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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s arguments/filing filed on September 29, 2022
Claims 1-11 are cancelled Claims 12-31 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s drawings submitted on 9/29/2022.
Oath/Declaration
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s oath submitted on 3/14/2024
Application Data Sheet
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s application data sheet submitted on 9/29/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to for failing to cite the claim dependence. For the purpose of claim prosecution, it will be assumed that claim 24 depends on independent system claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 12, 18 and 25 recite the limitation "the content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 of this title, 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.
1..) Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080209502, Seidel in view of US 20150186710, Ahn
In regards to claim 12, Seidel teaches a computer-implemented method for assigning a security level to unknown digital data without accessing the content of the digital data, the method comprising;obtaining a source of unknown digital data content comprising a first fingerprint(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0006, One embodiment includes a method comprising receiving digital content, e.g., multimedia content or a digital game, and either ascertaining whether at least a part of the digital content has previously been associated with one or more matched referenced works or searching a store of fingerprint data of referenced works for a match. The searching includes determining a fingerprint of at least part of the multimedia content;) with an first hierarchical security level(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0115, One embodiment of the invention includes an authority issuing certificates with different levels of trust[i.e. note: security levels] to other entities. Some entities might have a level of trust such that any associations made by the entity acting as a content originator is trusted.); Seidel does not teach accessing a digital fingerprint library (DFL) comprising a nontransitory storage medium containing a plurality of second fingerprints and corresponding second fingerprint hierarchical security levels;finding a second fingerprint in the DFL that matches the first fingerprint;comparing the first hierarchical security level of the first fingerprint to the second hierarchical security level corresponding to the second fingerprint; andsetting the first hierarchical security level to match the second hierarchical security level if the first hierarchical security level is lower than the second hierarchical security level However, Ahn teaches accessing a digital fingerprint library (DFL) comprising a nontransitory storage medium containing a plurality of second fingerprints and corresponding second fingerprint hierarchical security levels(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0063, According to various embodiments of the present invention, the controller 170 may compare the minimum number of matching points depending upon security levels, stored in the storage unit[i.e. note: library] 140, with the number of matching points of a fingerprint sensed when a function is executed.);finding a second fingerprint in the DFL that matches the first fingerprint(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0013, A count of a number of matching points that exist between the fingerprint input and a prestored fingerprint is determined.);comparing the first hierarchical security level of the first fingerprint to the second hierarchical security level corresponding to the second fingerprint(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0063, the controller 170 may compare the minimum number of matching points depending upon security levels,); andsetting the first hierarchical security level to match the second hierarchical security level if the first hierarchical security level is lower than the second hierarchical security level(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0089, when an average value of the number of matching points measured a preset number of times in operation 308 is greater than or equal to the preset number of limited matching points, the electronic device 100 adjusts the security level[e.g. note: upward adjustment of security level] to execute the corresponding function.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Seidel with the teaching of Ahn because a user would have been motivated to apply user fingerprint information for controlling security levels, taught by Ahn, in order to manage the content rights taught by Seidel(Ahn, para. 0011)
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 12, wherein the first and second fingerprints are hash values(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0025, the fingerprint of multimedia content is a cryptographic hash function, also called a secure hash function of the multimedia content.).
In regards to claim16, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 12, wherein the unknown digital data is a file and the first fingerprint is a hash of the file(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0031 and 0159: [0031]- Generally, a fingerprint of multimedia content is smaller, e.g., much smaller than the multimedia content. In one embodiment, a fingerprint of an item of multimedia content is designed to uniquely identify the item of multimedia content in almost all practical situations. In one embodiment, the fingerprint of multimedia content is a cryptographic hash function[0159]- Thus media files of the original multimedia content processed and a fingerprint file is created containing the information necessary to search for matches with any referenced work(s).). In regards to claim 18, Seidel teaches a system for assigning a security level to unknown digital data without accessing the content of the unknown digital data, the system comprising:a processor, coupled to a first storage medium, configured for generating fingerprints from the digital data without accessing the content of the digital data(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0006, One embodiment includes a method comprising receiving digital content, e.g., multimedia content or a digital game, and either ascertaining whether at least a part of the digital content has previously been associated with one or more matched referenced works or searching a store of fingerprint data of referenced works for a match. The searching includes determining a fingerprint of at least part of the multimedia content;);a source of unknown digital data in a second storage medium(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0122, One embodiment of the ownership service 320 operates at least some of the processes and maintains at least some of the data stores described in the dataflow diagram of FIG. 1 and steps of the flowchart of FIG. 2…The ownership service further operates the matching 150, ascertaining if the content is an associated work 170, the associating 160 and the adding policies of 190, and maintains the related stores 103, 104 and 105.); Seidel does not teach a digital fingerprint library ("DFL'") in a third storage medium comprising a plurality of fingerprints of digital data with corresponding security levels o; anda comparator, under processor control, configured to find fingerprints in the DFL matching fingerprints generated by the processor from the source, wherein the comparator is further configured to set the security level of fingerprints generated from the source to the security level of matching fingerprints stored in the DFL if the source fingerprints have a hierarchical security level lower than the hierarchical security level of the corresponding fingerprint in the DFL However, Ahn teaches a digital fingerprint library ("DFL'") in a third storage medium comprising a plurality of fingerprints of digital data with corresponding security levels o(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0063, According to various embodiments of the present invention, the controller 170 may compare the minimum number of matching points depending upon security levels, stored in the storage unit[i.e. note: library] 140, with the number of matching points of a fingerprint sensed when a function is executed.); anda comparator, under processor control, configured to find fingerprints in the DFL matching fingerprints generated by the processor from the source(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0013, A count of a number of matching points that exist between the fingerprint input and a prestored fingerprint is determined.), wherein the comparator is further configured to set the security level of fingerprints generated from the source to the security level of matching fingerprints stored in the DFL if the source fingerprints have a hierarchical security level lower than the hierarchical security level of the corresponding fingerprint in the DFL(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0089, when an average value of the number of matching points measured a preset number of times in operation 308 is greater than or equal to the preset number of limited matching points, the electronic device 100 adjusts the security level[e.g. note: upward adjustment of security level] to execute the corresponding function.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Seidel with the teaching of Ahn because a user would have been motivated to apply user fingerprint information for controlling security levels, taught by Ahn, in order to manage the content rights taught by Seidel(Ahn, para. 0011)
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the system of claim 18, wherein the first and second fingerprints are hash values(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0025, the fingerprint of multimedia content is a cryptographic hash function, also called a secure hash function of the multimedia content.).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the system of claim 18, wherein the unknown digital data comprises a file and first fingerprint is a hash of the file(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0031 and 0159: [0031]- Generally, a fingerprint of multimedia content is smaller, e.g., much smaller than the multimedia content. In one embodiment, a fingerprint of an item of multimedia content is designed to uniquely identify the item of multimedia content in almost all practical situations. In one embodiment, the fingerprint of multimedia content is a cryptographic hash function[0159]- Thus media files of the original multimedia content processed and a fingerprint file is created containing the information necessary to search for matches with any referenced work(s).).
In regards to claim 25, Seidel teaches a method for assigning a security level to unknown digital data without accessing the content of the digital data, the method comprising;obtaining a source of unknown digital data content comprising a first fragment(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0006, One embodiment includes a method comprising receiving digital content, e.g., multimedia content or a digital game, and either ascertaining whether at least a part[i.e. note: fragment] of the digital content has previously been associated with one or more matched referenced works or searching a store of fingerprint data of referenced works for a match. The searching includes determining a fingerprint of at least part of the multimedia content;);generating from the first fragment a first fingerprint with an first hierarchical security level(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0020, This disclosure describes a method and an apparatus for associating data to digital content such as multimedia content. The data is for assigning rights[i.e. note: security level] to the content. One embodiment includes ascertaining whether at least a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of the digital content matches known digital content and associating data that attaches rights to the at least a portion of the digital content in a secure manner. One embodiment includes associating the data in a secure manner. One embodiment further includes determining a fingerprint of original work and storing the fingerprint in a database of fingerprinted works that is searchable.); Seidel does not teach accessing a digital fingerprint library (DFL) comprising a nontransitory storage medium containing a plurality of second fingerprints and corresponding second fingerprint hierarchical security levels;finding a second fingerprint in the DFL that matches the first fingerprint;comparing the first hierarchical security level of the first fingerprint to the second hierarchical security level corresponding to the second fingerprint; and setting the first hierarchical security level to match the second hierarchical security level if the first hierarchical security level is lower than the second hierarchical security level However, Ahn teaches accessing a digital fingerprint library (DFL) comprising a nontransitory storage medium containing a plurality of second fingerprints and corresponding second fingerprint hierarchical security levels(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0013, A count of a number of matching points that exist between the fingerprint input and a prestored fingerprint is determined.);finding a second fingerprint in the DFL that matches the first fingerprint(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0013, A count of a number of matching points that exist between the fingerprint input and a prestored fingerprint is determined.);comparing the first hierarchical security level of the first fingerprint to the second hierarchical security level corresponding to the second fingerprint(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0063, the controller 170 may compare the minimum number of matching points depending upon security levels,); and setting the first hierarchical security level to match the second hierarchical security level if the first hierarchical security level is lower than the second hierarchical security level(US 20150186710, Ahn, para. 0089, when an average value of the number of matching points measured a preset number of times in operation 308 is greater than or equal to the preset number of limited matching points, the electronic device 100 adjusts the security level[e.g. note: upward adjustment of security level] to execute the corresponding function.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Seidel with the teaching of Ahn because a user would have been motivated to apply user fingerprint information for controlling security levels, taught by Ahn, in order to manage the content rights taught by Seidel(Ahn, para. 0011)
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 25, wherein the first and second fingerprints are hash values(US 20080209502, Seidel, para. 0025, the fingerprint of multimedia content is a cryptographic hash function, also called a secure hash function of the multimedia content.).
2.) Claims 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080209502, Seidel in view of US 20150186710, Ahn and further in view of US 20190228174, Withrow
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 12. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the source of unknown digital data comprises a first fragment from which the first fingerprint was generated However, Withrow teaches wherein the source of unknown digital data comprises a first fragment from which the first fingerprint was generated(US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046, The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 12. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the DFL comprises a second fragment from which the second fingerprint was generated However, Withrow teaches wherein the DFL comprises a second fragment from which the second fingerprint was generated(US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046 and 0047: [0046]- The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.[0047]- The digital fingerprints are typically stored in a repository such as a register, a physical memory, an array, a database, data store, or some other repository.[i.e. note: the stored fingerprints may be based on a portion of physical objects]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 16. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the unknown digital data comprises a fragment and the first fingerprint is a hash of the fragment However, Withrow teaches wherein the unknown digital data comprises a fragment and the first fingerprint is a hash of the fragment(US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046, The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the system of claim 18. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the source of unknown digital data comprises a first fragment from which the first fingerprint was generated However, Withrow teaches wherein the source of unknown digital data comprises a first fragment from which the first fingerprint was generated(US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046, The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the system of claim 19. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the DFL comprises a second fragment from which the second fingerprint was generated However, Withrow teaches wherein the DFL comprises a second fragment from which the second fingerprint was generated (US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046 and 0047: [0046]- The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.[0047]- The digital fingerprints are typically stored in a repository such as a register, a physical memory, an array, a database, data store, or some other repository.[i.e. note: the stored fingerprints may be based on a portion of physical objects]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the system of claim 18. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the unknown digital data comprises a fragment and the first fingerprint is a hash of the fragment However, Withrow teaches wherein the unknown digital data comprises a fragment and the first fingerprint is a hash of the fragment(US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046, The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 25. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the source of unknown digital data comprises a first fragment from which the first fingerprint was generated However, Withrow teaches wherein the source of unknown digital data comprises a first fragment from which the first fingerprint was generated (US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046, The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 28, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 25. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wearing the DFL comprises a second fragment from which the second fingerprint was generated However, Withrow teaches wearing the DFL comprises a second fragment from which the second fingerprint was generated (US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046 and 0047: [0046]- The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.[0047]- The digital fingerprints are typically stored in a repository such as a register, a physical memory, an array, a database, data store, or some other repository.[i.e. note: the stored fingerprints may be based on a portion of physical objects]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 29, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 25. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein unknown digital data is a file comprising the first fragment However, Withrow teaches wherein unknown digital data is a file comprising the first fragment (US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0046, The term “digital fingerprint” in all its grammatical forms and constructs, is used throughout the present specification and claims to refer to a computationally unique digital identifier of a physical object or a portion[i.e. note: fragment] of a physical object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 25. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the unknown digital data comprises a plurality of fragments However, Withrow teaches wherein the unknown digital data comprises a plurality of fragments (US 20190228174, Withrow, para. 0138, The fingerprint template may be configured to indicate the presence of alterations, such as by normal wear or tear, or more serious adulterations such as the replacement or absence of components or portions of the object.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Withrow because a user would have been motivated to use the fingerprinting matching/access control framework for digital content and other uses, taught by Withrow, to derive the fingerprint matching and rights association taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Withrow, para. 0047)
3.) Claims 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080209502, Seidel in view of US 20150186710, Ahn and further in view of US 20090183257, Prahalad
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the system of claim. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the unknown digital data originates within a secured perimeter and the comparator is configured to find matching fingerprints in the DFL before the unknown digital data leaves the secured perimeter However, Prahalad teaches wherein the unknown digital data originates within a secured perimeter and the comparator is configured to find matching fingerprints in the DFL before the unknown digital data leaves the secured perimeter(US 20090183257, Prahalad, para. 0035, The admin console 136 may also be configured to provide the administrator with the ability to manually override the blocking in some implementations and allow the outbound data to leave the network perimeter, despite the fact that its hash matched a stored hash that is associated with secure data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Prahalad because a user would have been motivated to use the generated hash information of an object, taught by Prahalad, to manage data transmission taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Prahalad, para. 0006)
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Seidel and Ahn teach the method of claim 25. The combination of Seidel and Ahn do not teach wherein the unknown digital data originates within a secure perimeter and the unknown digital data is blocked from leaving the secure perimeter when the second fingerprint is found that matches the first fingerprint However, Prahalad teaches wherein the unknown digital data originates within a secure perimeter and the unknown digital data is blocked from leaving the secure perimeter when the second fingerprint is found that matches the first fingerprint (US 20090183257, Prahalad, para. 0032, At step (3), if the computed hash 409 is found to match one of the stored hashes 422, then the outbound data 312 from the host 115 comprises secure data (i.e., data previously designated secure by the administrator) and will be blocked from leaving the perimeter of the enterprise network 105.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of the combination of Seidel and Ahn with the teaching of Prahalad because a user would have been motivated to use the generated hash information of an object, taught by Prahalad, to manage data transmission taught by the combination of Seidel and Ahn(Prahalad, para. 0006)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7469. The examiner can normally be reached on 571 270 7469 from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Taghi Arani, can be reached on 571 272 3787. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/GREGORY A LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
