DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s RCE filed 4/23/2026.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 14, 15, 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-21 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-21 have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland (US 20220391889 A1) in view of Norton (US 20220239495 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Holland teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request from a user device to mint an NFT of an image or video; {[0176] “Pressing the buy button 1245 allows the ownership device 1210 to […] request creation (minting) of a new token 1260 for the digital asset 1240.”; [0176] “FIG. 12A is a perspective diagram 1200 illustrating a user 1205 using an ownership device 1210 to purchase a digital asset 1240 (an image) of a portrait in a museum.”; [0176] “In some examples, the ownership device 1210 may be the media device”; Fig. 2}
PNG
media_image1.png
648
994
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Media Device / ownership device reads on user device.
accessing location verification data based on the user device being within a threshold distance of a location verification device; {[0088] “Positioning data indicating a pose of the media device during capture of the sensor data may be obtained from the media device, for instance from the positioning sensors of the media device and/or based on one or more short-range wireless communications between the media device and a local device [location verification device].”}
verifying a location of the user device based on the location verification data received by the location verification device, {[0088] “Positioning data indicating a pose of the media device during capture of the sensor data may be obtained from the media device, for instance from the positioning sensors of the media device and/or based on one or more short-range wireless communications between the media device and a local device [location verification device].”; [0146] “The one or more token smart contracts 645 can include conditions that must be met before the token 600 can be successfully created (minted). For example, one such condition may require that verification that the media device 205 was in the geographic area at a time contemporaneous with, and/or during, capture of the sensor data 230 corresponding to the media data 250 of the digital asset 605 (e.g., block 290 of FIG. 2) must be successfully performed by one or more verifying devices (e.g., at least a threshold number of verifying devices, such as a quorum as in FIGS. 15A-15B) in order to permit creation (minting) of the token 600.”} the location verification data being associated with at least one signal received by the location verification device from the user device, {Fig. 2 272; [0112] “In some examples, the media device 205 may receive and/or transmit one or more of the communications 272 with the local device 270 as part of capturing pose data 225. For example, the local device 270 may have a verified location, and may for example be a local device 270 set up and managed by a venue, such as a museum, a concert venue, a movie theater, a sports venue, and the like. If the media device 205 and the local device 270 are within short-range wireless communication signal range of one another (e.g., within range to successfully send and receive the one or more communications 272), then the media device 205 is in the proximity of the local device 270.”} the location of the user device and a location of the location verification device each corresponding to the request to mint the NFT {Fig. 12a; [0176] “the ownership device 1210 may only be offered to purchase ownership of (and/or creation/minting of) the token 1260 if the ownership device 1210 is verified as being in the geographic area (e.g., in the Louvre Museum) [location of the user device and a location of the location verification device].”} wherein the location verification device is included within a plurality of location verification devices including a plurality of beacons affixed to one or more structures and separated by a distance; {[0113] “In some examples, the media device [user device] 205 may send communications 272 with multiple local devices [plurality of beacons] 270.”; [0113] “In some examples, a local device 270 may be a beacon device with a known location. In some examples, a local device 270 may be a wireless network access point (e.g., Wi-Fi, WLAN) with a known location. In some examples, a local device 270 may be a cellular network access point (e.g., a cell tower [structure]) with a known location.”}
minting the NFT, on a distributed ledger, based on the public blockchain address and based on verifying the location of the user device, and based on a combination of image or video metadata for the image or the video and the location of the user device being within the threshold distance of the location verification device; {[0160] “a server 885 mints token 860 based on digital asset 840 with ownership set to user 805 upon verifying that media device 810 was at the Louvre Museum during capture (e.g., via object recognition and/or by verifying positioning sensor 820 data matches the Louvre Museum's known geographic area and/or by verifying communications in communications 835).”}
Holland does not explicitly teach, however Holland implicitly teaches:
identifying a public blockchain address based on the request to mint the NFT; {[0146] “One or more token smart contracts 645 can be associated with the token 600. For instance, the one or more token smart contracts 645 manage creation (or ‘minting’) of the token 600.”}
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that minting the token implies identifying a public blockchain address because, when minting a token, a wallet address must ordinarily be specified as the ownership address for the newly minted token.
Holland does not teach, however Norton teaches:
generating, in response to verifying the location of the user device, a certificate of authenticity associated with the minted NFT {Abstract “The method and system use multiple attestations along with digital ledger technology to provide a digital certificate of authenticity for an object such as a work of art, collectible, or a non-fungible token (NFT).”}, the certificate of authenticity indicating at least the verified location of the user device, {[0077] “Attestations, signed by the attesting party's private key or a key derived therefrom, are generated, hashed using a standard cryptographic hashing algorithm, timestamped, and recorded on a blockchain. An attestation may be a claim of authorship by the artwork's creator, a claim of ownership by a buyer and/or seller, a report of the artwork's condition or authenticity by an expert, a record of relocation made by an owner or caretaker, or any number of other possible claims regarding the work.”} wherein the certificate of authenticity is stored by a data store separate from the distributed ledger; and {[0138] “A storage site 1508 stores signed certificate version files along with the detached timestamp.”}
causing the user device to display the certificate of authenticity in association with the minted NFT. {[0079] “A combined set of attestations about a given work of art is combined into a certificate, presenting all recorded information about the work along with an overall confidence level and confidence levels for individual attestations. These may be presented in a user-readable format much like a traditional paper certificate.”; Fig. 5A}
PNG
media_image2.png
507
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the creation of a certificate of authenticity of Norton to the method of Holland, which generates an NFT in response to verifying a device is in a geographic area, because it would increase the value of the generated NFT collectible by providing certification of its origin (Norton [0004] “There is a need in the field of art and other artifacts to verifiably record sources, characteristics, and actions. For example, a gallery or collector of artifacts has a need to be able to verify and prove the provenance of an artifact, such as a work of art, so as to establish its authenticity and value.”).
Regarding claim 2
Holland teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of beacons are affixed to the one or more structures at a plurality of physical locations, each of the plurality of beacons being within a threshold distance from at least one other beacon of the plurality of beacons, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises verifying the location of the user device based on receiving the location verification data from a threshold number of the plurality of beacons. {[0117] “If three or more local devices 270 are used, the location of the media device 205 may be narrowed to a single point, which may be referred to as triangulation. Thus, triangulation based on signals from multiple local device 270 may be used to identify the position of the media device 205 (e.g., may be used as positioning data) and/or may be used to verify that the pose of the media device 205 is in a geographic area (block 290).”}
If triangulation is being used as the method of locating the media device, then the threshold number of beacons is three.
Regarding claim 6
Holland teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the location verification device is included within the plurality of location verification devices including a beacon affixed to a structure and a base station, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises verifying the location of the user device based on receiving the location verification data from the beacon and the base station. {[0113] “In some examples, a local device 270 may be a beacon device with a known location. In some examples, a local device 270 may be a wireless network access point (e.g., Wi-Fi, WLAN) with a known location. In some examples, a local device [beacon] 270 may be a cellular network access point [base station] (e.g., a cell tower) with a known location.”}
Regarding claim 7
Holland teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein verifying the location of the user device comprises:
causing the base station to transmit a positioning reference signal to the user device;
receiving a reference signal transmitted by the user device in response to receipt of the positioning reference signal by the user device; and
determining the location of the user device based on (i) the positioning reference signal, (ii) the reference signal, and (iii) a known location of the base station, using a positioning technique comprising at least one of round trip time positioning, time difference of arrival positioning, or uplink angle of arrival positioning. {[0115] “In some examples, a time of transmission and a time of receipt of one or more of the communications 272 may be used to identify the position of the media device 205 (e.g., may be used as positioning data) and/or may be used to verify that the pose of the media device 205 is in a geographic area (block 290). For example, time of transmission and a time of receipt of one or more of the communications 272 may be subtracted to identify a time duration over which the communications 272 traveled, which may be used to determine a distance between the media device 205 and the local device 270.”}
Regarding claim 8
Holland teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request includes image data and an event identifier associated with an event and an event location, and
The image data and event identifier included in the request is non-functional descriptive material because it claims the content of data not used in the method.
wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises verifying the location of the user device based on the user device being within a threshold distance of the event location and based on metadata of the image data being within a duration of the event. {[0160] “The information 855 about the token 860 includes history 880. In some examples, each element of the history 880 is identified as a payload element in a block of the distributed ledger that stores the token 860. The history 880 indicates that, on May 24, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM, the digital asset 840 is captured by user 805 using media device 810 while positioning sensors 920 of media device 810 indicate a pose of the media device 810 is in the Louvre Museum facing north and while media device 810 and local device 830 at the Louvre Museum are in communication range (based on communications 835).”; [0117] “The location of the media device 205 may be identified as being along a circle drawn around the local device 270 having a radius the length of the distance identified (e.g., based on the time of transmission and the time of receipt, and/or based on the signal frequency of transmission and the signal frequency of receipt).”}
Regarding claim 10
Holland teaches:
One or more computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by a computing system having a processor and memory, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a request from a user device to mint an NFT of an image or video;
identifying a public blockchain address based on the request to mint the NFT;
verifying a location of the user device based on the request and location verification data received by a location verification device that is affixed to a structure, the location verification data being associated with at least one signal received by the location verification device from the user device,
See similar limitations in claim 1.
wherein the location verification device is included within a plurality of location verification devices including a plurality of beacons that are each affixed to a different structure and separated by a distance, and wherein the location of the user device is within a threshold distance of a location; {[0115] “For example, time of transmission and a time of receipt of one or more of the communications 272 may be subtracted to identify a time duration over which the communications 272 traveled, which may be used to determine a distance between the media device 205 and the local device 270.”; [0117] “The location of the media device 205 may be identified as being along a circle drawn around the local device 270 having a radius the length of the distance identified (e.g., based on the time of transmission and the time of receipt, and/or based on the signal frequency of transmission and the signal frequency of receipt).”}
causing the NFT to be minted on a distributed ledger based on the public blockchain address, based on verifying the location of the user device, and based on a combination of image or video metadata for the image or the video and the location of the user device being within a threshold distance of the location verification device; and
See similar limitation in claim 1.
in response to verifying the location of the user device, causing the user device to present a certificate of authenticity associated with the minted NFT, the certificate of authenticity indicating at least the verified location of the user device, wherein the certificate of authenticity is stored by a data store separate from the distributed ledger.
See similar limitation in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11
Holland teaches:
The one or more computer-storage media of claim 10, wherein the plurality of beacons that are each affixed to a different structure at different physical locations, each of the plurality of beacons being within a threshold distance from at least one other beacon of the plurality of beacons, and wherein the location of the user device is verified based on each of the plurality of beacons receiving the location verification data from the user device.
See similar limitation in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12
Holland teaches:
The one or more computer-storage media of claim 10, wherein the NFT includes image data captured by the user device, and wherein the operations further comprise:
verifying the image data was captured by the user device based on metadata of the image data; and
See similar limitation in claim 4.
minting the NFT including the image data based on verifying the image data was captured by the user device.
See similar limitation in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13
Holland teaches:
The one or more computer-storage media of claim 12, wherein verifying the image data was captured by the user device further includes comparing the image data corresponding to a background with other image data of the background captured by other user devices, wherein the location verification device verified locations of the other user devices, the verifications of the other user devices associated with the other image data.
See similar limitation in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14
Holland teaches:
The one or more computer-storage media of claim 10, wherein the request includes an event identifier associated with an event and an event location, wherein the location verification device has a location within the event location, and
See similar limitation in claim 8.
wherein the location of the user device is verified using at least one of round trip time positioning, time difference of arrival positioning, or uplink angle of arrival positioning.
See similar limitation in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15
Holland teaches:
A computerized system comprising:
one or more computer processors; and
computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a request from a user device to mint an NFT of an image or video, the request including an event identifier associated with an event and an event location; {[0112] “For example, the local device 270 may have a verified location, and may for example be a local device 270 set up and managed by a venue, such as a museum, a concert venue, a movie theater, a sports venue, and the like.”}
See similar limitation in claim 8.
identifying a public blockchain address based on the request to mint the NFT;
See similar limitation in claim 1.
verifying a location of the user device based on location verification data received by a location verification device, the location verification data being associated with at least one signal received by the location verification device from the user device, the location of the user device and a location of the location verification device each corresponding to the event location;
See similar limitation in claim 1.
minting the NFT on a distributed ledger based on the public blockchain address, based on verifying the location of the user device, and based on a combination of image or video metadata for the image or the video and the location of the user device being within a threshold distance of the location verification device;
See similar limitation in claim 1.
Holland does not teach, however Norton teaches:
generating, in response to verifying the location of the user device, a certificate of authenticity associated with the minted NFT, the certificate of authenticity indicating at least the verified location of the user device, wherein the certificate of authenticity is stored by a data store separate from the distributed ledger; and
See similar limitation in claim 1.
providing the certificate of authenticity to the user device.
See similar limitation in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16
Holland teaches:
The computerized system of claim 15, wherein the NFT corresponds to image data captured by the user device, and wherein the location of the user device is verified based on metadata of the image data being within a duration of the event. {[0112] “For example, the local device 270 may have a verified location, and may for example be a local device 270 set up and managed by a venue, such as a museum, a concert venue, a movie theater, a sports venue, and the like.”; [0108] “The media device 205 may capture sensor data 230 using the sensors 210. In some examples, the sensor data 230 may include images, videos, depth map images, depth map videos, audio clips, or combinations thereof captured by the media sensors 220. The sensor data 230 may in some cases identify metadata, for example identifying timestamp of capture”}
Regarding claim 17
Holland teaches:
The computerized system of claim 15, wherein the location verification device includes a motion sensor having an infrared sensor, and wherein the location of the user device is verified based on movement data of a user of the user device detected by the infrared sensor. {[0307] “The communication interface may perform or facilitate receipt and/or transmission wired or wireless communications using wired and/or wireless transceivers, including […] Infrared (IR) communication wireless signal transfer”; [0115] “For example, time of transmission and a time of receipt of one or more of the communications 272 may be subtracted to identify a time duration over which the communications 272 traveled, which may be used to determine a distance between the media device 205 and the local device 270.”}
Verifying based on movement data is interpreted consistent with specification [0050] “In some embodiments, the location verification device 404 can transmit a light detection and ranging signal (e.g., a 1064 nm wavelength) at the user device.”
Regarding claim 18
The computerized system of claim 15, wherein verifying the location of the user device is based on the user device registering with a computer application using a media access control (MAC) address of the user device and the public blockchain address. {[0041] “In some aspects, an identifier [media access control address] of the device is stored in the distributed ledger, and wherein identifying the device is based on the identifier.”}
The system of claim 18 does not include the user device. Functions of the user device are therefore not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19
The computerized system of claim 15, wherein the NFT corresponds to image data captured by the user device, and wherein the location of the user device is verified based on metadata of the image data being within a duration of the event.
Claim 19 is a duplicate of claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20
Holland teaches:
The computerized system of claim 15, wherein the location verification device is included within a plurality of location verification devices that also include a base station, and
See similar limitation in claim 6.
wherein verifying the location of the user device comprises:
causing the base station to transmit a positioning reference signal to the user device;
receiving a reference signal transmitted by the user device in response to receipt of the positioning reference signal by the user device; and
determining the location of the user device based on (i) the positioning reference signal, (ii) the reference signal, and (iii) a known location of the base station, using a positioning technique comprising at least one of round trip time positioning, time difference of arrival positioning, or uplink angle of arrival positioning.
See similar limitations in claim 7.
Regarding claim 21
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the location verification device is affixed to a drone or other mobile vehicle.
Holland does not teach the local device (location verification device) being affixed to a drone or other mobile vehicle. However, this is not given patentable weight. The claimed method has steps which involve a computer accessing location verification data, performing analysis of the data, and minting an NFT. The method is not altered in any way by what the verification device is affixed to.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of Norton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weyand “PlaNet - Photo Geolocation with Convolutional Neural Networks”.
Regarding claim 4
Holland teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the NFT includes an image captured by at least one image sensor of the user device, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises:
verifying the image was captured by the user device based on metadata of the image; {[0041] “In some aspects, an identifier of the device is stored in the distributed ledger, and wherein identifying the device is based on the identifier.”; [0160] “The information 855 about the token 860 includes history 880. In some examples, each element of the history 880 is identified as a payload element in a block of the distributed ledger that stores the token 860. The history 880 indicates that, on May 24, 2021 at 2:03:36 PM, the digital asset 840 is captured by user 805 using media device 810 while positioning sensors 920 of media device 810 indicate a pose of the media device 810 is in the Louvre Museum facing north and while media device 810 and local device 830 at the Louvre Museum are in communication range (based on communications 835).”}
minting the NFT based on verifying the image was captured by the user device and […] {[0160] “a server 885 mints token 860 based on digital asset 840 with ownership set to user 805 upon verifying that media device 810 was at the Louvre Museum during capture (e.g., via object recognition and/or by verifying positioning sensor 820 data matches the Louvre Museum's known geographic area and/or by verifying communications in communications 835).”; [0108] “In some examples, the sensor data 230 may include images”}
Holland does not teach verifying a location based on a plurality of images captured at the location, however Weyand teaches:
verifying that the image includes a background corresponding to the location of the location verification device based on a plurality of images captured at the location of the location verification device; and
[…] verifying that the image includes a background corresponding to the location of the location verification device. {Abstract “images often contain informative cues such as landmarks, weather patterns, vegetation, road markings, and architectural details, which in combination [background] may allow one to determine an approximate location and occasionally an exact location”; page 2 “matching against geotagged images can provide the rough location of a query photo”}
Holland teaches minting a token based on an image upon verifying the location of a media device using sensor data ([0160]). Weyand teaches determining the location of an image by comparing to geotagged images.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the geolocation of Weyand to the method of Holland in view of Norton because it would provide additional verification of the location of the image.
Regarding claim 5
Holland does not teach, however Weyand teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of images captured at the location of the location verification device were captured by other user devices, and wherein each of the plurality of images were verified based on metadata of each of the plurality of images. {Page 2 “matching against geotagged [metadata] images can provide the rough location of a query photo”}
This limitation is not given patentable weight. It does not claim a step, but rather describes the history of the plurality of images in a way that does not affect the performance of any claimed step. However, it is taught by Weyand.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of Norton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pivac et al. (US 12353801 B2).
Regarding claim 9
Holland does not teach processing accelerometer data, however Pivac teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the location verification data includes user device accelerometer data, and wherein verifying the location of the user device includes processing, via one or more movement algorithms, the user device accelerometer data and movement data detected by the infrared sensor that was processed by the signal processor. {Column 9 line 49 “These systems measure position at 300 Hz, or 1 kHz or 2 kHz (depending on the equipment) and rely on a combination of sensing arrangements, including laser tracking, vision systems using 2D cameras, accelerometer data such as from a tilt sensor or INS (Inertial navigation System) and can be used to make accurate position measurements [processing] of position”}
Holland teaches the media device including sensors for measuring position, and the system determining position based on said sensor data (processing). Holland does not teach the sensors including an accelerometer. However, Pivac teaches using accelerometer data to make accurate position measurements.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the accelerometer of Pivac as one of the sensors of the media device of Holland in view of Norton because the accelerometer is merely a specific type of sensor which fulfills the purpose in Holland of allowing location measurements.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 103
Applicant has amended the claims and argues the newly added limitations are not taught by the cited art.
Specifically, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 10, and 15 to include new limitations of generating a certificate of authenticity and displaying it. These limitations are not taught by the cited art. However, additional search was conducted and Norton has been added as a reference. Norton teaches generating a certificate of authenticity for an NFT for the purpose of certifying attestations about it, with the advantage of increasing the value of the NFT.
Applicant has additionally amended claims 7, 14, and 20 to include round trip time positioning. However, Holland clearly teaches this ([0115] “In some examples, a time of transmission and a time of receipt of one or more of the communications 272 may be used to identify the position of the media device”). Applicant has not provided any argument distinguishing the teachings of Holland from the claimed round trip time positioning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Moore (US 20220193027 A1) teaches:
“The shipment may be received 790 at a manufacturer or retailer and the digital twin is scanned to attest to the authenticity, such as via a certificate of authenticity and the arrival notarized 792 and may also be entered into the blockchain.”
Llewelyn (US 20220180074 A1) teaches:
[0172] “To address matters of authenticity, the keepsake housing may further be marked, tagged, embedded, coated, or printed with an element that is configured to be transmitted, scanned, or relayed for downstream decoding and initiating further approval required digital events, such as verification of item, chain of custody, item facts, purchasing facts, sharing item related content, etc. In one embodiment, the digital event triggering element is a scan-ready code, like a QR code, enabling a user to scan the code to be directed to a registry verifying the item and providing any pertinent information of the item or event in any medium or format, such as a digital ledger, digital certificate of authenticity, video, or any other digital asset pertinent to issues of authenticity. In other embodiments, NFT's may be adopted as a means to verify authenticity and the limited edition nature.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights