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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 09, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-9, filed on September 11, 2025, 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 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of Verheul US 20230327884 A1.
Based on amendment to claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn.
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 Waugh et al. (US 20240364526 A1 –hereinafter—“Waugh”) in view of Maus US 20120273578 A1 in further view of Verheul US 20230327884 A1.
As per claim 1:
Waugh discloses a computer-implemented method comprising ([0042] An identity verification means for determining whether a prospective user is the actual person as part of an identity verification process using face recognition and an encryption/decryption system to provide a means to encrypt the face recognition result into a document. A document authentication means that authenticates the user for access to their plurality of keys to access document and match the users face used to authenticate access to their plurality of keys in or associated with the document and the extracted face recognition result bound to the document and to provide the match result to a party to authenticate that the documents is controlled by the legitimate user. [0043] a system and method that credential issuers, credentials owners and credential verifiers to provide methods that bind personal biometrics with verifiable credentials to ensure that only the bonafide credential owner can access the credential providing assurance to issuing parties);
providing an integrated smart entity comprising both ([0079] 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. The user terminal can be controlled by the user to capture at least one image of the user (a selfie) and the face recognition application will render a face recognition code or “template” for each of the faces in the photoID and the selfie and will then determine the extent to which these templates match, so as to score the two face templates against each other thereby to generate one or more recognition score(s). The recognition score(s) can then be sent to the issuer system, such as a credential issuer, that will inspect the recognition score(s) and determine if they meet or exceed a threshold score(s) to decide to confirm identity and proceed to issue a credential bound to the identity);
a visual indicator of a physical entity and picture identifier data ([0046] Identity Verification: Enrolling and issuing credentials is a significant challenge. How can you trust the applicant? Ver-ID can validate a passport, a driver's license, or health card with face recognition technology. Facial biometric technology has proven to be more accurate than having traditional verification performed by people. The ability to take a selfie with liveness detection and match against the photo in the ID provides a private, secure, accurate and scalable solution to automate user enrollment and credential issuance. [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.
comparing said visual indicator and a related feature of said physical entity to be authenticated ([0007] verifying the identity of the user of the user terminal comprises: receiving at least one recognition score, the at least one recognition score generated based on a comparison between: biometric data from the at least one image captured of the user during the session by the user terminal; and the photoID data. [0047] Binding biometrics to credentials. Credential issuers can bind verifiable credentials with the face of the owner so that the credentials can only be used by the credential owner. This extra face authentication step provides assurance to the credential issuer that the credentials they issue can only be used by the credential owner preventing credentials from being stolen or someone impersonating the owner. [0090] With the at least one selfie image and the photoID data having been captured, in this embodiment the UT generates at least one face recognition score generated based on a comparison between biometric data from the at least one selfie image and the photoID data. In this embodiment, to generate the at least one face recognition score, face templates are compared to each other and the level of similarity between them is scored);
receiving an output value of a function having said picture identifier data as argument and a verifiable credential ([0046] Enrolling and issuing credentials is a significant challenge. How can you trust the applicant? Ver-ID can validate a passport, a driver's license, or health card with face recognition technology. Facial biometric technology has proven to be more accurate than having traditional verification performed by people. The ability to take a selfie with liveness detection and match against the photo in the ID provides a private, secure, accurate and scalable solution to automate user enrollment and credential issuance. [0047] Binding biometrics to credentials. Credential issuers can bind verifiable credentials with the face of the owner so that the credentials can only be used by the credential owner. This extra face authentication step provides assurance to the credential issuer that the credentials they issue can only be used by the credential owner preventing credentials from being stolen or someone impersonating the owner);
upon determining that said output value of said function and said received verifiable credential satisfy a matching predicate, confirming said verifiable credential ([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.
Waugh does not explicitly disclose 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; and a persistent memory storing the picture identifier data wherein said visual indicator and said persistent memory are physically inseparable. Maus, in analogous art however, discloses 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 ([0009] A Federated ID smartcard uses a combination of secure virtual terminal emulation implemented by the smartcard and Federated ID information stored on the smartcard (and optionally on a transaction processor server) to provide secure verification of the personal identity of the cardholder. The Federated ID information provides a high level personal identity verification for the cardholder while secure virtual terminal emulation by the smartcard prevents the Federated ID information from being exposed to the microprocessor and memory resources of a host computer station when the smartcard is used with the host computer station to engage in transactions. The Federated ID smartcard provides a flexible, dynamically adjustable, highly efficient and secure system for personal identity verification for online commerce and a wide range of other application involving personal identity verification. [0019] To enable the secure access system, the Federated ID smartcard typically stores one or more items of personal identification information that are used to validate the personal identity of the cardholder when the cardholder attempts to use the smartcard for online financial transactions and other situations in which personal identification is desired. The smartcard itself, and optional one or more back-end transaction processors, store the items of personal identification information for the card holder, such as a PIN, password, electronic signature, electronic photo ID, and/or one more biometric identifiers. During a transaction requiring personal identification, the smartcard emulates a secure virtual terminal when communicating with the back-end transaction processor to prevent exposure of the personal identification information entered or read into the host computer as well as the personal identification information stored on the smartcard and/or one or more associated back-end transaction processors. The combination of the Smartcard and back-end transaction processors may store a range of personal identification information that can be used to provide a dynamically adjustable range of security in personal identity verification for different types of transactions. [0021] In addition to providing a wide and dynamically adjustable range of personal identity verification protocols, the Federated ID smartcard also provides an efficient and highly effective mechanism for improving the security of conventional bankcard transactions, such as credit card, debit card, gift card, and defined-use financial cards. Specifically, the secure virtual terminal emulation service implemented by the smartcard prevents the financial account and routing information as well as the personal identification information (e.g., PIN, password, electronic photo ID, electronic signature) stored on the card from being exposed to the microprocessor and memory resources of the host computer during use of the card. This level of increased transaction security may be implemented without requiring any changes to the back-end financial transaction processor. In addition, storing the Federated ID information on the smartcard provides a level of personal identification documentation presently accomplished only through a detailed and time consuming validation process, typically requiring the presentation of photo identification along with a passport or social security number, and in some cases requiring additional information such as financial account and password information. The Federated ID smartcard provides a significantly higher level of personal identity validation without risking loss of the personal identification information through the host computer. Moreover, the cardholder is not required to carry, remember or otherwise provide personal information other than the particular information required for on-site verification, which can be as simple as a PIN, may also include a secret Federated ID data item, and may be much more involved, for example requiring multiple biometric identifiers validated by the smartcard itself as well as multiple back-end transaction processors. Notwithstanding the potential sophistication of the system, the ability of the Federated ID smartcard to validate the cardholder's personal identity using a simple PIN (and, if desired, other identifiers stored on the smartcard) without involvement of the back-end transaction processor in the personal identification process is an important advantage that allows the Federated ID smartcard to be seamlessly and incrementally introduced into the existing bankcard infrastructure without requiring any changes to the bankcard infrastructure other than introduction of the Federated ID smartcard itself. [0041] The cardholder is typically required to present one or more of the on-site personal identifiers when attempting to use the card. The user's identity is then verified at the location of card use by comparing personal identifier(s) received from the cardholder at the location of use to the corresponding personal identifier(s) stored on the smartcard and/or those stored on the back-end transaction processing computer system. To use the cardholder's photo as an example, a photograph of the face of the authorized cardholder may be visibly printed on the card, stored on an electronic memory on the smartcard, and stored on a back-end server. Depending on the level of authentication desired at the point of card use, the authenticating party (e.g., vendor accepting the card for payment, bank cashing a check for the cardholder, airline clerk issuing a plane ticket to the cardholder, and so forth) may verify the identity of the cardholder by comparing the appearance of the cardholder to one or more of (a) the visible photo of the authorized cardholder printed on the card, (b) the digital photo of the authorized cardholder stored on the electronic memory residing on the card displayed on a terminal visible to the authorizing party, and (c) the digital photo of the authorized cardholder stored on the back-end computer system displayed on a terminal visible to the authorizing party).
Maus further discloses a persistent memory storing the picture identifier data wherein said visual indicator and said persistent memory are physically inseparable ([0013] The Federated ID information is permanently stored in a read-only, temper-proof memory location, which may be part of a larger memory device on the smartcard or it may be a separate, special purpose memory. In either case, the smartcard should have no mechanism for the cardholder or an intruder obtaining possession of the card to read or alter the Federated ID information. For example, all or a portion of the Federated ID information may only be read or decrypted using information obtained from a back-end transaction processor after the identify of the cardholder has been validated. As an additional security measure, all or a portion of the Federated ID information may only be read or decrypted after the cardholder has entered a secret Federated ID data item that is not stored on the card itself. For example, the secret Federated ID data item may be used as a private portion of an encryption system. The cardholder's PIN or password may be used as part of an encryption key that is used to encrypt the Federated ID information without actually storing the PIN or password on the smartcard itself. [0017] This information includes at least one piece of personal identification information that will be used for on-site verification of the cardholder's personal identity when the cardholder attempts to used the card for personal identification. Step 100 is followed by step 102, in which the card issuer stores the Federated ID information including the personal identification information on a permanent, read-only, temper-proof electronic memory on the smartcard. At this time, the cardholder's photo identification may also be printed on the smartcard substrate and/or stored on the permanent memory of the smartcard. Step 102 is followed by step 104, in which the card issuer sends the Federated ID smartcard to the cardholder. Once the cardholder has received the smartcard, he or she may use the card to engage in secure transactions, as described below).
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 Waugh to include 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; and a persistent memory storing the picture identifier data wherein said visual indicator and said persistent memory are physically inseparable. 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 personal identity verification and security online commerce and other applications involving verification of the personal identity of persons attempting to engage in transactions as suggested by Maus ([0003]).
Waugh and Maus 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 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:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said integrated smart entity is a near-field communication card (Maus [0011] The smartcard is preferably implemented on durable card substrate 12, such as that used for conventional smartcards. Although a wallet-sized card is presently considered to be the preferred approach, other sizes and physical configurations may be employed, such as key-ring cards, USB thumb drives, RFID cards or other substrates, Bluetooth cards or other substrates, or any other suitable chip-carrying substrate. It should be noted that with the advent of Bluetooth and RFID technology, the federated ID smartcard technology is not limited to conventional wallet-sized cards, but can alternatively be implemented on a wide range of portable computing devices. ).
As per claim 3:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said received verifiable credential was sent by a holder unit (Waugh [0065] 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).
As per claim 4:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose 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 (Waugh [0029] The biometric data component comprises: (a) at least one of: an image captured of the individual at the time the individual applied for the verifiable document, and a biometric face template generated based on the image captured of the individual at the time the individual applied for the verifiable document; and (b) at least one of: a photoID photo captured and/or retrieved at the time the individual applied for the verifiable document, and one or more biometric face templates generated respectively based on the photoID photo captured and/or retrieved at the time the individual applied for the verifiable document).
As per claim 5:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose 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 (Waugh [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).
As per claim 6:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose 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 said holder unit and a 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:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose 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 said 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:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein said holder unit is a smartphone (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:
Waugh and Maus in view of Verheul disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5, 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 Waugh et al. (US 20240364526 A1 –hereinafter—“Waugh”) in view of Maus US 20120273578 A1 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:
Waugh and Maus 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 Waugh in view of Maus 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.
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