DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 2, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), Claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture), and Claim 9 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-9 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9:
Claims 1 and 8-9 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “acquiring first data that indicates a production record of a transaction resource produced by a producer and second data that indicates a consumption record of the transaction resource consumed by a consumer; generating proof information that proves that a condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied regarding allocation of the transaction resource for the production record of the producer as a supplier of the transaction resource for the consumption record of the consumer, wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data; generating third data that includes the proof information and has a data size smaller than a total data size of the first data and the second data; and storing, in a blockchain of the distributed ledger system, a transaction record that includes the third data and indicates that the transaction resource is consumed by the consumer, the blockchain being configured to store a transaction history of a supply right of the transaction resource produced by the producer, the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data by using the proof information included in the third data of the transaction record stored in the blockchain.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “zero-knowledge proof technology”, “blockchain”, and “distributed ledger system” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical business relations, because data or information on the producer and the consumer are exchanged and processed with respect to a transaction resource. Additionally, it does not change the analysis much that the storing of the transaction record is performed without storing the first data and the second data.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A data storage method implemented by a computer for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the method comprising:”, “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a data storage program for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the data storage program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform processing comprising:”, “An information processing apparatus for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store first data and second data,… and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing including:”, “zero-knowledge proof technology”, “blockchain”, and “distributed ledger system”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Also, just not storing some information or data such as the first data and the second data does not provide any improvements. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-7:
Dependent claims 3-4 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-7 include additional limitations, for example, “computer” and “blockchain” (Claim 2); “blockchain” and “unspent transaction output (UTXO) method” (Claim 5); “electronic signature” (Claim 6); and “blockchain” (Claim 7), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 2-7 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa (US 20240427940 A1) in view of Ferenczi (US 20210406878 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9, Tsafack Chetsa teaches A data storage method implemented by a computer for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the method comprising (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract): A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a data storage program for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the data storage program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform processing comprising (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0187): An information processing apparatus for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store… and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing including (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0187):
acquiring first data that indicates a production record of a transaction resource produced by a producer and second data that indicates a consumption record of the transaction resource consumed by a consumer (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0029, 0059, 0003 teach(es) Processing the energy supply transaction may comprise: obtaining consumption data specifying energy consumption by an energy consumer; determining a consumption value based on the consumption data and optionally based on past payment transaction data for the energy consumer; and creating payment transaction data based on the consumption value; wherein the data to be stored comprises the payment transaction data. The consumption data may be received from an energy meter associated with the energy consumer); generating proof information that proves that a condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied regarding allocation of the transaction resource for the production record of the producer as a supplier of the transaction resource for the consumption record of the consumer (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0085, 0001, 0005, 0010 teach(es) in addition to the control data that is read by the charging site to determine when to activate/deactivate supply of energy via the charging station, the public blockchain also stores integrity validation data, in the form of validation hashes, pertaining to transactions or data records stored in the private database. The validation can be used to verify integrity of data in the private database), …; generating third data that includes the proof information and has a data size smaller than a total data size of the first data and the second data (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0085, 0001, 0005, 0010, as stated above, including validation hashes, which may have smaller data size); and storing, in a blockchain of the distributed ledger system, a transaction record that includes the third data and indicates that the transaction resource is consumed by the consumer, the blockchain being configured to store a transaction history of a supply right of the transaction resource produced by the producer, … (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0054, 0063, 0066, 0068-0069, 0085, 0179 teach(es) Due to the inherent security and the distributed nature, a blockchain can provide an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way; Consumption data received from the metering platform is stored by the control node in the database and is used to process charging transactions. Consumption data may additionally or alternatively be recorded in the blockchain; energy provider A operates various internal functionality, including processing of transactions relating to energy supply/consumption. Transactions are stored in Provider A's private storage (here termed a “throughput ledger”) with validation data stored to a public blockchain (here termed the “integrity ledger”)) while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data by using the proof information included in the third data of the transaction record stored in the blockchain (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0112, 0054, 0085 teach(es) in the energy payment application example, energy providers can verify information exchanged between providers (e.g. during a customer transfer). Similarly, individual customers, or even unconnected third parties (e.g. regulatory authorities) can check the integrity of data in the blockchain).
However, Tsafack Chetsa does not explicitly teach wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data, and the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain.
Ferenczi from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0014-0015, 0039-0040 teach(es) The zero-knowledge proof payment system and process may be used to complete transactions between a customer and a merchant without the customer needing to expose sensitive data, including transaction account data), the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0040-0041 teach(es) Issuer system generates a proving key pk and a verification key vk using the key generator function from the zero-knowledge proof algorithm. For example, issuer system may generate a random number (e.g., a secret parameter lambda) and input the random number into the key generator function to generate the proving key pk and the verification key vk; issuer system may publish the keys by transmitting the keys to merchants and users registered for zero-knowledge proof payments (e.g., transmitting the verification key vk to merchant system and the proving key pk to customer device)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsafack Chetsa to incorporate the teachings of Ferenczi for wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data, and the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain.
There is motivation to combine Ferenczi into Tsafack Chetsa because Ferenczi’s teachings of zero-knowledge proof payments and verification key would facilitate managing transaction records (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0014-0015, 0039-0041).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Tsafack Chetsa further teaches wherein the storing of the transaction record includes generating, by a first computer, the transaction record, transmitting, by the first computer, the generated transaction record to a second computer that stores the blockchain (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0066, 0068, 0080, 0138-0139 teach(es) Consumption data received from the metering platform is stored by the control node in the database and is used to process charging transactions. Consumption data may additionally or alternatively be recorded in the blockchain), verifying, by the second computer, that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied, based on the proof information (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0054, 0085 teach(es) Due to the inherent security and the distributed nature, a blockchain can provide an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way; The validation can be used to verify integrity of data in the private database. For example, it allows a user to verify that their energy consumption data has not been altered after the initial creation of the transaction), and storing, by the second computer, the transaction record in the blockchain in a case where a check is correctly performed (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0138-0139 teach(es) Storage records in the Storage Contract and/or transaction records in the Transact Contract may be stored as JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) objects, or in other suitable formats).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Tsafack Chetsa further teaches wherein the generating of the proof information includes comparing, for each unit period in a predetermined resource supply period, the production record indicated in the first data and the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that a condition that there is a production amount that covers a consumption amount for each unit period (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0059, 0131 teach(es) The consumed electricity is measured by a smart meter, which reports the usage to a metering platform, where consumption data is aggregated and stored. The metering platform provides consumption data (e.g. in the form of aggregate consumption of particular charging points over a given time period) to the control node on request (e.g. when processing charging transactions) or proactively (e.g. at periodic intervals); the controller reads previous payment information to determine a billing period. The Storage contract stores a last payment field which is queried to determine the billing period. This may be in the form of previous payment timestamp which is read from the storage contract. Current consumption data is then obtained from the metering platform).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa in view of Ferenczi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Winand (US 20160284033 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the generating of the proof information includes calculating a commitment function value regarding a total amount of the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that the commitment function value is correct in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
Winand from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the generating of the proof information includes calculating a commitment function value regarding a total amount of the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that the commitment function value is correct in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0141-0142 teach(es) A publicly-verifiable, cryptographically-secured record of the transaction, or acceptance of the offer, can serve as a non-repudiatable commitment to the transaction by an energy-consuming-device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Winand for wherein the generating of the proof information includes calculating a commitment function value regarding a total amount of the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that the commitment function value is correct in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
There is motivation to combine Winand into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi because Winand’s teachings of Public verifiability of the encrypted ledger would facilitate commitment of the users of energy resource (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0142).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa in view of Ferenczi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hong (KR 20210063992 A; refer to attached English Translation).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein transaction information of a right to supply the transaction resource on the blockchain is managed with an unspent transaction output (UTXO) method, and the transaction resource to be a target of input and output in the UTXO method is specified based on a production period and a production amount per unit time of the producer.
Hong from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein transaction information of a right to supply the transaction resource on the blockchain is managed with an unspent transaction output (UTXO) method, and the transaction resource to be a target of input and output in the UTXO method is specified based on a production period and a production amount per unit time of the producer (Hong: Page 4, lines 18-24 teach(es) FabToken provides users with the ability to easily represent their assets as tokens on fabric channels. This is done by using the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) method, which is the concept of the sum of transaction results, and providing tokens to users who produce and share the energy consumption and supply transaction data set).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Hong for wherein transaction information of a right to supply the transaction resource on the blockchain is managed with an unspent transaction output (UTXO) method, and the transaction resource to be a target of input and output in the UTXO method is specified based on a production period and a production amount per unit time of the producer.
There is motivation to combine Hong into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi because Hong’s teachings of UTXO would facilitate to efficient energy consumption and production (Hong: Page 4, lines 18-24).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa in view of Ferenczi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Ashley (US 20200148072 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first data includes a first electronic signature of the producer regarding the production record, the second data includes a second electronic signature of the consumer regarding the consumption record, and the generating of the proof information includes generating the proof information that proves that the first electronic signature of the producer and the second electronic signature of the consumer are valid, in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
Ashley from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the first data includes a first electronic signature of the producer regarding the production record, the second data includes a second electronic signature of the consumer regarding the consumption record, and the generating of the proof information includes generating the proof information that proves that the first electronic signature of the producer and the second electronic signature of the consumer are valid, in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024 teach(es) tracking and otherwise managing energy credits; a utility-grade end-to-end accounting, management, and exchange system for energy-related credits, with generation, ownership trades, and retirement. In embodiments of the system and methods disclosed herein, these functions are provided by recording data on a blockchain-based ledger or other type of distributed ledger technology secured by cryptographic signatures).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Ashley for wherein the first data includes a first electronic signature of the producer regarding the production record, the second data includes a second electronic signature of the consumer regarding the consumption record, and the generating of the proof information includes generating the proof information that proves that the first electronic signature of the producer and the second electronic signature of the consumer are valid, in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
There is motivation to combine Ashley into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi because Ashley’s teachings of cryptographic signature would facilitate the security of managing energy-related credits or transaction including production and consumption of energy (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the storing of the transaction record includes storing, in the blockchain, the transaction record that includes a signature of a person who has a right to supply the transaction resource in the blockchain.
Ashley from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the storing of the transaction record includes storing, in the blockchain, the transaction record that includes a signature of a person who has a right to supply the transaction resource in the blockchain (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024, as stated above with respect to claim 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Ashley for wherein the storing of the transaction record includes storing, in the blockchain, the transaction record that includes a signature of a person who has a right to supply the transaction resource in the blockchain.
There is motivation to combine Ashley into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi because Ashley’s teachings of cryptographic signature would facilitate the security of managing energy-related credits or transaction including production and consumption of energy (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “The core of the claimed invention is the novel technical process of generating proof information using zero-know/edge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of consistency, and storing this compact proof information in a blockchain without storing the original detailed data, thereby enabling verification of consistency using only the proof information,” examiner respectfully argues that the claims do not recite or provide any technical details of the “proof information”, “zero-knowledge proof technology”, “first data”, and “second data”. Processing of such data or proof or just managing transaction record can be performed manually by people. The additional elements such as distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology are recited without any technical details and context, not providing any impro any improvements to a functioning of computer or other technology or technical field. It is recommended to amend the claims with more technical details and context of interactions among the computer, producer device, and consumer device.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “Ramabaja's disclosure does not address the problem of how to handle sensitive application-specific data (like production/consumption records) that, if stored directly on a public blockchain, would compromise privacy. It also does not teach or suggest any mechanism like zero-know/edge proof technology for verifying the consistency of such application data without disclosing it,” examiner respectfully argues that Ferenczi teaches generating of a proving key pk and a verification key vk using the key generator function from the zero-knowledge proof algorithm, as stated above with respect to the 103 rejections (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0014-0015, 0039-0040).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pestana (US 20210342894 A1) teaches Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Rewards With Cryptographic Black Box Accumulators, including without revealing their identity due to use of the zero-knowledge proof transactions.
Avetisov (US 20200067907 A1) teaches Federated Identity Management With Decentralized Computing Platforms, including zero-knowledge authentication credentials.
Hu (US 20200322128 A1) teaches Zero-Knowledge Proof For Blockchain Endorsement, including zero-knowledge proof of endorsement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on (571)270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699