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 .
Applicant amended claims 1, 4, and 8 in the RCE filed on 01/12/2026. Claims 7 and 9 are canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-11 remain pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, and 10-11 filed on 01/12/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, “threshold confidence scores” should read “confidence score thresholds”;
Claim 1, lines 4-5, “a threshold confidence score of the different threshold confidence scores” should read “a confidence score threshold of the different confidence score thresholds”;
Claim 1, lines 18-19, “the threshold confidence score” should read “the confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, lines 2-3, “a first threshold confidence score and a second threshold confidence score” should read “a first confidence score threshold and a second confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, line 3, “the first threshold confidence score” should read “the first confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, line 4, “the second threshold confidence score” should read “the second confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, lines 4-5, “the first threshold confidence score” should read “the first confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, lines 5-6, “the second threshold confidence score” should read “the second confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, lines 8-9, “the first threshold confidence score or second threshold confidence score” should read “the first confidence score threshold or the second confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, line 18, the first threshold confidence score” should read “the first confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, lines 18-19, “the first threshold confidence score” should read “the first confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, lines 20-21, “the second threshold confidence score” should read “the second confidence score threshold”;
Claim 8, line 22, “the second threshold confidence score” should read “the second confidence score threshold”;
Claim 10, lines 1-2, “threshold confidence scores” should read “confidence score thresholds”;
Claim 10, line 2, “threshold confidence scores” should read “confidence score thresholds”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses “three classes of actions” in pages 3-4, and “a threshold comparison function 306 identifies the type of action being requested and, from that, a corresponding confidence score threshold” in last paragraph of page 5. The examiner is unable to find support for “classifying different actions into different threshold confidence score categories”, “determining which threshold confidence score category of the different threshold confidence score categories the action falls into”, and “authorizing the action in response to the confidence score falling within the threshold confidence score category for the action” in claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “in response to the confidence score falling within the threshold confidence score category for the action” in lines 12-13, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The previous limitation recites “the action falls into threshold confidence score category” lines 5-6, it is unclear how the confidence score falling within the threshold confidence score category.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2014/0379354 A1), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Zeppenfeld et al. (US 2014/0254778 A1), hereinafter Zeppenfeld, in view of Xu et al. (US 2020/0336503 A1), hereinafter Xu, and in view of Liang et al. (US 10,412,206 B1), hereinafter Liang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses
A method of authorization, the method comprising:
receiving a request for an action ([0093]: transmit a current payment validation request to the server);
receiving metadata relating to the request ([0093]: the current payment validation request includes the identification information input b the user);
retrieving a record from a database (pre-stored identification information acquired from a registration server), the record having one or more fields matching the metadata ([0095]: detect whether the identification information is identical to the pre-stored identification information acquired from a registration server);
receiving speech audio from the request ([0093]: the current payment validation request includes the current voice signal spoken by the user and collected by a microphone on the terminal);
computing a current voiceprint from the speech audio ([0131]: extracting the current voice characteristics associated with the identity information and the text password in the current voice signal);
reading a stored voiceprint indicated by the record ([0132]: matching the current voice characteristics extracted by the first extraction module to the speaker model pre-stored by the storage module);
computing a voiceprint closeness between the current voiceprint and the stored voiceprint ([0100]: match the current voice characteristics (i.e., frequency bands displayed in time-domain or a voice envelop) to the pre-stored speaker model);
authorizing the action ([0109]: if the current voice characteristics is successfully matched to the pre-stored speaker model, then the server indicates in the validation reply information that the current speaker and the text password spoken are the same as the speaker and the text password pre-stored at the time of user registration, the server proceeds to allow the user to perform a subsequent payment operation).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose
computing a dependability score by applying dependability weights to the matched metadata;
computing a confidence score of a match between the request and the record based on the dependability score and the voiceprint closeness; and
in response to the confidence score exceeding the threshold confidence score determined for the action.
However, Zeppenfeld discloses
computing a dependability score by applying dependability weights to the matched metadata ([0025]: generate one or more initial scores based on the metadata and voice prints; & [0028]: the type of metadata is also be weighted to correlate with the likelihood that a piece of metadata authenticates a caller), the dependability weights calculated at least in part by determining if there was a match between a recent prior request and the database record ([0026]: an incoming call late at night or in the middle of the night receives a high fraud weighting where transactional history data indicates the user typically calls during the morning; a recent prior request corresponds to an incoming call and database record corresponds to transactional history data);
computing a confidence score of a match between the request and the record based on the dependability score and the voiceprint closeness ([0033]: an identification confidence score is generated; the identification confidence score is combination of the initial score(s) and the confidence interval score; & [0025]: generate one or more initial scores based on the metadata and voice prints;); and
authorizing the action in response to the confidence score exceeding the threshold confidence score determined for the action ([0005]: determine whether to authenticate caller based on the one or more initial scores and the confidence interval score; & [0033]: the resulting identification confidence score is graded and presented to a call agent in numerical form, using color coding, or any other way; & [0034]: the initial score of 500 minus twenty-five yields an identification confidence score of 475, making the user authorized to perform the exemplary transaction of paying a bill).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Zeppenfeld to Zhang because Zhang discloses matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (abstract) and Zeppenfeld further suggests authenticate user based on scores ([0005]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Zeppenfeld in the Zhang system in order to accurately identify user by using confidence score.
Zhang and Zeppenfeld do not explicitly disclose
defining different threshold confidence scores for different actions;
determining a threshold confidence score of the different threshold confidence scores for the action.
However, Xu discloses
defining different threshold confidence scores for different actions ([0080]: assign different thresholds to different action types);
determining a threshold confidence score of the different threshold confidence scores for the action ([0080]: assign different thresholds to different action types; the different thresholds may be determined based on the severity of the consequences of misusing the action; & [0086]: thresholds may be determined individually for each action).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Xu to Zhang and Zeppenfeld because Zhang and Zeppenfeld disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (Zhang: abstract) and Xu further suggests assign different thresholds to different action types ([0080]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Xu in the Zhang and Zeppenfeld system in order to provide more accurate and targeted analysis.
Zhang, Zeppenfeld, and Xu do not explicitly disclose
the confidence score represents a likelihood that the request originates from an identified user associated with the retrieved record.
However, Liang discloses
the confidence score represents a likelihood that the request originates from an identified user associated with the retrieved record (Col. 29, lines 37-43: identifying speakers of voice inputs, determining confidence scores, comparing attributes of voice input to store data; & Col. 37, lines 10-18: determine scores indicating whether the command originated from particular users).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Liang to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, and Xu because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, and Xu disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (Zhang: abstract) and Liang further suggests classifying query to predefined category with a match score ([0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Liang in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, and Xu system in order to provide secure system.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 4 are similar to the limitations of claim 1. Xu further teaches the claimed limitation(s):
classifying different actions into different threshold confidence score categories ([0080]: assign different thresholds to different action types);
determining which threshold confidence score category of the different threshold confidence score categories the action falls into ([0080]: assign different thresholds to different action types; the different thresholds may be determined based on the severity of the consequences of misusing the action).
Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Zeppenfeld, in view of Xu, in view of Liang, and further in view of Casillas et al. (US 9,203,860 B1), hereinafter Casillas.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose the method of authorization as described in claim 1. Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang do not explicitly disclose
requesting an additional identity verification step in response to the confidence score being less than a high trust threshold associated with the action.
However, Casillas discloses
requesting an additional identity verification step in response to the confidence score being less than a high trust threshold associated with the action (Col. 10, lines 47-52: if the comparison module determines that the identity trust score is lower than the activity trust threshold, then the user is either rejected from engaging in the activity or the user may be asked to provide additional identifying information to raise the identity trust score).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Casillas to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authenticate user (Zhang: abstract) and Casillas further suggests to request additional identifying information to raise identity trust score for authentication (Col. 10, lines 47-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Casillas in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang system in order to provide a secure system.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Zeppenfeld, in view of Xu, in view of Liang, and further in view of Srivastava (US 2016/0149882 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose the method of authorization as described in claim 1. Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang do not explicitly disclose
storing a record identification in a buffer in response to authorizing the action, wherein the confidence score is further based on an identification of the record being present in the buffer.
However, Srivastava discloses
storing a record identification in a buffer in response to authorizing the action, wherein the confidence score is further based on an identification of the record being present in the buffer ([0030]: authentication information is saved for the requester by data grid controller, then the authentication cache entry can be expired periodically; & [0040]: entries in the administrative cache can be expired frequently so that the customer agent is authenticated at least within a certain time interval).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Srivastava to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose authenticate user (Zhang: abstract) and Srivastava further suggests to save authentication cache entry in cache and authentication cache entry can be expired periodically ([0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Srivastava in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang system in order to provide secure system.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Zeppenfeld, in view of Xu, in view of Liang, and further in view of Sharifi et al. (US 2017/0110130 A1), hereinafter Sharifi in view of Edwards et al. (US 2021/0233087 A1), hereinafter Edwards.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are similar to the limitations of claim 1. Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang further teach the claimed limitation(s):
defining at least a first threshold confidence score and a second threshold confidence score for different actions, the first threshold confidence score being lower than the second threshold confidence score (Xu: [0080]: assign different thresholds to different action types; the different thresholds may be determined based on the severity of the consequences of misusing the action);
determining whether the first threshold confidence score or second threshold confidence score applies to the action (Xu: [0080]: assign different thresholds to different action types; & [0086]: thresholds may be determined individually for each action);
authorizing the action where a determination is made that the first threshold confidence score applies and the confidence score exceeds the first threshold confidence score (Zeppenfeld: [0005]: determine whether to authenticate caller based on the one or more initial scores and the confidence interval score; & [0033]: the resulting identification confidence score is graded and presented to a call agent in numerical form, using color coding, or any other way; & [0034]: the initial score of 500 minus twenty-five yields an identification confidence score of 475, making the user authorized to perform the exemplary transaction of paying a bill).
Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang do not explicitly disclose
the first threshold confidence score applying to routine actions and the second threshold confidence score applying to sensitive actions involving private information.
However, Sharifi discloses
the first threshold confidence score being lower than the second threshold confidence score, the first threshold confidence score applying to routine actions (a lower level of sensitivity with regards to personal or private data) and the second threshold confidence score applying to sensitive actions involving private information (a higher level of sensitivity)([0008]: the predetermined threshold may be adjusted based on the determined type of the voice command or query; & [0056]: if the context of the command or query indicates a lower level of sensitivity with regards to personal or private data, then the similarity score or value may be weighted or the predetermined threshold score or value may be adjusted to more often allow the query or command to be executed regardless of a close similarity between the generated audio fingerprint of the utterance “Call Mom” and the generated hotword fingerprint of the utterance “OK Computer”; if the context of the command or query indicates a higher level of sensitivity, then the similarity score or value may be weighted or the predetermined threshold score or value may be adjusted to less often allow the query or command to be executed).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Sharifi to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (Zhang: abstract) and Sharifi further suggests adjust predetermined threshold based on the determined type of the voice command or query ([0008]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Sharifi in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang system in order to provide a more secure system to users by adjusting threshold based on type of query.
Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, Liang, and Sharifi do not explicitly disclose
denying the action where a determination is made that the second threshold confidence score applies and the confidence score fails to exceed the second threshold confidence score.
However, Edwards discloses
authorizing the action where a determination is made that the first threshold confidence score applies and the confidence score exceeds the first threshold confidence score ([0149]: determining to approve the transaction based on a score satisfying a threshold);
denying the action where a determination is made that the second threshold confidence score applies and the confidence score fails to exceed the second threshold confidence score ([0163]: determine to deny the transaction based on the score failing to satisfy a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Edwards to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, Liang, and Sharifi because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, Liang, and Sharifi disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (Zhang: abstract) and Edwards further suggests deny transaction based on the score failing to satisfy a threshold ([0163]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Edwards in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, Liang, and Sharifi system in order to provide a secure system.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Zeppenfeld, in view of Xu, in view of Liang, and further in view of Sharifi.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose the method as described in claim 1. Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang do not explicitly disclose
threshold confidence scores for routine actions are lower than threshold confidence scores for actions involving sensitive or private information.
However, Sharifi discloses
threshold confidence scores for routine actions are lower than threshold confidence scores for actions involving sensitive or private information ([0008]: the predetermined threshold may be adjusted based on the determined type of the voice command or query; & [0056]: if the context of the command or query indicates a lower level of sensitivity with regards to personal or private data, then the similarity score or value may be weighted or the predetermined threshold score or value may be adjusted to more often allow the query or command to be executed regardless of a close similarity between the generated audio fingerprint of the utterance “Call Mom” and the generated hotword fingerprint of the utterance “OK Computer”; if the context of the command or query indicates a higher level of sensitivity, then the similarity score or value may be weighted or the predetermined threshold score or value may be adjusted to less often allow the query or command to be executed).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Sharifi to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (Zhang: abstract) and Sharifi further suggests adjust predetermined threshold based on the determined type of the voice command or query ([0008]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Sharifi in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang system in order to provide a more secure system to users by adjusting threshold based on type of query.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose the method as described in claim 1. Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang do not explicitly disclose
a first confidence score category covering routine actions covers lower confidence scores than a second confidence score category covering actions involving sensitive or private information.
However, Sharifi discloses
a first confidence score category covering routine actions covers lower confidence scores than a second confidence score category covering actions involving sensitive or private information ([0008]: the predetermined threshold may be adjusted based on the determined type of the voice command or query; & [0056]: if the context of the command or query indicates a lower level of sensitivity with regards to personal or private data, then the similarity score or value may be weighted or the predetermined threshold score or value may be adjusted to more often allow the query or command to be executed regardless of a close similarity between the generated audio fingerprint of the utterance “Call Mom” and the generated hotword fingerprint of the utterance “OK Computer”; if the context of the command or query indicates a higher level of sensitivity, then the similarity score or value may be weighted or the predetermined threshold score or value may be adjusted to less often allow the query or command to be executed).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Sharifi to Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang because Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang disclose matching current voice characteristics to a pre-stored speaker model to authorize request (Zhang: abstract) and Sharifi further suggests adjust predetermined threshold based on the determined type of the voice command or query ([0008]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Sharifi in the Zhang, Zeppenfeld, Xu, and Liang system in order to provide a more secure system to users by adjusting threshold based on type of query.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Douglas et al. (US 2016/0314456 A1). Determine whether the confidence level exceeds a threshold; if the confidence level associated with the token falls below the threshold, deny the request for financial account information and require additional authentication data (e.g., PIN, biometric data, etc.) before providing the requested financial account information ([0069]).
Bates et al. (US 6,873,982 B1). Increase the weights of entries in the search database based upon what documents are accessed last in response to a search request.
Mandel et al. (US 2015/0347596 A1). Upon determining that one or more prior search requests were received, weight the one or more records of the set of search results based on a weighting metric relative to the another set of one or more search terms.
Estes et al. (US 7,158,776 B1). Obtain a voice print of the user to ensure that the user of the mobile device is an authorized user.
Chi (US 2013/0018659 A1). Compare the generated voiceprint(s) with the stored voiceprint(s) of authorized user(s); if a match is found between a stored voiceprint and a generated voiceprint, then the user can be classified as authorized, and device can perform the instruction(s) in the speech input from the authorized user ([0125]).
Cheyer (US 2012/0245941 A1). The device can generate a voiceprint while the user speaks voice commands into the device; compare the voice characteristics of the voice in the speech input to voice characteristics of a voiceprint of an authorized user stored on device.
Mahajan (US 2010/0216429 A1). The generated voiceprint is compared to a database of voiceprints of known individuals to determine if there is a match ([0069]).
Grover (US 2008/0256613 A1). Receive a request for authentication of a client with an existing voice print identification; compare the received recordings to one or more stored voiceprints, and if a match is found, the client’s identity is verified ([0037]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
02/02/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447