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 .
This is a Final Office Action for application number 17/931,407 amended on
6/9/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner brings in reference Pohjola to read on the claim limitations “reading, by the one or more processors and from a physical device provided by the second entity, entity credentials comprising trusted authentication information that is encoded wherein the trusted authentication information was generated, prior to being read by the computing device, by an enrollment system separate from the computing device, based on second entity determining, based on comparing the
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 1-7, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., (US 20220321558) in view of Doane et al. (US 9087187) in further view of Pohjola et al., (US 12182254).
Regarding claim 1,
Young teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a computing device associated with a first entity and from one or more authentication sources associated with a second entity, indications of values of authentication factors associated with the second entity;
[the authentication system 100 comprises a user device 102, a network device 104, a service processor device 106, and an authentication device 108 that are in signal communication with each other over a network 110. (Young et al., paragraph 16, authentication system comprises of a processor)]
[The authentication system 100 then combines the biometric information 118 with device information 120 that is associated with a user's user device 102 to generate an authentication fingerprint 128. (Young et al., paragraph 14, please refer to instant application biometric information relates to authentication factor, values of authentication factors can be the device and biometric information)]
wherein each of the values of the authentication factors is hashed via one-way hashing by the one or more authentication sources associated with the second entity;
[The user device 102 may employ any suitable type of hashing or encrypting operation on the biometric information 118 and the device information 120 to generate the authentication fingerprint 128. (Young et al., paragraph 32)]
Young fails to explicitly disclose hashing, by the one or more processors, the values of the authentication factors to generate double hashed values of the authentication factors
However in analogous art Doane discloses
hashing, by the one or more processors, the values of the authentication factors to generate double hashed values of the authentication factors;
[the website and/or web services, and the computers associated therewith, may generate a one-way hash of user requested authentication credentials and transmit the one-way hash of the user requested authentication credentials to the credential verification servers (Doane et al., column 3 lines 32-36)]
[the credential verification servers may perform a second hash of the received hash of the requested authentication credentials and store the second hash in a credential database for use in future credential verification. (Doane et al., column 3, lines 40-43)]
comparing, by the one or more processors, the double hashed values of the authentication factors with trusted authentication information that is encoded, using two layers of hashing, in entity credentials provided by the second entity
[the credential verification servers may compare a second one-way hash of the received one-way hash corresponding to the requested authentication credential with a plurality of doubly hashed hashes corresponding to a plurality of authentication credentials (Doane et al., column 3, lines 53-58)]
Young and Doane are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Young to incorporate the teachings of Doane et al. to include hashing the values of the authentication factors to generate double hashed values of the authentication factors, comparing the double hashed values of the authentication factors with trusted authentication information that is encoded, using two layers of hashing and determining, based on comparison whether the entity is a trusted entity, in order to verify the uniqueness of the requested authentication credentials without compromising the security of those credentials or providing them to a third party entity. (Doane et al., column 17 , lines 50-55).
Although Doane discloses the credential database may include removeable storage (col 16, lines 4-5), Young in view of Doane fails to explicitly disclose reading, by the one or more processors and from a physical device provided by the second entity, entity credentials comprising trusted authentication information wherein the trusted authentication information was generated, prior to being read by the computing device, by an enrollment system separate from the computing device, based on
However in an analogous art Pohjola discloses
reading, by the one or more processors and from a physical device provided by the second entity, entity credentials comprising trusted authentication information that is encoded
[When the sensed electronic credential is shared, agent programs of the issuer/attester (e.g., user's smartphone or other trusted entity) and verifier (e.g. a bar verifying user's age), may exchange information and confirm the validity of the sensed electronic credential via DLT (see FIG. 1). (Pohjola et al., column 8, lines 23-28)]
wherein the trusted authentication information was generated, prior to being read by the computing device, by an enrollment system separate from the computing device, based on
[Mechanisms of generating 330 sensed electronic credentials in principle follow technical mechanisms of generating verified or self-attested electronic credentials. (Pohjola et la. Column 7, line 51-53)]
[extracting 320 the characteristic data may include at least one of analyzing sensed location data to extract a personal location or a motion profile of the user, analyzing sensed vital data to extract personal biometrical information (e.g. heartrate) of the user, analyzing sensed audio and/or video data to extract personal biometrical features (e.g., face, skin, hair color, etc.) of the user(Pohjola et al., column 7, lines 4-13, sensed credential including biometric data)]
[Generating 330 the sensed electronic credential may then comprise including the hash in the sensed electronic credential. (Pohjola et al., column 8, lines 29-34, and can also include a hash of sensor data)]
comparing, by the one or more processors, the
[A user presents the sensed electronic credential (which contains the data hash) to 3.sup.rd party. The 3.sup.rd party can ask for the original data, compute the hash from it, and compare it to the hash in the credential. This ensures that the party receiving the credential receives original data which was used to create the credential. (Pohjola et al., column 8, lines 44-49)]
Young, Doane, and Pohjola are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to store the double-hashed credentials in Doane into a personal/physical device as taught by Pohjola, wherein the trusted authentication information was generated, prior to being read by the computing device, by an enrollment system separate from the computing device; comparing, by the one or more processors, the double hashed values of the authentication factors with trusted authentication information that is encoded, using two layers of hashing, in entity credentials provided by the second entity determining, based on comparing the double hashed values of the authentication factors with the trusted authentication information, whether the second entity is a trusted entity that is associated with the physical device provided by the second entity. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Young, Doane and Pohjola to achieve the claimed invention because it would ensure that the party receiving the credential receives original data which was used to create the credential. (Pohjola et al., column 8, lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 5,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the second entity is a trusted entity further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on comparing the values of the authentication factors with trusted values of the trusted authentication information, an authentication value associated with the second entity; and determining, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the authentication value, whether the second entity is a trusted entity.
[At step 306, the authentication device 108 determines whether the received authentication fingerprint 128 matches a previously stored authentication fingerprint 128 for the user. The authentication device 108 proceeds to step 308 in response to determining that the received authentication fingerprint 128 does not match the previously stored authentication fingerprint 128. In this case, the authentication device 108 determines that the combination of the biometric information 118 and the device information 120 that was used to generate the authentication fingerprint 128 does not match the authentication fingerprint 128 that is stored in memory 126. This may indicate that a bad actor has provided the wrong biometric information 118 and/or device information 120 when generating the authentication fingerprint 128. In this case, the authentication device 108 will implement fraud protection services to protect the user and their data. (Young et al., paragraph 43, determining if there is a match or whether or not there is a bad actor)], See also Doane column 3, lines 30-62.
Regarding claim 6,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 5, wherein determining whether the second entity is the trusted entity comprises:
comparing, by the one or more processors, the authentication value to an authentication threshold associated with a secrecy level the computing device; and in response to determining that the authentication value exceeds the authentication threshold, determining, by the one or more processors, that the second entity is the trusted entity.
[In one embodiment, the authentication device 108 first determines a tolerance threshold value for the vital sign information 134. The tolerance threshold value identifies a maximum difference or deviation from the previously stored vital sign information 134 that is acceptable to pass authentication. (Young et al., paragraph 47)]
[After determining the tolerance threshold value, the authentication device 108 compares the received vital sign information 122 to the tolerance threshold value … (Young et al., paragraph 47)… The authentication device 108 proceeds to step 308 in response to determining that the received authentication fingerprint 128 does not match the previously stored authentication fingerprint 128. In this case, the authentication device 108 determines that the combination of the biometric information 118 and the device information 120 that was used to generate the authentication fingerprint 128 does not match the authentication fingerprint 128 that is stored in memory 126. This may indicate that a bad actor has provided the wrong biometric information 118 and/or device information 120 when generating the authentication fingerprint 128. In this case, the authentication device 108 will implement fraud protection services to protect the user and their data. (Young et al., paragraph 43, determining if there is a match or whether or not there is a bad actor)]
Regarding claim 7,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 5, wherein comparing the values of the authentication factors with the trusted values of the authentication information further comprises:
comparing, by the one or more processors, each value of an authentication factor with a trusted value of the authentication factor in the trusted authentication information to determine the authentication value associated with the second entity.
[the authentication device 108 applies a hashing or decryption operation on the received authentication fingerprint 128 to deobfuscate the authentication fingerprint 128 before comparing the received authentication fingerprint 128 to the authentication fingerprints 128 that are stored in memory 126. (Young et al., paragraph 42, comparing with the trusted authentication fingerprint)]
Regarding claim 10,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second entity includes a person, and wherein the authentication factors include biometric information associated with the second entity.
[As another example, a biometric sensor 114 is configured to perform a fingerprint scan of the user's finger and to generate biometric information 118 for the user based on the fingerprint scan.(Young et al., paragraph 30)]
Regarding claim 11,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second entity includes a device, and wherein the authentication factors include machine data produced by the device.
[The authentication system 100 then combines the biometric information 118 with device information 120 that is associated with a user's user device 102 to generate an authentication fingerprint 128. (Young et al., paragraph 14, device information or machine data produced by device)] [The device information 120 comprises information that identifies the user device 102 that is associated with the user. Examples of device information 120 include, but are not limited to, a phone number, a Media Access Control (MAC) address, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, or any other suitable device identifier. (Young et al., paragraph 20)]
Regarding claim 12,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a value of the authentication factors is indicative of a duress signal,
[For example, the vital sign information may comprise information about the breathing rate and/or heart rate of the user when making an authentication request. (Young et al., paragraph 4)] [The authentication system compares the vital sign information to previously stored vital sign information for the user to determine whether the user is under duress when sending an authentication request. (Young et al., paragraph 4)]
and wherein determining whether the second entity is the trusted entity further comprises: determining that the value of the authentication factors indicates the duress signal;
[The authentication system compares the vital sign information to previously stored vital sign information for the user to determine whether the user is under duress when sending an authentication request. (Young et al., paragraph 4)]
and in response to determining that the value of the authentication factors indicates the duress signal, determining, by the one or more processors, that the second entity is under duress.
[The authentication system compares the vital sign information to previously stored vital sign information for the user to determine whether the user is under duress when sending an authentication request. This process provides information security by denying the authentication request for a data transfer when the user is under duress. (Young et al., paragraph 4)]
Regarding claim 14,
Young teaches a computing device comprising:
memory; and one or more processors configured to:
(a memory 116. ((Young et al., paragraph 19 and a service processor device 106, and an authentication device 108 that are in signal communication with each other over a network 110. ((Young et al., paragraph 16)]
The claim recites substantially the same content as claim 1 and is rejected with the rationales set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the computing device of claim 14, wherein to determine whether the second entity is a trusted entity, the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine, based at least in part on comparing the values of the authentication factors with trusted values of the trusted authentication information, an authentication value associated with the second entity; and determine, based at least in part on the authentication value, whether the second entity is a trusted entity.
[At step 306, the authentication device 108 determines whether the received authentication fingerprint 128 matches a previously stored authentication fingerprint 128 for the user. The authentication device 108 proceeds to step 308 in response to determining that the received authentication fingerprint 128 does not match the previously stored authentication fingerprint 128. In this case, the authentication device 108 determines that the combination of the biometric information 118 and the device information 120 that was used to generate the authentication fingerprint 128 does not match the authentication fingerprint 128 that is stored in memory 126. This may indicate that a bad actor has provided the wrong biometric information 118 and/or device information 120 when generating the authentication fingerprint 128. In this case, the authentication device 108 will implement fraud protection services to protect the user and their data. (Young et al., paragraph 43, determining if there is a match or whether or not there is a bad actor)]
Regarding claim 19,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the computing device of claim 18, wherein to determine whether the second entity is a trusted entity, the one or more processors are further configured to:
compare the authentication value to an authentication threshold associated with a secrecy level the computing device; and in response to determining that the authentication value exceeds the authentication threshold, determine that the second entity is the trusted entity.
[In one embodiment, the authentication device 108 first determines a tolerance threshold value for the vital sign information 134. The tolerance threshold value identifies a maximum difference or deviation from the previously stored vital sign information 134 that is acceptable to pass authentication. (Young et al., paragraph 47)]
[After determining the tolerance threshold value, the authentication device 108 compares the received vital sign information 122 to the tolerance threshold value. Continuing with the previous example, the authentication device 108 determines that the received vital sign information 122 matches the previously stored vital sign information 134 (Young et al., paragraph 47)]
[…. authentication device 108 will implement fraud protection services to protect the user and their data. (Young et al., paragraph 43, determining if there is a match or whether or not there is a bad actor)]
Regarding claim 20,
Young teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause one or more processors of a computing device to:
[In one embodiment, the authentication system 100 comprises a user device 102, a network device 104, a service processor device 106, and an authentication device 108 that are in signal communication with each other over a network 110. ((Young et al., paragraph 16)]
The claim recites substantially the same content as claim 1 and is rejected with the rationales set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 15,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1 and the computing device of claim 14,
wherein the trusted authentication information includes trusted values of the authentication factors encoded using two layers of hashing.
[the website and/or web services, and the computers associated therewith, may generate a one-way hash of user requested authentication credentials and transmit the one-way hash of the user requested authentication credentials to the credential verification servers (Doane et al., column 3 lines 32-36)]
[ the credential verification servers may perform a second hash of the received hash of the requested authentication credentials and store the second hash in a credential database for use in future credential verification. (Doane et al., column 3, lines 40-43)]
Young and Doane are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Young to incorporate the teachings of Doane et al. to include wherein each of the trusted values of the authentication factors in the trusted authentication information are encoded in the entity credentials by rounding, combining, and the two layers of hashing of a trusted value of the authentication factors, in order to verify the uniqueness of the requested authentication credentials without compromising the security of those credentials or providing them to a third party entity. (Doane et al., column 17 , lines 50-55).
Regarding claims 3 and 16,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 2 and the computing device of claim 15,
wherein each of the trusted values of the authentication factors in the trusted authentication information are encoded in the entity credentials by rounding, combining, and the two layers of hashing of a trusted value of the authentication factors.
[the website and/or web services, and the computers associated therewith, may generate a one-way hash of user requested authentication credentials and transmit the one-way hash of the user requested authentication credentials to the credential verification servers (Doane et al., column 3 lines 32-36)]
[the credential verification servers may perform a second hash of the received hash of the requested authentication credentials and store the second hash in a credential database for use in future credential verification. (Doane et al., column 3, lines 40-43)]
Young, Doane, and Pohjola are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Young and Pohjola to incorporate the teachings of Doane et al. to include wherein each of the trusted values of the authentication factors in the trusted authentication information are encoded in the entity credentials by rounding, combining, and the two layers of hashing of a trusted value of the authentication factors, in order to verify the uniqueness of the requested authentication credentials without compromising the security of those credentials or providing them to a third party entity. (Doane et al., column 17 , lines 50-55).
Regarding claims 4 and 17,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 3 and the computing device of claim 16, wherein each of the values of the authentication factors associated with the second entity is a value of an authentication factor that has been rounded, combined, and hashed to generate a hashed value of the authentication factor.
[The authentication system 100 then combines the biometric information 118 with device information 120 that is associated with a user's user device 102 to generate an authentication fingerprint 128. (Young et al., paragraph 14)] [the authentication device 108 applies a hashing or decryption operation on the received authentication fingerprint 128 to de-obfuscate the authentication fingerprint 128 before comparing the received authentication fingerprint 128 to the authentication fingerprints 128 that are stored in memory 126. (Young et al., paragraph 42)]
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., (US 20220321558) in view of Doane et al. (US 9087187 in further view of Pohjola et al., (US 12182254) and in further view of Koved et al. (US 20150381598)
Regarding claim 8,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein comparing the values of the authentication factors with the trusted values of the authentication information further comprises: weighing, by the one or more processors, the authentication factors; and determining, by the one or more processors, the authentication value based at least in part on the weighing of the authentication factors.
However in an analogous art Koved discloses, wherein comparing the values of the authentication factors with the trusted values of the authentication information further comprises: weighing, by the one or more processors, the authentication factors; and determining, by the one or more processors, the authentication value based at least in part on the weighing of the authentication factors.
[compute a risk estimate for such an operation (for example, for risk-based authentication and authorization); (iii) consider the values or weights that ach authentication factor (context and other authentication techniques such as biometric authentication, password, personal identification number (PIN), and so on) contributes to authentication confidence, in light of the risk; (iv) estimate, based on these factors, how various authentication factors and authentication results (such as password, biometric verification results, and so on—may be a subset of all possible authentication factors) may contribute to an authorization decision (prioritize); (Koved et al., paragraph 58)]
Young, Doane, Pohjola, and Koved are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication using biometric information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Young, Doane, and Pohjola to incorporate the teachings of Koved et al. to include the step wherein comparing the values of the authentication factors with the trusted values of the authentication information further comprises: weighing, by the one or more processors, the authentication factors; and determining, by the one or more processors, the authentication value based at least in part on the weighing of the authentication factors, one would be motivated to do so in order to consider the values or weights for each authentication technique to help estimate how authentication factors contribute to authorization decision in light of the risk and estimate the cost of performing the various stages of authentication. (Koved et al., Paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 9,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the entity is the trusted entity further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that a plurality of techniques in the authentication factors meet a minimum reading quality and a minimum match quality; determining, by the one or more processors and for each respective technique of the plurality of techniques, a weight based at least in part on a reading quality of the respective technique and a match quality of the respective technique; and determining, by the one or more processors, whether the entity is the trusted entity based at least in part on the plurality of techniques in the authentication factors meet the minimum reading quality and the minimum match quality.
However in an analogous art Koved discloses, wherein determining whether the entity is the trusted entity further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that a plurality of techniques in the authentication factors meet a minimum reading quality and a minimum match quality; determining, by the one or more processors and for each respective technique of the plurality of techniques, a weight based at least in part on a reading quality of the respective technique and a match quality of the respective technique; and determining, by the one or more processors, whether the entity is the trusted entity based at least in part on the plurality of techniques in the authentication factors meet the minimum reading quality and the minimum match quality.
[consider the values or weights that each authentication factor (context and other authentication techniques such as biometric authentication, password, personal identification number (PIN), and so on) contributes to authentication confidence, in light of the risk; (iv) estimate, based on these factors, how various authentication factors and authentication results (such as password, biometric verification results, and so on—may be a subset of all possible authentication factors) may contribute to an authorization decision (prioritize); (Koved et al., paragraph 58)]
Young, Doane, Pohjola, and Koved are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication using biometric information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Young, Doane, and Pohjola to incorporate the teachings of Koved et al. to include the step wherein determining whether the entity is the trusted entity further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that a plurality of techniques in the authentication factors meet a minimum reading quality and a minimum match quality; determining, by the one or more processors and for each respective technique of the plurality of techniques, a weight based at least in part on a reading quality of the respective technique and a match quality of the respective technique; and determining, by the one or more processors, whether the entity is the trusted entity based at least in part on the plurality of techniques in the authentication factors meet the minimum reading quality and the minimum match quality, one would be motivated to do so in order to consider the values or weights for each authentication technique to help estimate how authentication factors contribute to authorization decision in light of the risk and estimate the cost of performing the various stages of authentication. (Koved et al., Paragraph 58).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 20220321558) in view of Doane et al. (US 9087187) in further view of Pohjola et al. (US 12182254) and in further view of Maney et al. (US 11610204).
Regarding claim 13,
Young in view of Doane and in further view of Pohjola discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is part of a touchless authentication system.
However in an analogous art Maney discloses, wherein the computing device is part of a touchless authentication system. [In other words, the first user 110 is able to obtain access to the desired secured resources without an identification card, debit card, or other token typically presented at such interfaces. The system 100 thereby allows the user to be passively (e.g., ‘touchlessly’) authenticated. (Maney et al., column 7 lines 1-6)]
Young, Doane, Pohjola, and Maney are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of authentication using biometric information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Young, Doane, and Pohjola to incorporate the teachings of Maney et al. to include the step wherein the computing device is part of a touchless authentication system, one would be motivated to do so in order to allow for a touchless and passive authentication process which can eliminate the need for users to present credentials, passwords, or other identity tokens, to help provide an efficient and highly convenient way to authorize and grant user access. (Maney et al., column 3 and 4, lines 44-48 and lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DANIEL ELAHIAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/D.E./DANIEL ELAHIAN, Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights