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
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-9, filed on March 25, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10-18 and 20 under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al. (US 20240364526 A1 –hereinafter—“Waugh”) in view of Maus US 20120273578 A1 in further view of Verheul US 20230327884 A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over KHAN (US 20200195436 A1) in view of Waugh et al. (US 20240364526 A1 –hereinafter—“Waugh”) in further view of Verheul US 20230327884 A1.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHAN (US 20200195436 A1) in view of Waugh et al. (US 20240364526 A1 –hereinafter—“Waugh”) in further view of Verheul US 20230327884 A1.
As per claim 1:
KHAN discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
providing an integrated smart entity comprising both, a visual indicator of a physical entity and a persistent memory storing picture identifier data, wherein said visual indicator and said persistent memory are physically inseparable and the visual indicator is an image of the physical entity and the physical entity is a person and the integrated smart entity is a smart card ([0056] The dual purposes of ID documents are to ascertain the virtual identity of the holder through providing a valid and authentic document, and also for a human authorized agent to identify the physical person as the rightful owner of the document, therefore binding in-person the physical identity to the virtual one. Given many security features involve micro-printing, NW or UV markings, RFID, and smartcard microchips, it is safe to say that only such equipment can reliably read these and validate certain aspect of these. Uniquely verifying a physical ID card by establishing unique ID cards that are bound to a user's identity by an issuing authority. [0057-0058] The task of validating the physical identity of the ID document holder with the photo on the document, or the photo on another document of the same name such as a government issued ID, is optimally suited to the human agent today. As a biometric identifier, the matching of a user photo to their face is easily and quickly performed in person whereas with the current status of electronic solutions this is something more difficult to achieve reliably with facial recognition and face matching technology. Accordingly, it would be beneficial for improved focus to be applied to photographic images within ID documents. Supporting enhanced photographic and/or digital imagery to ensure enhanced usability for both visual authentication and easy readability without requiring high cost scanning or camera devices, allowing within the supported embodiments entirely digital mobile ID documents);
comparing, by an operator of a verifier unit, said visual indicator and a related feature of said physical entity to be authenticated, wherein the operator verifies by using either an analog method or a digital method that said visual indicator is the same as the person who is holding said smart card ([0089] A license holder may perform the following sequence of actions: The license holder logs in to an Identity Authority Server using a PHYSAP (e.g. a RetroTrust™ software application) on their PED and multi-factor-authentication (MFA). The license holder requests a download of their driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance document onto the license holder's PED and also enters the police officer's badge number and department onto the PHYSAP so that the documents also download onto the PED of the police officer who is requesting to see the documents. The documents download simultaneously from the Identity Authority Server onto the PEDs of the license holder and the police officer. At the same time the Eid App displays on both PEDs the same fractal, which was also downloaded along with the documents from the Identity Authority Server. The two fractals which are easy to compare ensures that the officer is confident that the downloaded documents on both devices are exactly the same. [0099] The IA 510 generates second and third responses to the OED and PED respectively. In second response “6” the OED receives, based upon the appropriate privacy requirements of the user based upon identity information of the organization associated with the OED, appropriate information including a privacy compliant representation 550 of the PhysID and/or EIeID, and a first unique identifier 540 provided from the IA Server 520 within the IA 510. As such the OED may display to the officer associated with the OED, as indicated by OED in second OED configuration 520B, wherein the privacy compliant representation 550 and unique identifier 540 are displayed. The officer associated with the OED can then compare these to the PhysID and/or EleID being offered by the user. In the instance of an EleID the third response “7” to the user's PED may trigger the EleIDAp in execution upon their PED, e.g. Ping 360 application, to display as displayed in second EleIDAp configuration 510B, the EIeID 530 together with a second unique identifier 535 provided to them within third response “7.” As such the EleIDAp in execution upon the user's PED provides information against which the officer with the information upon their OED can compare. As such the officer would be seeking to verify that the EleIDs match and the unique identifiers match. [0104] identity verification exploiting an identity application. wherein the user is verified within a retail environment, e.g. a convenience store, such that the retailer verification on second image 710B is the user's image for recognition, fractal for comparison to user's PED fractal, and verified indicators for the user's driving license being valid and the user's age with respect to Government regulated ages, e.g. for alcohol, tobacco products, adult magazines, etc. Third and fourth images 720A and 720B relating to the user's driving license whilst fifth and sixth images 730A and 730B relate to the user's passport wherein the details are provided to the border services agent's PED or FED. The PhotoID concepts can be extended into an identity wallet (ID Wallet) for a user as depicted in first image 810 wherein the ID Wallet application allows the user to access Photo-ID, Payments, Financial—Banking, Loyalty & Gift, Online Access, and Budgeting functions. Accordingly, selection of one of the categories triggers the presentation of a user screen such as depicted with user screens 820A to 820N wherein the functionality may be varied according to the different categories and as evident from discussions below prior art techniques such as chip-and-pin verification for financial instruments such as credit cards may be combined with Identity Attribute Assurance, Identity Verification Scores, photographic identity etc. This being facilitated, for example, by cross-access of PHYSAPs such that, for example, payment with a credit card to a financial processing, e.g. MasterCard, may link through to the financial institution, e.g. TD Bank, which provides a request to a Government photographic identity provider, e.g. driving license, resulting in the photograph of the user being communicated back to the terminal of the retailer such that they can verify the user of the card thereby reducing credit card fraud. Alternatively, the financial institution may acquire images of their account holders based upon a verification of the account holder through their Government issued photographic identity and this is provided back via the financial processing to the retailer); and
receiving, by the verifier unit, an output value of a function having said picture identifier data as argument and a verifiable credential ([0060] A credential holder (user 165) is identity-proofed in-person by a trusted agent of the government photographic identity issuing authority, e.g. first and second PHYSAPs 155A and 155B. This process step 210, as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A, results in the issuance of photographic identity (Photo-ID) document (PhysID) 160A (step 220) and the credential holder's proofed identity being bound (step 230) to the government photographic identity document. As a result of this sequence the credential holder's identity-proofed attributes being stored in step 240 within a government Identity Attribute Database 250 managed by the document issuer. Attributes stored in respect of the credential holder within the Identity Attribute Database 250 may include, but not be limited to, the photograph of the user 165, the signature of the user 165, the user's name and address, type of document, and date of issue. The information within the Identity Attribute Database 250 is also accessible by a Document Validation and Identity Verification Engine (DVIVE) 260 which is in communication with an Attribute Provider 135. In contrast, with second PHYSAP 155B, a similar process as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A may be employed, resulting in a second PhysID 160D, electronic ID document (EleID) 160B, and fractal 160C. The fractal 160C may, for example be a fractal image or be a fractal image with embedded encrypted data such as described by the inventors within U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/086,745 entitled “Verifiable Credentials and Methods Thereof” filed Dec. 3, 2014 the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference).
KHAN does not explicitly disclose upon determining that said output value of said function and said received verifiable credential satisfy a matching predicate, confirming, by the verifier unit, said verifiable credential, and wherein the verifier unit knows the public key of all trusted issuers. Waugh, in analogous art however, discloses upon determining that said output value of said function and said received verifiable credential satisfy a matching predicate, confirming, by the verifier unit, said verifiable credential, and wherein the verifier unit knows the public key of all trusted issuers ([0050] The present invention meets the needs of verifiable credential issuers and the verifiable credentials they issue by providing a method for binding the verifiable credentials with the biometrics of the applicant for the verifiable credential by verifying the applicant by the applicant presenting a government photo ID, such as a driver license, and matching the photo of the applicant on the ID with a selfie of the applicant. This matching can extend for an even greater level of security by matching the photo that is in the government photo ID database against the photo in the photo ID and the applicant's selfie. Face recognition converts the photos and selfie to what is known as a facial code or facial templates which are mathematical representations of the faces captured. The template are then matched and scored to provide a method to verify the applicant. [0065] Verifiable credentials (VCs) are an open standard for digital credentials. They can represent information found in physical credentials, such as a passport or license, as well as new things that have no physical equivalent, such as ownership of a bank account. They have numerous advantages over physical credentials, most notably that they're digitally signed, which makes them tamper-resistant and instantaneously verifiable. Verifiable credentials can be issued by anyone, about anything, and can be presented to and verified by everyone. The entity that generates the credential is called the Issuer. The credential is then given to the Holder who stores it for later use. The Holder can then prove something about themselves by presenting their credentials to a Verifier. [0077] The development of verifiable credentials and self-sovereign agents was built on the assumption that the underlying public key cryptography and password control over private keys was sufficient security for protecting agents and credentials. However, like the many cases where crypto currency is stolen because of stolen passwords and the underlying private keys, verifiable credentials and self-sovereign agents face the same issue. The invention is a compliment to the emerging verifiable credentials and self-sovereign technologies and brings an additional level of trust, privacy and security for agents that hold credentials, the credentials themselves and for the credentials issuer and relying parties. [0078] The present invention provides a method for identifying a user associated with an electronic document or verifiable credential that authenticates the document or verifiable credential and authenticates the user and their credentials using the user's face that, employing face biometrics, was used to authenticate the user to access their private key to decrypt a documents or verifiable credential with such documents or verifiable credential appended with face biometrics of the user and prove ownership of the credential by scoring the match between the appended biometrics with the face that was used to decrypt the credential and presenting the match score to a relying party).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claimed limitations determining that said output value of said function disclosed by KHAN to include upon determining that said output value of said function and said received verifiable credential satisfy a matching predicate, confirming, by the verifier unit, said verifiable credential, wherein the verifier unit knows the public key of all trusted issuers. This modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire to provide system for digital verification and authentication of individuals, and use of biometrics for generating, and validating uses by users of, individuals' digital credentials and other verifiable documents as suggested by Waugh ([0005-0007]).
KHAN and Waugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the output value contains a randomized ID and a public key. Verheul, in analogous art however, discloses wherein the output value contains a randomized ID and a public key ([0125] A mechanism to publicly make verifiable that two Randomized Authenticator public keys P.sub.1, P.sub.2 belong to the same SCE (and thus user) is important in our discussions. To this end, suppose we have to two Randomized Authenticator public keys P.sub.1, P.sub.2 belonging to two potentially different SCEs S.sub.1, S.sub.2 and users. Suppose that each SCE has proven possession of the corresponding private key, e.g. by having signed a random message. Also assume that one of the users or the AP can prove it knows an xϵF.sub.q* such that that P.sub.1=x.Math.P.sub.2. [0027] To allow binding with the user identity, the public key can be bound to the user identity in a so-called public key certificate. This is a message containing the user public key and the user identity that is digitally signed by a Certificate Authority (CA). The public verification key of the CA is publicized. Amongst other things, certificates contain an issuance data/time and a unique serial number. [0129-131] The generation of the signature (r, s) as part of the Randomized public key can suffice to prove such possession but this can be done explicitly too. The AP validates Randomized Authenticator public key by verifying the signature using U.sub.R and by verifying that E is properly formed. Next user identity proofing takes place, leading to some verified user information I.sub.U. This information could for instance be a name, a social security number, a pseudonym or encrypted information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claimed limitations of the integrated smart entity disclosed by KHAN and Waugh to include wherein the output value contains a randomized ID and a public key. This modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by a need for improved and robust approaches to providing integrated and upgraded smart chipcard to smartphones as suggested by Verheul ([0030-0032]).
As per claim 2: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said integrated smart entity is a near-field communication card (KHAN [0096] At the same time the EleIDAp displays a fractal 515 upon its display as depicted with first EleIDAp display 510A. This fractal 515 is then acquired by an official electronic device (OED) displayed in first OED configuration 520A. As displayed the OED is associated with the Iowa City Police Department. The fractal 515 may be acquired through the user's PED being held such that an image of the display may be captured by a camera within the OED. Alternatively, the OED and user's PED may pair through a local area network interface, e.g. Bluetooth or another interface such as Near Field Communications (NFC)).
As per claim 3: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul discloses computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said received verifiable credential was sent by a holder unit (KHAN [0057] the task of validating the physical identity of the ID document holder with the photo on the document, or the photo on another document of the same name such as a government issued ID, is optimally suited to the human agent today. As a biometric identifier, the matching of a user photo to their face is easily and quickly performed in person whereas with the current status of electronic solutions this is something more difficult to achieve reliably with facial recognition and face matching technology. [0060] A credential holder (user 165) is identity-proofed in-person by a trusted agent of the government photographic identity issuing authority, e.g. first and second PHYSAPs 155A and 155B. This process step 210, as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A, results in the issuance of photographic identity (Photo-ID) document (PhysID) 160A (step 220) and the credential holder's proofed identity being bound (step 230) to the government photographic identity document. As a result of this sequence the credential holder's identity-proofed attributes being stored in step 240 within a government Identity Attribute Database 250 managed by the document issuer. Attributes stored in respect of the credential holder within the Identity Attribute Database 250 may include, but not be limited to, the photograph of the user 165, the signature of the user 165, the user's name and address, type of document, and date of issue. The information within the Identity Attribute Database 250 is also accessible by a Document Validation and Identity Verification Engine (DVIVE) 260 which is in communication with an Attribute Provider 135. In contrast, with second PHYSAP 155B, a similar process as depicted with respect to first PHYSAP 155A may be employed, resulting in a second PhysID 160D, electronic ID document (EleID) 160B, and fractal 160C. The fractal 160C may, for example be a fractal image or be a fractal image with embedded encrypted data such as described by the inventors within U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/086,745 entitled “Verifiable Credentials and Methods Thereof” filed Dec. 3, 2014 the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference).
As per claim 4: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said visual indicator is an image of a person, an image of a face of a person, an image of a fingerprint of a person, an image of an object, an image of a text, an image of a pictogram, a bar code, and a QR-code (KHAN [0057] the task of validating the physical identity of the ID document holder with the photo on the document, or the photo on another document of the same name such as a government issued ID, is optimally suited to the human agent today. As a biometric identifier, the matching of a user photo to their face is easily and quickly performed in person whereas with the current status of electronic solutions this is something more difficult to achieve reliably with facial recognition and face matching technology).
As per claim 5: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: issuing, by a first trusted authority, said integrated smart entity with a unique picture identifier stored in said persistent memory, and issuing, by a second trusted authority said verifiable credential, wherein one attribute of said verifiable credential is said unique picture identifier (KHAN [0052] A “government issued photographic identity document” as used herein may refer to, but is not limited to, any document, card, or electronic content item issued by a government body for the purposes of identifying the owner of the government issued photographic identity document. Such government bodies may, for example, be provincial, federal, state, national, and regional governments alone or in combination. Such government issued photographic identity documents, also referred to within this specification as Photo-ID cards, government issued photographic cards, and government issued identity documents may include, but are not limited to, a driver's license, a passport, a health card, national identity card, and an immigration card although they have the common feature of a photographic image, multimedia image, or audiovisual image of the user to whom the government issued photographic identity document was issued. Such government issued photographic identity documents may include, but not be limited to, those comprising single sided plastic card, double sided plastic cards, single sided sheets, double side sheets, predetermined sheets within a book or booklet, and digital representations thereof in isolation or in combination with additional electronic/digital data that has been encoded/encrypted. For example, a digital memory with fingerprint scanner in the form of what is known as a “memory stick” may be securely issued by a government body as the fingerprint data for the user is securely encoded and uploaded together with image and digital content data. Subsequently, the digital memory when connected to a terminal and activated by the user's fingerprint may transfer the required digital data to the terminal to allow for a verification that the user is the one and the same. Such memory devices can be provided which destroy or corrupt the data stored within upon detection of tampering).
As per claim 6: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul the discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: generating, by said trusted authority, a key pair of a signature scheme that supports an efficient signature proof of knowledge and a selected disclosure of a subset of related messages, and sharing a related verification key with a holder unit and a said verifier unit (Waugh [0055] Another Aspect of the present invention captures a copy of the live face that was used to verify the user and using the user's private key digitally signs the photo and the selfie such that it the biometric data added to the verifiable credential is digitally signed in accordance with standards for digital signatures).
As per claim 7: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul the discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein said first trusted authority issuing said integrated smart entity and said second trusted authority issuing said verifiable credential are either same trusted authorities or different trusted authorities (Waugh [0066] Self-sovereign identity (SSI) is an approach to digital identity that gives individuals control of their digital identities. [0067] SSI addresses the difficulty of establishing trust in an interaction. In order to be trusted, one party in an interaction will present credentials to the other parties, and those relying parties can verify that the credentials came from an issuer that they trust. In this way, the verifier's trust in the issuer is transferred to the credential holder. This basic structure of SSI with three participants is sometimes called “the trust triangle”).
As per claim 8: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul the discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein said holder unit is a smartphone and the digital method comprises of uses pattern matching technologies (Waugh [0079] Described herein are processes for verifying an applicant's identity for a document or credential issuance system where face biometrics is performed by the user of a user terminal that executes a user's agent that includes face recognition software. To apply for a credential and verify an applicant a user will use a user terminal device such as a smartphone, a computer or similar device that enables the user's agent and permits capture of digital images by an image capture device and the scanning, perhaps also by the image capture device, of a user identity document such as a driver's license).
As per claim 10: KHAN and Waugh in view of Verheul the discloses computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein said holder unit and said verifier unit is one selected out of said group comprising a smartwatch, a table computer, a notebook computer or a dedicated device for authentication purposes (Waugh [0167] The computing system may be a server, network appliance, set-top box, embedded device, computer expansion module, personal computer, laptop, personal data assistant, cellular telephone, smartphone device, UMPC tablets, video display terminal, gaming console, electronic reading device, and wireless hypermedia device or any other computing device).
As per claims 11-18: Claims 11-18 are directed to an authentication system having substantially similar corresponding claimed limitations of claims 1-8 respectively and therefore claims 11-18 are rejected with the same rationale given above to reject claims 1-8 respectively.
As per claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable and non-transitory storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media and non-transitory, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to perform substantially similar corresponding claimed limitations of claim 1 and therefore claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale given above to reject claim 1.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHAN (US 20200195436 A1) in view of Waugh et al. (US 20240364526 A1 –hereinafter—“Waugh”) in further view of Verheul US 20230327884 A1 in further view of ORTIZ et al. (US 20220045861 A1—hereinafter—“ORTIZ”).
As per claims 9 and 19: KHAN and Waugh and in view of Verheul do not explicitly disclose wherein said determining that said output value of said function and said received verifiable credential satisfy said matching predicate using a Fiat-Shamir transformed Schnorr proof of knowledge algorithm. ORTIZ, in analogous art however, discloses wherein said determining that said output value of said function and said received verifiable credential satisfy said matching predicate using a Fiat-Shamir transformed Schnorr proof of knowledge algorithm ([0220] A remote attestation protocol involves a zero knowledge proof with a prover and a verifier, the enclave being the prover. A direct run of this protocol by both Identity Brokerage parties (prover and verifier) may compromise efficiency. Therefore, a mechanism is implemented using the Fiat-Shamir heuristic, and the enclave's maintainer is configured to run an instance of remote attestation in a publicly verifiable manner. [0423] Schnorr Signature [0451-0452] Generalized Schnorr's: Schnorr's signature can be naturally extended to efficiently prove knowledge of a group element X's discrete logarithm based multi-generator set {g.sub.n}. In addition, the prover may want to prove that some of these exponents are equal. [0467] Proving, verifying and simulating knowledge of commitment X=g.sup.xh.sup.r is reduced to Generalized Schnorr's with the following parameters: [0498] From the special soundness of Schnorr's it follows that the extractor can compute r.sub.δ such that X.sub.Δ=h.sup.r′.sup.δ. Assuming that the prover has knowledge of X.sub.1 and X.sub.2 as valid commitments, it should be able to compute .sup.x.sup.δh.sup.r.sup.δ=h.sup.r′.sup.δ.Math.g.sup.x.sup.δh.sup.r.sup.δ.sup.−r′.sup.δ=1. Because the prover doesn't know log.sub.g h, it must be that x.sub.1−x.sub.2=x.sub.δ=0. [0501] This follows directly from the zero-knowledge property of Schnorr's. [0503] The simulator computes X.sub.Δ=X.sub.1X.sub.2.sup.−1 and simulates a Schnorr's. This results in 2 randomizations, 2 exponentiations and one extra composition. Therefore, there is an extra exponentiation. [0563] An honest proof would involve a proof of non-zeroness on C.sub.n+1 and a Schnorr's C.sub.n+1C.sub.n.sup.−1=h.sup.r ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claimed limitations of the integrated smart entity disclosed by KHAN and Waugh and in view of Verheul to include). This modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire to provide a method for provide verification of a prover's credentials in accordance to logical conditions of a verifier's policy without providing additional information to a verifier entity a as suggested by ORTIZ ([0016-0019]).
BRI (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation)
The above claims under examination have been given their BRI consistent with the applicant’s disclosure as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention. In order to construe, appraise boundary and scope of the claimed limitations, the following claim words or terms or phrases or languages have been given to them their BRI considerations and context in view of the applicant’s disclosure. For example, for the following claim words or terms or phrases or languages, the examiner recites BRI considerations from the applicant’s disclosure as follows:
Integrated Smart Entity [0052] visual indicator [0053] Physical Entity [0054]
Persistent Memory [0055] Verifier Unit [0056] Output Value of a Function [0057]
Picture Identifier PID [058] Verifiable Credential [0059] Holder Unit [0063]
Satisfying a matching predicate [0060] Trusted Authority [0061]
A computer program product [0144-0145]
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited in form PTO-892 for additional prior arts.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TECHANE GERGISO whose telephone number is (571)272-3784. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:30pm.
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, LINGLAN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/TECHANE GERGISO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights