DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 9, 13-14 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2 has been previously cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant asserts that the claims satisfy step 2A of the Mayo test because “At the outset, the Examine selected partial claim language from claim 1 to assert that the claimed elements recite such processes. This is clearly improper”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, applicant asserts that, with regard to Step 2A, Prong 1, that the examiner “selected partial claim language from claim 1 to assert that the claimed elements recite such processes” (an economic transaction between two parties) and that this is “clearly improper” because the meaning of claim 1 was effectively altered to support the rejection, pointing to the interpretation of the following elements specifically as meaningless: “Execution of an NFC exchange is not an economic transaction nor mitigation of risk in such transaction”, “communication of authentication data between computing devices is not an economic transaction nor mitigation of risk in such transaction”, “processing of data by a server is irrelevant to an economic transaction or mitigation of risk in such transaction, and “execution of software application or generation of user interface fails associated therewith is irrelevant to an economic transaction or mitigation of risk in such transaction.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant appears to interpret examiner’s separation of recitation of abstract idea from recitation of additional elements as an attempt to render the claims meaningless. However, the examiner must note the following located on pg. 5 of the non-final rejection mailed 18 December 2025: “the additional element(s) of the claim such as… and other non-underlined elements of the claim outlined”. Thus, it is clear that the examiner fully considered each and every claim element as a whole and that, when considering the underlined sections of the claim, it is clear that the additional elements of the claim are used to perform the recite abstract idea of performing an economic transaction. For additional clarity, the examiner will perform a detailed analysis of a few of elements outlined by applicant though notes that such should be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for each and every element.
“Execution of an NFC exchange is not an economic transaction nor mitigation of risk in such transaction”
The examiner asserts the underlined section of the specific limitation is directed towards the performance of an exchange of information between two parties that intend to perform an economic transaction. In the case of the present claims, these two parties are the first and second devices (which are additional elements of the claims and thus not underlined). The first party/device is associated with a deposit account capable of receiving funds (while this language itself does not constitute a recitation of an abstract idea, the claim must be considered as a whole and thus the association must be considered with respect towards the purpose of the recited exchange). Thus, exchanging information between the two parties is a prerequisite/first step in the overall recited process of performing an economic transaction.
“Communication of authentication data between computing devices is not an economic transaction nor mitigation of risk in such transaction”
The examiner asserts that the underlined section of the specified limitation is directed towards receiving data explicitly for the purpose of authenticating a party which intends to perform an economic transaction. When viewing the claim as a whole, the claims later recite “triggering, in response to receiving the authentication data… an electronic transfer”. Thus, it is clear that the function of receiving identification data is performed explicitly for the purpose of mitigating risk based upon the conditional relationship between receiving authentication dta and transferring funds.
Similar rationale can be applied to the remainder of the elements outlined by applicant. However, even if said arguments were persuasive, the examiner asserts that Analysis of the claims under step 2A prong 1 is proper because the claims recite the following limitation: “triggering, in response to receiving the authentication data from the server, an electronic transfer of predetermined electronic funds to the electronic depositt account”. The examiner cannot discern any plausible interpretation of the aforementioned claim limitation which does not encompass the function of (a) performing an economic transaction or (b) mitigating risk in an economic transaction. The claims recite plainly the transfer of funds (economic value) predicated on authentication. Thus, the abstract idea/judicial exception is “set forth” or described” in the claims which satisfies analysis under Step 2A Prong 1 in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Applicant additionally asserts, with regard to Step 2A, Prong 2, that the claims provide “unequivocal improvement to security of communications and transaction between various computing devices”, pointing to Claim 3 of Example 47 of the 2024 PEG Guidance. Claim 3 of Example 47 of the 2024 PEG Guidance is directed towards a method of using an artificial neural network to detect malicious network packets and was found to be eligible under Step 2A Prong 2 because the ANN of the claimed invention was able to, as outlined in the background section, detect network intrusions and take real-time remedial actions. The present claims make no mention of artificial neural networks, detection of potentially malicious network packets, or performing any real-time remedial action. The examiner cannot discern from applicant’s arguments how any benefit purported to place the abstract idea of claim 3 of example 47 could possibly be construed to be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in the presently claimed invention. Instead, applicant’s arguments appear to merely assert supposed deficiencies of the examiner’s rejection without providing any substantive or cohesive argument. Thus, the examiner must reassert that the claims do not place the recited abstract idea into practical application and thus the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art Rejection:
Applicant asserts that the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose the present claims. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed towards outlining the disclosures of both Cody and Caldwell and making a blanket assertion that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention. While no specific deficiency is outlined by applicant with regards to any individual limitation, the applicant does specify that the references are silent with regard to the “generation of authentication data based on the identification data that is received form the first device and in response to authentication of the first device”. However, the examiner asserts that, regardless of Cody/Caldwell’s supposed lack of recitation, the functionality specified by applicant is not encompassed by the scope of claimed invention as the server, which is configured to perform the authentication as described in claim 1 is not within the scope of the claimed invention. The method, system, and computer program product of the claimed invention merely interacts with a separate server outside it’s scope i.e. sending and receiving data from the server. Thus the claimed invention does not perform the function that applicant asserts the prior art is silent regarding and thus whether or not the prior art discloses said feature is moot. Thus, the examiner must reassert that the prior art or record discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention and thus the examiner must maintain the previously issued rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 1-13 are directed towards a method, claims 14-19 are directed to a system/apparatus, and claim 20 are directed towards a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
executing a near-field communication (NFC) exchange between a first device and a second device upon the first device being detected by the second device to be located within a predetermined distance of the second device, the first device being associated with an electronic deposit account capable of receiving an electronic transfer of funds;
receiving at least one identification data associated with the first device, and sending the at least one identification data to a server, the at least one identification data being received from the first device based on the NFC exchange, wherein the server is configured to authenticate the first device using the at least one identification data and generate an authentication data based on authentication of the first device
processing authentication data received from the server; and
triggering, in response to receiving the authentication data from the server, an electronic transfer of predetermined electronic funds to the electronic deposit account.
wherein the executing includes triggering execution of an application by the second device in response to executing of the NFC exchange, the second device uses the application to perform the electronic transfer;
the execution of the application includes generating at least one user interface by the second device, wherein the at least one user interface includes one or more form fields configured to be automatically populated using a first device data received from the first device during the NFC exchange.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing an economic transaction. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite the process of performing an economic transaction between two parties which is grouped within the Certain methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of mitigating risk in an economic transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “server”, “first device”, “second device”, and other non-underlined elements of the claim outlined above merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “server”, “first device”, “second device”, and other non-underlined elements of the claim outlined above perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “server”, “first device”, “second device”, and other non-underlined elements of the claim outlined above amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “server”, “first device”, “second device”, and other non-underlined elements of the claim outlined above perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite risk mitigation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-13, and 15-19 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 7, 9, and 12 recite additional limitation which are also directed towards the recited abstract idea of performing an economic transaction or recite steps required to perform said abstract idea using a computer.
Claims 3-6, 8, 10-11, 13, and 15-19 merely further describe the data used to the perform the recited abstract idea or further describe the computer used to perform the recited abstract idea without reciting additional elements which integrate the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cody et al. (US 20210192495 A1), in view of Caldwell (US 20210241256 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20, Cody discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
executing a near-field communication (NFC) exchange between a first device and a second device (See Cody: Para. [0017] – “The contactless cards 101 may comprise one or more chips (not depicted), such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip, configured to communicate with the mobile devices 110 via NFC, the EMV standard, or other short-range protocols in wireless communication. Although NFC is used as an example communications protocol, the disclosure is equally applicable to other types of wireless communications”) upon the first device being detected by the second device to be located within a predetermined distance of the second device (See Cody: Para. [0038] – “As shown in FIG. 2B, the user may tap the contactless card 101 to the device 110. Once the user taps the contactless card 101 to the mobile device 110, the applet 103 of the contactless card 101 generates the encrypted customer ID 109. The applet 103 may then transmit the encrypted customer ID 109 to the mobile device 110, e.g., via NFC”),
receiving at least one identification data associated with the first device, and sending the at least one identification data to a server, the at least one identification data being received from the first device based on the NFC exchange (See Cody: para. [0026] – “the contactless card 101 may transmit the encrypted customer ID 109 to the mobile device 110 (e.g., via an NFC connection, Bluetooth connection, etc.). Once received, the mobile device 110 (e.g., the OS 112 and/or the third-party application 115) may transmit the encrypted customer ID 109 to the server 120 via the network 130”);
wherein the server is configured to authenticate the first device using the at least one identification data and generate an authentication data based on authentication of the first device (The examiner has determined that the aforementioned claim limitation constitutes a recitation of nonfunctional descriptive material. Specifically, the limitation appears to merely describe a function performed by a server which is outside the scope of the claimed invention. Thus, the limitations do not impart any meaningful limitation on the claimed method step of receiving. Therefore, as the limitation constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material, the claims cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner cites the following: See Cody: Para. [0026-0027] – “In one embodiment, the encrypted customer ID 109 is transmitted via a hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) application programming interface (API) call to an API provided by the management application 123 … Once received, the management application 123 may authenticate the encrypted customer ID 109. For example, the management application 123 may attempt to decrypt the encrypted customer ID 109 using a copy of the master key 105 stored in the memory 122 of the authentication server 120”);
processing authentication data received from the server (See Cody: Para. [0030] – “More specifically, as shown, responsive to verifying (e.g., decrypting) the encrypted customer ID 109, the management application 123 transmits a push notification 150 to the mobile device 110. The notification 150 may generally indicate that the attempted account generation using the third-party application 115 needs to be verified”); and
triggering, in response to receiving the authentication data from the server, an electronic transfer of predetermined electronic funds to the electronic account (See Code: Para. [0036] – “The user may then use the new account 155 to make purchases, transfer funds, engage in transactions, and perform any other financial operation using the contactless card 101 (and/or the virtual account number for the contactless card 101) via the third-party application 115.”).
wherein the executing includes triggering execution of an application by the second device in response to executing of the NFC exchange, the second device uses the application to perform the electronic transfer (See Cody: Fig. 4 – Step 455 occurs as a result of previous step 420; See Cody: Para. [0018] – “As shown, a memory 111 of the mobile device 110 includes an instance of an operating system (OS) 112. Example operating systems 112 include the Android® OS, iOS®, Linux®, and Windows® operating systems. As shown, the OS 112 includes an account application 113 and one or more third-party applications 115. The account application 113 allows users to perform various account-related operations, such as viewing account balances, purchasing items, and processing payments”);
the execution of the application includes generating at least one user interface by the second device, wherein the at least one user interface includes one or more form fields configured to be automatically populated using a first device data received from the first device during the NFC exchange. (See Cody: Para. [0037] – “A graphical user interface (GUI) of the third-party application 115 on the mobile device 110 provide a GUI element 201 that allows a user to generate an account with the third-party application 115 using the contactless card 101. When the user selects GUI 201, the third-party application 115 may output an indication 202 specifying to tap the contactless card 101 to the device 110 as depicted in the schematic 210 of FIG. 2B.”).
However, Cody fails to explicitly disclose:
the first device being associated with an electronic deposit account capable of receiving an electronic transfer of funds;
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Caldwell discloses:
the first device being associated with an electronic deposit account capable of receiving an electronic transfer of funds (See Caldwell: Para. [0070] – “Payment information, in certain embodiments, includes one or more of an amount for a transaction, an identifier for a party to a transaction (e.g., a user, a merchant 108, or the like), an identifier for an account for a party to a transaction (e.g., a source account, a destination account, an account for a user, an account for a merchant 108, or the like), and/or other information describing or otherwise associated with a transaction. An account for a user and/or merchant 108 may comprise an account with the merchant 108 or other third-party entity 108, an account with the payment module 104 and/or an entity associated therewith, a financial account (e.g., a payment source, a checking account, a savings account, a credit account, a card-based account, or the like)”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the generic electronic account disclosed by Cody for the electronic deposit account associated with a first device disclosed by Caldwell yielding the predictable result of an increase in the security strength of the invention by leveraging hardware-based authentication methodology.
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, the combination discloses:
wherein the first device is a contactless card and the second device is a mobile device, wherein the first device data includes a contactless card data (See Cody: Para. [0038] – “As shown in FIG. 2B, the user may tap the contactless card 101 to the device 110. Once the user taps the contactless card 101 to the mobile device 110, the applet 103 of the contactless card 101 generates the encrypted customer ID 109. The applet 103 may then transmit the encrypted customer ID 109 to the mobile device 110, e.g., via NFC”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, the combination discloses:
wherein the contactless card data includes at least one of the following: an account number associated with the contactless card, an expiration date associated with the contactless card, a card verification value (CVV) associated with the contactless card, a billing address associated with the contactless card, a name of a user associated with the contactless card, and any combination thereof (See Cody: Para. [0038] – “As shown in FIG. 2B, the user may tap the contactless card 101 to the device 110. Once the user taps the contactless card 101 to the mobile device 110, the applet 103 of the contactless card 101 generates the encrypted customer ID 109. The applet 103 may then transmit the encrypted customer ID 109 to the mobile device 110, e.g., via NFC”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, the combination discloses:
wherein the mobile device is an active computing device and the contactless card is a passive computing device, wherein, in response to the executing of the NFC exchange, the mobile device is configured to transmit the at least one message to cause the contactless card to become temporarily active and transmit at least one of:the at least one identification data and the contactless card data, to the mobile device (See Cody: Para. [0038] – “As shown in FIG. 2B, the user may tap the contactless card 101 to the device 110. Once the user taps the contactless card 101 to the mobile device 110, the applet 103 of the contactless card 101 generates the encrypted customer ID 109. The applet 103 may then transmit the encrypted customer ID 109 to the mobile device 110, e.g., via NFC”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination discloses:
wherein the authentication data corresponding to the contactless card includes encrypted authentication data corresponding to the contactless card (See Fig. 1A – Encrypted Customer ID 109).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination discloses:
wherein the processing of the response from the server includes decrypting the encrypted authentication data corresponding to the contactless card (See Cody: Para. [0011] – “The first server may verify the encrypted data received from the contactless card by decrypting the encrypted data”); upon determining, based on the decrypted authentication data, that the contactless card has been authenticated by the server, performing the electronic transfer; and upon determining, based on the decrypted authentication data, that the contactless card has not been authenticated by the server, preventing the electronic transfer (See Cody: Para. [0011] – “The account application may then require the user to provide authentication credentials to access an account associated with the contactless card. The account application may then ask the user to confirm whether the attempted account generation using the third-party payment application is valid. If the user provides input specifying the account generation is not valid, the third-party account generation may be restricted to preserve security of the account associated with the contactless card. Otherwise, the account application may transmit an indication to the first server indicating the user confirmed the validity of the attempted account generation using the third-party payment application.”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination discloses:
wherein the contactless card includes at least one of the following: a credit card, a debit card, an electronic gift card, a pre-paid credit card, a pre- paid debit card, and any combination thereof (See Cody: Para. [0017] – “The contactless cards 101 are representative of any type of payment card, such as a credit card, debit card, ATM card, gift card, and the like.”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination discloses:
wherein the electronically transferring includes transmitting the received request for electronically transferring the predetermined electronic funds to the server, the server communicating the received request to at least another electronic deposit account storing the predetermined electronic funds; and electronic transfer, in response to the server communicating the received request, the predetermined electronic funds from the at least another electronic deposit to the electronic deposit account (See Code: Para. [0036] – “The user may then use the new account 155 to make purchases, transfer funds, engage in transactions, and perform any other financial operation using the contactless card 101 (and/or the virtual account number for the contactless card 101) via the third-party application 115.”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination discloses:
wherein the at least another electronic deposit is associated with the mobile device (See Code: Para. [0036] – “The user may then use the new account 155 to make purchases, transfer funds, engage in transactions, and perform any other financial operation using the contactless card 101 (and/or the virtual account number for the contactless card 101) via the third-party application 115.”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination discloses:
wherein the at least one identification data transmitted to the server is encrypted (See Fig. 1A – Encrypted Customer ID 109 is transferred from the mobile device 110 to the server 120).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cody in view of Caldwell in further view of Moring et al. (US 20220005020 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Cody and Caldwell discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first device is a first mobile device and the second device is a second mobile device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Moring discloses a first and a second mobile device which may directly communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion using NFC and Bluetooth technologies (See Moring: Para. [0055] – “First mobile device 104 and second mobile device 108 may directly communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion using wireless communication capabilities, such as that provided by near-field communication (NFC) and Bluetooth technologies, among others.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the functionality of the contactless card disclosed by the combination of Cody and Caldwell to be performed by the first mobile device disclosed by Moring yielding the predictable result of an increase in the efficiency of the invention by leveraging the speed of P2P data transmission.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, the combination discloses:
wherein the executing of the NFC exchange includes a peer-to-peer communication between the first mobile device and the second mobile device (See Moring: Para. [0055] – “First mobile device 104 and second mobile device 108 may directly communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion using wireless communication capabilities, such as that provided by near-field communication (NFC) and Bluetooth technologies, among others.”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination discloses:
wherein the electronic deposit account includes a first electronic deposit account associated with the first mobile device; and a second electronic deposit account is associated with the second mobile device (See Code: Para. [0036] – “The user may then use the new account 155 to make purchases, transfer funds, engage in transactions, and perform any other financial operation using the contactless card 101 (and/or the virtual account number for the contactless card 101) via the third-party application 115.”); wherein the electronic transfer includes electronically transferring, using the peer- to-peer communication, the predetermined electronic funds from the second electronic deposit account to the first electronic deposit account (See Moring: Para. [0055] – “First mobile device 104 and second mobile device 108 may directly communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion using wireless communication capabilities, such as that provided by near-field communication (NFC) and Bluetooth technologies, among others.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights