is shared with other devices, determining if a function of the public data developed by the first user device matches a function of the public data developed by the second user device above a predetermined confidence threshold, and if so, authenticating the subject as the individual, Sheets does not explicitly teach but Krieger teaches wherein each of the user device is configured for at least one of peer-to-peer enrollment and peer-to-peer authentication in cooperation with the other user device (Krieger teaches the components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), an inter-network (e.g., the Internet), and peer-to-peer networks (e.g., ad hoc peer-to-peer networks) [0129]. The confidence score can indicate the probability that the audio (or other) fingerprint is associated with a registered or authorized user of the computing device that transmitted the audio-based input [0109]);
determining, in a set of peer-to-peer communications between the first and second user devices, if a function of the biometric public key data developed by the first user device matches a function of the biometric public key data developed by the second user device above a predetermined confidence threshold (Krieger teaches the data processing system can request the first and second location indications and generate a confidence score based on a distance between the first and second physical locations of the first and second location indications. The confidence score can be related to the distance between the physical locations. For example, the confidence score can be higher for a separation distance that is small compared to a separation distance that is large because the data processing system can determine that second computing device, which is with the registered user, is near the first computing device that transmitted the audio-based input. The calculation of the confidence score can occur before the generation of the audio fingerprint. If the confidence score is above a predetermined threshold, the data processing system can use a fingerprint generation algorithm that is less computationally intensive as compared to when the confidence score is below the predetermined threshold [0113]. The action can be identified based on the confidence score being above a predetermined threshold. When the confidence score is above the predetermined threshold, the data processing system can determine the audio-based input was generated by a registered user of the first computing device [0114] [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets to include wherein each of the user device is configured for at least one of peer-to-peer enrollment and peer-to-peer authentication in cooperation with the other user device; determining, in a set of peer-to-peer communications between the first and second user devices, if a function of the biometric public key data developed by the first user device matches a function of the biometric public key data developed by the second user device above a predetermined confidence threshold as disclosed by Krieger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of improved performance, scalability and speeds up transfer process.
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (EP 3504859) in view of Krieger et al. (US 20180137267, hereinafter Krieger) and in further view of Bringer et al. (“Privacy-Preserving Biometric Identification Using Secure Multiparty Computation”, hereinafter Bringer).
Re. claim 5, Sheets-Krieger teach the system according to claim 1, wherein in developing the function of the public data by the first user device and the second user device (Sheets discloses receiving biometric data from the biometric reader 130G (e.g., via the biometric interface 130F) and generating a biometric template from the biometric data. The biometric template can be data comprising features of a biometric required for accurate matching [0036]), Sheets-Krieger do not explicitly teach but Bringer teaches comprise running a secure multiparty computation protocol between the first and second user devices to compute a biometric matching function between the biometric information of the individual and of the subject without either one of the first or second user devices revealing its respective biometric information to the other device (Bringer teach SMC to biometric identification protocols. A biometric identification process, a server holds a database of biometric templates and a client owns one biometric sample. They execute a protocol to know if the biometric sample is similar, w.r.t. a given measure, to one of the elements of the database. The result of the computation can be, for instance, a Boolean, or the index of the closest element in the database (close set), or a list of indices of the closest elements, or a probabilistic measure of similarity or dissimilarity between templates. When SMC techniques are applied, the client and the server can interactively compute this biometric identification, while particularly not revealing to each other the biometric data that are involved in the protocol [Page 2, Introduction]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include running a secure multiparty computation protocol between the first and second user devices to compute a biometric matching function between the biometric information of the individual and of the subject without either one of the first or second user devices revealing its respective biometric information to the other device as disclosed by Bringer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of compute biometric identification, while not revealing to each other the biometric data (Bringer [Page 2]).
Re. claim 6, the combination of Sheets-Krieger-Bringer teach the system according to claim 5, Bringer further teaches wherein the secure multiparty computation protocol comprises: running an oblivious transfer (OT) step plus an execution of Yao's garbled circuits in a first direction from the first user device to the second user device to produce, in each device, a first output key; running an oblivious transfer (OT) step plus an execution of Yao's garbled circuits in a second direction from the second user device to the first user device to produce, in each user device, a second output key; and combining, by each user device, the first and second output keys to produce a final output key (Bringer teach an OT is a cryptographic primitive that enables a receiver to obtain one out of N elements held by a sender, without learning information about the other elements and without the sender knowing which element has been chosen [Page 2, Oblivios Transfers]. Each wire of the circuit, we associate two keys one per possible bit[Page 2, Garbling a Circuit]. Garbled gate using the two input keys that he knows. When decryption is possible, the evaluator learns the output key and can use it to evaluate another garbled gate. Final garbled AND gate[Page 3] Figs 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include running an oblivious transfer (OT) step plus an execution of Yao's garbled circuits in a first direction from the first user device to the second user device to produce, in each device, a first output key; running an oblivious transfer (OT) step plus an execution of Yao's garbled circuits in a second direction from the second user device to the first user device to produce, in each user device, a second output key; and combining, by each user device, the first and second output keys to produce a final output key as disclosed by Bringer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of perform generic secure two-party computation (Bringer [Page 3]).
Re. claim 11, the combination of Sheets-Krieger teach the system according to claim 1, before determining if the function of the public data developed by the first user device matches the function of the public data developed by the second user device above the predetermined confidence threshold, receiving, by the broker, specification information for the second device (Sheets discloses a first biometric template stored during enrollment may be compared to a second biometric template to authenticate a user. In one embodiment, two biometric templates may be considered a match if a predetermined number of data elements of the biometric templates match. comparing data elements of two biometric templates and determining a match if the data elements match within a predetermined threshold (e.g. at least 90% of characters matching between two strings), In some embodiments, the biometric templates can be compared by using less data than the entire biometric template, and the comparison process can use a "zero-knowledge proof" protocol [0056][0082][0087][0106]).
Sheets-Krieger do not explicitly teach but Bringer teaches following a determination by the broker that the specification information for the second user device is compatible with specification information for the first user device, facilitating completion of authenticating the subject as the individual (Bringer teach a biometric identification process, a server holds a database of biometric templates and a client owns one biometric sample. They execute a protocol to know if the biometric sample is similar, w.r.t. a given measure, to one of the elements of the database. The result of the computation can be, for instance, a Boolean, or the index of the closest element in the database (close set), or a list of indices of the closest elements, or a probabilistic measure of similarity or dissimilarity between templates. When SMC techniques are applied, the client and the server can interactively compute this biometric identification, while particularly not revealing to each other the biometric data that are involved in the protocol [Page 2, Introduction]. N secure distance computation between X and each of the Y 2) Secure comparison of these distances to a threshold 3) Output of the identification. Output can be a yes/no answer, or a list of indices against which the client reference matches. All data exchanged by parties following the protocol do not give more information to one party about the other party’s input than the output [Page 5, Setting]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include following a determination by the broker that the specification information for the second user device is compatible with specification information for the first user device, facilitating completion of authenticating the subject as the individual as disclosed by Bringer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of compute biometric identification, while not revealing to each other the biometric data (Bringer [Page 2]).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (EP 3504859) in view of Krieger et al. (US 20180137267, hereinafter Krieger) in view of Lindemann (CN 111602116) and in further view of Malpani et al. (US 20140139318, hereinafter Malpani).
Re. claim 2, Sheets-Krieger teach the system according to claim 1, connecting the first and second user devices for at least one of peer-to-peer enrollment and peer-to-peer authentication (Krieger teaches the components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), an inter-network (e.g., the Internet), and peer-to-peer networks (e.g., ad hoc peer-to-peer networks) [0129]. The confidence score can indicate the probability that the audio (or other) fingerprint is associated with a registered or authorized user of the computing device that transmitted the audio-based input [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets to include connecting the first and second user devices for at least one of peer-to-peer enrollment and peer-to-peer authentication as disclosed by Krieger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of improved performance, scalability and speeds up transfer process.
Sheets does not explicitly teach but Lindemann teaches wherein the first user device is one of a plurality of candidate user devices that are registered with a broker and that purport to store the biometric information of the individual, and the processor of the second user device executes computer processes comprising: providing, by the second user device, specification information for the second device to the broker (LINDEMANN teaches Biometric reference data 110 is typically the result of an enrollment process in which a user enrolls a fingerprint, voice sample, image, or other biometric data with device 100 [0007]. enroll and register the user/device with the relying party [0159]);
following receiving a selection of the first user device, by the broker, from among the plurality of candidate user devices (LINDEMANN teaches registration of the user through the verification device [0557]. The user can select a verification device (or set of) [0558]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include wherein the first user device is one of a plurality of candidate user devices that are registered with a broker and that purport to store biometric information of the individual, and the system executes computer processes comprising: providing, by the second device, specification information for the second user device to the broker; from among the plurality of candidate user devices; connecting the first and second user devices for at least one of peer-to-peer enrollment and authentication as disclosed by Lindemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of provide secure user authentication over the network. (Lindemann [0008]).
The combination of Sheets-Krieger-Lindemann do not explicitly teach but Malpani teaches by the broker from among the plurality of candidate user devices based on the specification information for the second user device and specification information stored by the broker for each of the plurality of candidate user devices (Malpani teaches the entries for the users other than the subject user can be randomly or otherwise selected from the generic database [0024-0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Sheets-Krieger-Lindemann to include by the broker from among the plurality of candidate user devices based on the specification information for the second user device and specification information stored by the broker for each of the plurality of candidate user devices as disclosed by Malpani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of provide to determine a best match. (Malpani [0002]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (EP 3504859) in view of Krieger et al. (US 20180137267, hereinafter Krieger) in view of Lindemann (CN 111602116) and in further view of Chen et al. (US 20210157938, hereinafter Chen).
Re. claim 4, the combination of Sheets-Krieger-Lindemann teach the system according to claim 3, the combination of Sheets-Krieger-Lindemann do not explicitly teach but Chen teaches wherein transferring user data from the first user device to the second user device after the subject has been authenticated as the individual comprises: encrypting, by the first user device, data stored on the first user device using the function of the biometric public key data developed by the first user device; transmitting, by the first user device to the second user device, the encrypted data; decrypting, by the second user device, the encrypted data to recover the data using the function of the biometric public key data developed by the second user device; and storing, by the second user device, the data in the second user device (Chen teaches after the second application client obtaining the authorization information, the second application client obtaining the encrypted user data from a blockchain database corresponding to a blockchain node based on the identification information of the encrypted user data in the authorization information, decrypting the encrypted user data using the decryption key in the authorization information to obtain a hash value of the user data [0078]. Identification information of the second application client and a public key of the second application client can be stored in association with each other [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Sheets-Krieger-Lindemann to include encrypting, by the first user device, data stored on the first user device; transmitting, by the first user device to the second user device, the encrypted data; decrypting, by the second user device, the encrypted data to recover the data using the function of the public data developed by the second user device; and storing, by the second user device, the data in the second user device as disclosed by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of secure and effective user data authorization mechanism is provided to realize sharing of user data between different applications (Chen [0039]).
Claims 3, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheets (EP 3504859) in view of Krieger et al. (US 20180137267, hereinafter Krieger) and in further in view of Lindemann (CN 111602116).
Re. claim 3, Sheets teach the system according to claim 1, Sheets-Krieger do not explicitly teach but Lindemann teaches further comprising: transferring user data from the first user device to the second user device after the subject has been authenticated as the individual (LINDEMANN teaches after registration is complete, the client device shares the secret key with the relying party via a secure communication channel [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include transferring user data from the first device to the second device after the subject has been authenticated as the individua as disclosed by Lindemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of provide secure user authentication over the network. (Lindemann [0008]).
Re. claim 7, Sheets-Krieger teach the system according to claim 1, Sheets-Krieger do not explicitly teach but Lindemann teaches wherein the system contains a secure enclave for processing biometric data (LINDEMANN teaches verification devices may include biometric devices TPMS [0548]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include herein the system contains a secure enclave for processing biometric data as disclosed by Lindemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of provide more security to information and perform the verification (Lindemann [0388]).
Re. claim 8, Sheets-Krieger-Lindemann teach the system according to claim 7, Sheets-Krieger do not explicitly teach but Lindemann teaches wherein each enclave is configured to attest its integrity prior to authentication (LINDEMANN teaches each authentication device 4610-4612 may have its own integrated secure storage [0549]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to include wherein each enclave is configured to attest its integrity prior to authentication as disclosed by Lindemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of provide more security to information and perform the verification (Lindemann [0388]).
Re. claim 10, Sheets-Krieger teach the system according to claim 1, before determining if the biometric information of the subject received by the second user device matches, above a predetermined confidence threshold, the biometric information of the individual, receiving, by the broker, specification information for the second user device (Sheets discloses a first biometric template stored during enrollment may be compared to a second biometric template to authenticate a user. In one embodiment, two biometric templates may be considered a match if a predetermined number of data elements of the biometric templates match. comparing data elements of two biometric templates and determining a match if the data elements match within a predetermined threshold (e.g. at least 90% of characters matching between two strings), In some embodiments, the biometric templates can be compared by using less data than the entire biometric template, and the comparison process can use a "zero-knowledge proof" protocol [0056][0082][0087][0106]).
Sheets discloses register, Sheets-Krieger do not explicitly teach but Lindemann teaches wherein the first device is one of a plurality of candidate user devices that are registered with a broker (LINDEMANN teach an enrollment process in which the user enrolls with the client's biometric device to generate biometric template data (e.g., by swiping a finger, taking a photo, recording a voice, etc.). Registration may be conducted under the direction of the relying party's secure transaction server or may be conducted autonomously by the user. The user may then register the biometric device with secure transaction servers over the network [0418]. Registration of the user through the verification device [0557]. The user can select a verification device (or set of) [0558]), the broker comprising a broker processor executing computer instructions establishing computer processes by which the broker is configured to determine whether an unregistered device is compatible with the candidate user device, and wherein the protocol further includes computer processes comprising: following a determination by the broker that the specification information for the second user device is incompatible with the specification information for the candidate user devices (LINDEMANN teach authentication engine 3310 performs remote authentication to the relying party to verify that the legitimate user is in possession of the client device [0417]. the verification engine 3310 includes an assurance level calculation module 3306 for calculating an assurance level corresponding to the likelihood that a legitimate user is in possession of the client device 3300 [0419]. The results of the verification can be provided to the relying party over the network in a manner that protects user privacy (e.g., without providing data that specifically identifies the client device). the assurance level itself and/or an indication of verification success or failure may be provided to the relying party without disclosing any confidential user information [0431], determine if second device is compatible by verifying the second device with first device); preventing completion of authenticating the subject as the individual (LINDEMANN teach the results of the verification can be provided to the relying party over the network in a manner that protects user privacy (e.g., without providing data that specifically identifies the client device). The assurance level itself and/or an indication of verification success or failure may be provided to the relying party without disclosing any confidential user information [0431], failure prevents completion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sheets-Krieger to wherein the first device is one of a plurality of candidate devices that are registered with a broker, the broker executing computer instructions establishing computer processes by which the broker is configured to determine whether an unregistered device is compatible with the candidate device, and wherein the protocol further includes computer processes comprising: following a determination by the broker that the specification information for the second device is incompatible with the specification information for the candidate; preventing completion of authenticating the subject as the individual as disclosed by Lindemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of provide to provide more security to information and perform the verification (Lindemann [0388]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Desai (US 20180114226) discloses biometric authentication may be applied to complete the transaction. Moreover, the transaction can be completed across different browsers. In an implementation, a long-term token is not utilized. Instead, when a user opts into the disclosed implementation, a private and public key pair is generated on the client side device.
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 KEVIN A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-3912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM; Friday: Variable EST.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/KEVIN AYALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496