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 .
Claims 1-17 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/10/2025 regarding the rejection of limitations: “wherein the measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is performed at a measurement element in the key space” under 35 U.S.C 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant stated on page 6 of the Remarks that: “Regarding the feature "the measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is performed at a measurement element in the key space" under discussion, it follows from claim 1 as filed (claim 1 as filed discloses: "measuring the superposition of ciphertexts and determining an overlap between the measured superposition of ciphertexts and the encrypted ciphertext [...] collapsing the key space") that the measuring is performed in the key space”. Examiner disagrees that measuring the superposition of ciphertext and determining an overlap means that measuring is done in key space. It is well known in the art that key space refers to the set of all possible keys that can be used with a particular cryptographic algorithm and ciphertext is obtained by applying a key from the key space to a plaintext, i.e., ciphertext is derived from a key, but it is not the key itself. Therefore, measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is not done in key space.
Also, as stated in the advisory action dated 06/02/2025, the above limitation is not supported by the specification. Fig. 7B and corresponding paragraph [0056] do not explain how a superposition of ciphertexts is measured in the key space. Paragraph [0056] states “This can then lead to a re-arrangement 700′ of the implementation 700 as shown in FIG. 7B in which the measurements are done at a measurement element 740 in the key space, right after the quantum circuit 710. The outcome of these measurements at 740 are a set of keys, according to a probability distribution Pk. These keys, sampled with these probabilities, are then used by a classical encryption mechanism in the encryption element 750 “Cc” to encrypt the original message. The outcome is a set of encrypted messages that are then used to sample the energy cost function with probability Pk.” As shown by the underlined statement, the result of the measurements in the key space is a set of keys. There is no recitation of measuring the superposition of ciphertexts in the key space. Also, Fig. 7C and corresponding paragraph [0058] also do not support the above limitation since the ciphertext is decrypted and so there is no measuring of the overlap of ciphertexts.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 regarding the new limitation: “wherein the measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is performed at a measurement element in the key space by quantum state tomography”, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection present in the current office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 recites the limitation: “wherein the encoding of the key space into the circuit is encoding into a tensor network” instead of “wherein the encoding of the key space into the circuit is encoding the key space into a tensor network”. 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 1 and 12 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. Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitations: “wherein the measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is performed at a measurement element in the key space by quantum state tomography”. Paragraph [0056] states “This can then lead to a re-arrangement 700′ of the implementation 700 as shown in FIG. 7B in which the measurements are done at a measurement element 740 in the key space, right after the quantum circuit 710. The outcome of these measurements at 740 are a set of keys, according to a probability distribution Pk. These keys, sampled with these probabilities, are then used by a classical encryption mechanism in the encryption element 750 “Cc” to encrypt the original message. The outcome is a set of encrypted messages that are then used to sample the energy cost function with probability Pk.” As shown by the underlined statement, the result of the measurements in the key space is a set of keys. There is no recitation of measuring the superposition of ciphertexts in the key space. Also, Fig. 7C and corresponding paragraph [0058] also do not support the above limitation since the ciphertext is decrypted and so there is no measuring of the overlap of ciphertexts.
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.
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the circuit" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least encryption element for…”, “at least one optimization element for…”, and “ a measurement element for …” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The structure for the above limitations is in paragraphs [0021], [0036], [0037] of the specification and figures 3 and 7A-7C.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over prior art of record Variational quantum attacks threaten advanced encryption standard based symmetric cryptography by Wang et al (hereinafter Wang), prior art of record CN115333717A to Wei et al (hereinafter Wei) and JP2022017309A to Jin et al (hereinafter Jin).
Examiner’s Note 1: The examiner used an English translation of CN115333717A which has been provided in a previous office action.
Examiner’s Note 2: The examiner used an English translation of JP2022017309A which is attached to the end of the original document.
As per claim 1, Wang teaches:
A method for determining an encryption key in a key space for encrypting a plain text to a corresponding encrypted ciphertext, the method comprising:
- constructing a Hamiltonian based on the encrypted ciphertext (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraphs 1 and 2: Based on a pair of known ciphertext and plaintext, the associated Hamiltonian is designed, whose ground state is the ciphertext. Firstly, we construct the Hamiltonian whose ground state corresponds to the ciphertext);
- encoding the key space into a quantum circuit (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Secondly, the key space is encoded into an adjustable quantum state by a parameterized quantum circuit which is also known as ansatz);
- encrypting the plain text using the quantum circuit to obtain a superposition of ciphertexts (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Next, the output of the parameterized quantum circuit is used as a key to encrypt the known plaintext based on the S-DES, and then the superposition of ciphertexts is obtained);
- measuring the superposition of ciphertexts and determining an overlap between the measured superposition of ciphertexts and the encrypted ciphertext (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Finally, we measure the superposition of ciphertexts and forward the result to the classical optimization algorithm. By using the optimization algorithm, we adjust the input parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit to arrange for the superposition ciphertext state to have a considerable overlap with the known ciphertext); and
- on reaching a pre-determined overlap value, collapsing the key space to determine the encryption key, otherwise adjusting parameters of the quantum circuit (Wang: pages 2 and 3: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: By using the optimization algorithm, we adjust the input parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit to arrange for the superposition ciphertext state to have a considerable overlap with the known ciphertext. When the result of measurement is the known ciphertext, the key space also collapses to the required key state);
wherein the step of adjusting the parameters of the circuit comprises using a classical optimization algorithm (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Finally, we measure the superposition of ciphertexts and forward the result to the classical optimization algorithm. By using the optimization algorithm, we adjust the input parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit).
Wang does not teach: wherein the measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is performed at a measurement element in the key space. However, Wei teaches:
wherein the measuring the superposition of ciphertexts is performed at a measurement element in the key space (Wei: [n0009]: When the minimum value of the loss function is less than a preset threshold, the data space is measured to obtain the known ciphertext, and the key space is measured to obtain the key. Also, [n0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Wei in the invention of Wang to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to provide an attack method and electronic device for data encryption standard and advanced data encryption standard, which can effectively accelerate the attack of classical symmetric ciphers (Wei: [n0004]).
Wang in view of Wei do not teach: measuring… by quantum state tomography. However, Jin teaches:
measuring… by quantum state tomography (Jin: [0060]: For example, quantum tomography methods can be used to measure the state information of each qubit in the target quantum hardware device. Also, [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Jin in the invention of Wang in view of Wei to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to verify the target control pulse sequence for achieving the target quantum task, and/or the target control pulse sequence is further optimized based on the difference between the obtained state information of the actual quantum bits and the target state information (Jin: [0035]).
As per claim 3, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the classical optimization algorithm is a gradient descent method (Wang: page 6: 3.3 Classical optimization algorithms: We use two methods to optimize the parameters, namely the gradient descent method and the NelderMead (N-M) method).
As per claim 4, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the encoding of the key space into the circuit is one of encoding into a parameterized quantum circuit or a tensor network (Wang: (Wang: pages 2 and 3: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Secondly, the key space is encoded into an adjustable quantum state by a parameterized quantum circuit which is also known as ansatz. By using the optimization algorithm, we adjust the input parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit).
As per claim 5, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the constructing of the Hamiltonian comprises creating a graph with a plurality of nodes representing the bits of the encrypted ciphertext (Wang: page 3: 3.1 The construction of cost function: In order to encode the known ciphertext into a Hamiltonian ground state, we use each bit as a node to construct regular graphs. For an 8-node network, we can construct an n-regular (n = 1, 2, . . . , 7) graph. The value of the i-th node is denoted by V(i), which is the value of the i-th bit).
As per claim 6, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the graph is a 3-regular graph (Wang: page 4: Paragraphs between equation (4) and (5): The optimization works best when n = 3. The 3-regular graph we use is shown in Figure 3).
As per claim 7, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the encrypting is carried out using a quantum processor (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Next, the output of the parameterized quantum circuit is used as a key to encrypt the known plaintext based on the S-DES. page 3: the ‘symmetric cryptography’ block of Figure 2 is substituted by the ‘S-DES’ module, whose quantum implementation can be found in [17].).
As per claim 8, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the encrypting is carried out using a classical processor (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraphs 1 and 2: The main idea of our VQAA is shown in Figure 2. Next, the output of the parameterized quantum circuit is used as a key to encrypt the known plaintext based on the S-DES. page 3: the ‘symmetric cryptography’ block of Figure 2 is substituted by the ‘S-DES’ module, whose quantum implementation can be found in [17], i.e., the symmetric cryptography block is implemented using a classical processor).
As per claim 12, Wang teaches:
A system for determining an encryption key in a key space for encrypting a plain text to a corresponding encrypted ciphertext, the system comprising:
- at least one input/out device for inputting a plain text (Wang: page 3: Fig. 2 shows inputting plain text P);
- at least one encryption element for encrypting the plain text (Wang: page 3: Fig. 2 shows a symmetric cryptography element);
- at least one quantum circuit encoding the key space (Wang: page 3: Fig. 2 shows a PQC (parametrized quantum circuit). Page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Secondly, the key space is encoded into an adjustable quantum state by a parameterized quantum circuit which is also known as ansatz); and
- at least one optimization element for adjusting the parameters of the quantum circuit (Wang: pages 2 and 3: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: By using the optimization algorithm, we adjust the input parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit page 3: Fig. 2 shows an optimization element implemented using a classical computer),
wherein the adjusting of the parameters of the circuit comprises using a classical optimization algorithm (Wang: page 2: 3 VQAA for symmetric cryptography: paragraph 2: Finally, we measure the superposition of ciphertexts and forward the result to the classical optimization algorithm. By using the optimization algorithm, we adjust the input parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit).
Wang does not teach: a measurement element for measuring the superposition of ciphertexts in the key space by quantum state tomography.. However, Wei teaches:
a measurement element for measuring the superposition of ciphertexts in the key space (Wei: [n0009]: When the minimum value of the loss function is less than a preset threshold, the data space is measured to obtain the known ciphertext, and the key space is measured to obtain the key. Also, [n0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Wei in the invention of Wang to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to provide an attack method and electronic device for data encryption standard and advanced data encryption standard, which can effectively accelerate the attack of classical symmetric ciphers (Wei: [n0004]).
Wang in view of Wei do not teach: measuring… by quantum state tomography. However, Jin teaches:
measuring… by quantum state tomography (Jin: [0060]: For example, quantum tomography methods can be used to measure the state information of each qubit in the target quantum hardware device. Also, [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Jin in the invention of Wang in view of Wei to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to verify the target control pulse sequence for achieving the target quantum task, and/or the target control pulse sequence is further optimized based on the difference between the obtained state information of the actual quantum bits and the target state information (Jin: [0035]).
As per claim 13, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the quantum circuit is implemented as one of a quantum annealer or a quantum gate computer (Wang: page 5: Figures 4-6: Fig. 4: The only difference is that (a) contains a CNOT gate from the last qubit to the first qubit. Fig. 5: Gate Y represents a Pauli-Y gate. Fig. 6: Gate Z represents a Pauli-Z gate).
As per claim 14, Wang in view of Wei and Jin teaches:
The system of claim 12, wherein the encryption element is implemented in a quantum computer or a classical computer (Wang: page 3: Fig. 2 shows the symmetric cryptography elements implemented on a quantum computer).
Claims 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Wei and Jin as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of prior art of record Research on Quantum Annealing Integer Factorization Based on Different Columns by Wang et al (hereinafter WangB).
As per claim 10, Wang in view of Wei and Jin does not teach the limitations of claim 10. However, WangB teaches:
wherein the encrypting is performed using a public key (760p) and the collapsing determines a private key (WangB: Abstract: This paper verifies the feasibility of deciphering RSA public key cryptography based on D-Wave. Page 3, left column last paragraph and right column: The integer factorization problem is converted into a combinatorial optimization problem that can be processed by the quantum annealing algorithm, and the minimum energy value is output through the quantum annealing algorithm. The minimum value is then the successful solution of integer factorization. As the core algorithm of the D-Wave quantum computer, quantum annealing shows the potential to approach or even reach the global optimum in the exponential solution space, corresponding to the quantum evolution of the ground state of the Hamiltonian of the problem. Page 4: left column: After sufficient slow adiabatic evolution, the final Hamiltonian of the system will be the ground state of the Ising model, namely, the factors produced by integer factorization. Page 9, right column: D-Wave can be mixed and enhanced with classics, and it has the potential to achieve the modular distributed decryption of large numbers. It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is that once the factors of the RSA algorithm are known, the private key can derived using the factors and that to perform the decryption, input has to be first encrypted with the public key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of WangB in the invention of Wang in view of Wei and Jin to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to verify the feasibility of D-Wave in factoring large numbers and the potential of its deciphering RSA (page 2: right column).
As per claim 15, Wang in view of Wei and Jin does not teach the limitations of claim 15. However, WangB teaches:
further comprising a further encryption element for encrypting an incoming message using a public key (WangB: page 4, left column: The simulation steps for D-Wave to decipher RSA public key cryptography based on quantum annealing are as follows. Page 9, right column: D-Wave can be mixed and enhanced with classics, and it has the potential to achieve the modular distributed decryption of large numbers. It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order to perform the decryption, input has to be first encrypted with the public key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of WangB in the invention of Wang in view of Wei and Jin to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to verify the feasibility of D-Wave in factoring large numbers and the potential of its deciphering RSA (page 2: right column).
As per claim 16, Wang in view of Wei and Jin does not teach the limitations of claim 16. However, WangB teaches:
wherein the at least one encryption element is replaced by a decryption element (WangB: page 4, left column: The simulation steps for D-Wave to decipher RSA public key cryptography based on quantum annealing are as follows. Page 9, right column: D-Wave can be mixed and enhanced with classics, and it has the potential to achieve the modular distributed decryption of large numbers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of WangB in the invention of Wang in view of Wei and Jin to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to verify the feasibility of D-Wave in factoring large numbers and the potential of its deciphering RSA (page 2: right column).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 will be allowable if the objection and the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADHURI R HERZOG whose telephone number is (571)270-3359. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at (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 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.
MADHURI R. HERZOG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2438
/MADHURI R HERZOG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438