DETAILED ACTION
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 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 Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 9/9/2025.
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
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
In view of the amendment, the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, the pending claims 1-14 are still rejectable on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of US Patent 108554473 and claims 1-14 of US patent 11764971. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Applicant has amended the independent claims in accordance with the proposed amendments indicated by the Examiner during the interview to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of record. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are patentable.
In response to the above argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. During the interview dated 7/14/2025, Examiner has indicated that based on the previous citations, it appears those citations do not explicitly disclose the proposed amendments. However, upon further consideration, Dvorak discloses receive, from a signing party, an encrypted biometric sample associated with approval or an intent to approve an electronic agreement of a legally binding obligation by the signing party (Dvorak: paragraphs 0015, 0097, 0129, 0139 and 0167, “As shown, a ‘send Bitcoin’ process flow may begin at secure device 10 and API server 50, step 252 depicts that SSL certificate and TLS validation would have occurred prior to the ‘send Bitcoin’ process flow 250 of FIG. 17. Assuming this has occurred, at step 254 secure device 10 sends a plain text device ID and an opcode “op_send”. This transmission may be encrypted with SPK, and the transmission may further include a currency amount, a recipient address, a UDEK, a time stamp, and a fingerprint scan”… “a ‘buy Bitcoin’ process flow 290 may begin at step 292, wherein secure device 10 initiates a buy transaction”, Examiner notes, an agreement to send Bitcoin/buy Bitcoin process between the secure device and API server); after receiving the encrypted biometric sample, receive, from the signing party, receive, from the signing party, a rescinding message (Dvorak: paragraphs 0015, 0097, 0129, 0139 and 0167, “Continuing the process flow to step 304, message server 58 may utilize the access token, the address, the amount to buy, and any other necessary information to initiate a buy request and a subsequent withdrawal request. Continuing step 304, message server 58 notifies API server 50 of an ‘op_buy_success’ opcode or an ‘op_buy_failure’ opcode.”).
Dvorak further discloses one or more biometric representations of at least one of: a first biometric representation for the approval of the electronic agreement by the signing party by the signing party; or a second biometric representation for the intent to approve the electronic agreement by the signing party (Dvorak: paragraphs 0097 and 0129-0134, “The user's fingerprint template may be stored in the device table to authenticate against before spending”… “user account server 52 authenticates the MAC address and decrypts the data with the SPK. This authentication and decryption may be through communication with device database 54 wherein user account server 52 can retrieve the SPK public key 1, public key 2, public key 3 as well as a fingerprint blueprint according to the device identifier. As further shown, at step 258 user account server 52 may validate the time stamp, and may decrypt the public keys and fingerprint blueprint with the UDEK. User account server 52 may further verify the received fingerprint scan against the fingerprint blueprint or template, and upon successful verification”).
Therefore, the combination of Dvorak and Miyano does teach all the limitations of the claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 10855473. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications disclose “a method comprises receiving, by a computing system from a signing party, a signing party identifier and a token. The token includes an encrypted biometric sample encrypted using an encryption key and an encrypted record of an electronic agreement encrypted using the encryption key, the encrypted record cryptographically bound with the encrypted biometric sample. The method further includes receiving, by the computing system from the signing party, a message and determining, based on the message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement”. See Claims Comparison Table below
Instant Application 18369329
Patent Application 10855473
Claim 1:
A computing system comprising one or more processors configured to: receive, from a signing party, an encrypted biometric sample associated with approval or an intent to approve an electronic agreement of a legally binding obligation by the signing party; after receiving the encrypted biometric sample receive, from the signing party, a rescinding message; determine, based on the rescinding message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement associated with a token, the token comprising an encrypted biometric sample; in response to receiving the rescinding message indicating that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement, decrypt the encrypted biometric sample from the token to retrieve a decrypted biometric sample, the decrypted biometric sample comprising one or more biometric representations of at least one of: a first biometric representation for the approval of the electronic agreement by the signing party; or a second biometric representation for the intent to approve the electronic agreement by the signing party; and transmit the decrypted biometric sample to a device.
Claim 24:
A system, comprising: a signing party computing system, comprising a processor and instructions stored in non-transitory machine-readable media, the instructions configured to cause the computing system to: receive a secret knowledge factor; receive a biometric sample, the biometric sample comprising at least one of: an approval sample comprising a first biometric representation of the signing party's approval of terms of an electronic agreement, and an intent sample comprising a second biometric representation of confirmation of the signing party's intent to sign the electronic agreement; generate an encryption key using the secret knowledge factor as an input to a password authenticated key exchange protocol; encrypt the biometric sample with the encryption key; and generate a biometric electronic signature agreement and intent (“BESAI”) token including the encrypted biometric sample, and a signing party identifier in clear text associated therewith, wherein the BESAI token is verified using a decryption key generated using a stored knowledge factor as an input to the password authenticated key exchange protocol, the stored knowledge factor retrieved based on the signing party identifier, the BESAI token being verified by decrypting the BESAI token using the decryption key, and wherein the approval of the terms of the electronic agreement and confirmation of intent to sign the electronic agreement by the signing party is verified after decrypting the BESAI token.
Claim 8:
A method, comprising: receiving, from a signing party, an encrypted biometric sample associated with approval or an intent to approve an electronic agreement of a legally binding obligation by the signing party; after receiving the encrypted biometric sample, receiving, from the signing party, a rescinding message; determining, based on the rescinding message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement associated with a token, the token comprising the encrypted biometric sample; in response to receiving the rescinding message indicating that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement, decrypting the encrypted biometric sample from the token to retrieve a decrypted biometric sample, the decrypted biometric sample comprising one or more biometric representations of at least one of. a first biometric representation for the approval of the electronic agreement by the signing party; or a second biometric representation for the intent to approve the electronic agreement by the signing party; and transmit the decrypted biometric sample to a device.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising: receiving, by a computing system from a signing party, a secret knowledge factor; receiving, by the computing system, a biometric sample from the signing party, the biometric sample comprising at least one of: an approval sample comprising a first biometric representation of the signing party's approval of terms of an electronic agreement, and an intent sample comprising a second biometric representation of confirmation of the signing party's intent to sign the electronic agreement; generating, by the computing system, an encryption key using the secret knowledge factor as an input to a password authenticated key exchange protocol; encrypting, by the computing system, the biometric sample with the encryption key; and generating, by the computing system, a biometric electronic signature agreement and intent (“BESAI”) token including the encrypted biometric sample, and a signing party identifier in clear text associated therewith, wherein the BESAI token is verified using a decryption key generated using a stored knowledge factor as an input to the password authenticated key exchange protocol, the stored knowledge factor retrieved based on the signing party identifier, the BESAI token being verified by decrypting the BESAI token using the decryption key, and wherein the approval of the terms of the electronic agreement and confirmation of intent to sign the electronic agreement by the signing party is verified after decrypting the BESAI token.
The dependent claims of the instant application recite language similar to the dependent claims of the patent application and are covered by the patent application.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11764971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications disclose “a method comprises receiving, by a computing system from a signing party, a signing party identifier and a token. The token includes an encrypted biometric sample encrypted using an encryption key and an encrypted record of an electronic agreement encrypted using the encryption key, the encrypted record cryptographically bound with the encrypted biometric sample. The method further includes receiving, by the computing system from the signing party, a message and determining, based on the message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement”. See Claims Comparison Table below:
Instant Application 18369329
Patent Application 11764971
Claim 1:
A computing system comprising one or more processors configured to: receive, from a signing party, an encrypted biometric sample associated with approval or an intent to approve an electronic agreement of a legally binding obligation by the signing party; after receiving the encrypted biometric sample receive, from the signing party, a rescinding message; determine, based on the rescinding message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement associated with a token, the token comprising an encrypted biometric sample; in response to receiving the rescinding message indicating that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement, decrypt the encrypted biometric sample from the token to retrieve a decrypted biometric sample, the decrypted biometric sample comprising one or more biometric representations of at least one of: a first biometric representation for the approval of the electronic agreement by the signing party; or a second biometric representation for the intent to approve the electronic agreement by the signing party; and transmit the decrypted biometric sample to a device.
Claim 1:
A computing system comprising: a storage location comprising: a signing party identifier associated with a signing party; a stored knowledge factor associated with the signing party identifier; and a biometric electronic signature agreement and intent (“BESAI”) token associated with the signing party identifier, the BESAI token comprising an encrypted biometric sample encrypted using an encryption key; and a processor and instructions stored in non-transitory machine-readable media, the instructions configured to cause the processor to: receive, from the signing party, a rescinding message; determine, based on the rescinding message, that the signing party is rescinding an electronic agreement, wherein the electronic agreement is associated with the BESAI token; retrieve, using the signing party identifier by the computing system, the stored knowledge factor; generate, by the computing system, a decryption key using the stored knowledge factor as an input to a password authenticated key exchange protocol, decrypt, by the computing system, the encrypted biometric sample from the BESAI token using the decryption key to retrieve a decrypted biometric sample, and in response to determining the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement via the rescinding message, transmit the decrypted biometric sample to the signing party, wherein the decrypted biometric sample is at least one of: an approval sample comprising a first biometric representation of the signing party's approval of terms of the electronic agreement, and an intent sample comprising a second biometric representation of confirmation of the signing party's intent to sign the electronic agreement.
Claim 8:
A method, comprising: receiving, from a signing party, an encrypted biometric sample associated with approval or an intent to approve an electronic agreement of a legally binding obligation by the signing party; after receiving the encrypted biometric sample, receiving, from the signing party, a rescinding message; determining, based on the rescinding message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement associated with a token, the token comprising the encrypted biometric sample; in response to receiving the rescinding message indicating that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement, decrypting the encrypted biometric sample from the token to retrieve a decrypted biometric sample, the decrypted biometric sample comprising one or more biometric representations of at least one of. a first biometric representation for the approval of the electronic agreement by the signing party; or a second biometric representation for the intent to approve the electronic agreement by the signing party; and transmit the decrypted biometric sample to a device.
Claim 7:
A method comprising: receiving, by a computing system from a signing party: a signing party identifier; and a token, the token comprising: an encrypted biometric sample encrypted using an encryption key; and an encrypted record of an electronic agreement encrypted using the encryption key, the encrypted record cryptographically bound with the encrypted biometric sample; receiving, by the computing system from the signing party, a rescinding message; determining, by the computing system based on the rescinding message, that the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement, wherein the electronic agreement is associated with the token; retrieve, using the signing party identifier, a stored knowledge factor associated with the signing party identifier; generate a decryption key using the stored knowledge factor as an input to a password authenticated key exchange protocol, decrypt the encrypted biometric sample from the token using the decryption key to retrieve a decrypted biometric sample; and in response to determining the signing party is rescinding the electronic agreement via the rescinding message, transmit the decrypted biometric sample to the signing party, wherein the token is a biometric electronic signature agreement and intent (“BESAI”) token, and wherein the decrypted biometric sample is at least one of: an approval sample comprising a first biometric representation of the signing party's approval of terms of the electronic agreement, and an intent sample comprising a second biometric representation of confirmation of the signing party's intent to sign the electronic agreement.
The dependent claims of the instant application recite language similar to the dependent claims of the patent application and are covered by the patent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorak et al. (US 20150324789) (hereinafter Dvorak) in view of Miyano (US 20030002067) (hereinafter Miyano).
Regarding claim 1, Dvorak discloses a computing system comprising one or more processors configured to: receive, from a signing party, an encrypted biometric sample associated with approval or an intent to approve an electronic agreement of a legally binding obligation by the signing party (Dvorak: paragraphs 0015, 0097, 0129, 0139 and 0167, “As shown, a ‘send Bitcoin’ process flow may begin at secure device 10 and API server 50, step 252 depicts that SSL certificate and TLS validation would have occurred prior to the ‘send Bitcoin’ process flow 250 of FIG. 17. Assuming this has occurred, at step 254 secure device 10 sends a plain text device ID and an opcode “op_send”. This transmission may be encrypted with SPK, and the transmission may further include a currency amount, a recipient address, a UDEK, a time stamp, and a fingerprint scan”… “a ‘buy Bitcoin’ process flow 290 may begin at step 292, wherein secure device 10 initiates a buy transaction); after receiving the encrypted biometric sample receive, from the signing party, a
Dvorak discloses a receiving a message but does not explicitly disclose the following limitation which is disclosed by Miyano, receive a rescinding message (Miyano: paragraphs 0006 and 0063-0067, “receives the request for cancellation and the encoded activate code 710 sent from the printer 110. At 714, the content server 120 checks identity of the user and validity of the request for cancellation from the user based on the request for cancellation and the encoded activated code”). Dvorak and Miyano are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data processing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dvorak and Miyano before him or her, to modify the system of Dvorak to include a cancellation request for a transaction of Miyano. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to invalidate an issued document and perform transactions for cancellation with a server (Miyano: paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 8, the claim 8 discloses a method claim that is substantially equivalent to the computing system of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8 and rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim 15 discloses a medium claim that is substantially equivalent to the computing system of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 15 and rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Dvorak as modified discloses wherein the device is operated by at least one of the signing party or a contract enforcing party (Dvorak: paragraph 0129, “‘send Bitcoin’ process flow 250 of the disclosed subject matter. As shown, a ‘send Bitcoin’ process flow may begin at secure device 10 and API server 50, step 252 depicts that SSL certificate and TLS validation would have occurred prior to the ‘send Bitcoin’ process flow 250 of FIG. 17”).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Dvorak as modified discloses wherein the token further comprises an encrypted record of the electronic agreement encrypted using an encryption key (Dvorak: paragraphs 0129-0130, “Assuming this has occurred, at step 254 secure device 10 sends a plain text device ID and an opcode “op_send”. This transmission may be encrypted with SPK, and the transmission may further include a currency amount, a recipient address, a UDEK, a time stamp, and a fingerprint scan”).
Claim(s) 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorak in view of Miyano, and further in view of Butler et al. (US 20180309581) (hereinafter Butler).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Dvorak in view of Miyano does not explicitly disclose the following limitation which is disclosed by Butler, wherein the token further comprises a hash of a record of the electronic agreement, the hash encrypted with the encryption key to cryptographically bind the hash of the record with the decrypted biometric sample (Butler: paragraphs 0034 and 0043, “a digital hash 144 of the digital contract 142 is generated. Any hash algorithm may be used to generate the digital hash 144. Examples of such hash algorithms include MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-2. In particular, the SHA256 variant of SHA-2 may be used. MD5 and SHA-1 suffer from vulnerabilities and are thus less preferable. The hash algorithm generates an alphanumeric string that represents the digital contract 142. Characteristics of digital hashes include (i) a small change to the digital contract 142 changes the digital contract 142's hash so extensively that the new hash value appears uncorrelated with the old hash value and (ii) no two digital contracts 142 will ever have the same hash value. Because of these characteristics, a digital hash can be used to prove that there has not been any tampering with the digital contract 142 and the digital hash can be used, for the purposes of this decentralized biometric signing algorithm”).
Dvorak in view of Miyano and Butler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data processing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dvorak in view of Miyano and Butler before him or her, to modify the system of Dvorak in view of Miyano to include a token further comprises a hash of a record of an electronic agreement, the hash encrypted with an encryption key to cryptographically bind the hash of the record with a decrypted biometric sample of Butler. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to manage a contracting process and to allow peer to peer contracts to be formed between parties in such a way that each party can, in the event of dispute, enforce a contract legally in conventional courts (Butler: paragraph 0002).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Dvorak as modified discloses wherein the record is stored at a storage location identified by a storage location identifier, the token further comprising the storage location identifier encrypted with the encryption key to cryptographically bind the storage location identifier to the decrypted biometric sample (Butler: paragraphs 0016 and 0030, “By writing this optional additional data 126 to the blockchain 140, the party that the user 102 contracts with is able to quickly determine the identifier 124 associated with the user 102 and the degree to which the party can be confident in the identifier 124 based on the credibility of the certifying authority. If a third party has certified the biometric data 122, then this certification of the public key 130 may be stored alongside the public key 130 and digital identity 120 information in the blockchain 140. For example, if the biometric data 122 was certified by the social network of the user 102, then the participants in that network who vouched for the identity may be stored along with the digital signatures of the participants”). The same motivation to modify Dvorak in view of Miyano in view of Butler, as applied in claim 4 above, applies here.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Dvorak as modified discloses wherein the storage location identifier comprises a uniform resource identifier identifying a uniform resource locator where the record is stored (Butler: paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0030, “An advantage for the user 102 is that the biometric data 122 remains within control of the user 102. The digital identity 120 and the public key 130 are written to a blockchain 140. The blockchain 140 is a prior art peer to peer distributed database that maintains a continuously growing list of records called blocks. Each block contains a timestamp and a link to a previous block, with data contained in the block not being able to be altered retrospectively. The blockchain 140 provides a secure database that does not require a trusted administrator. The information contained within the blockchain 140 may be public or private. The information contained within the blockchain 140 enables parties who wish to contract with the user 102 to “locate” the information.”). The same motivation to modify Dvorak in view of Miyano in view of Butler, as applied in claim 4 above, applies here.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Dvorak as modified discloses where in the uniform resource identifier comprises an evidence event log that records details of the electronic agreement (Butler: paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0030, “An advantage for the user 102 is that the biometric data 122 remains within control of the user 102. The digital identity 120 and the public key 130 are written to a blockchain 140. The blockchain 140 is a prior art peer to peer distributed database that maintains a continuously growing list of records called blocks. Each block contains a timestamp and a link to a previous block, with data contained in the block not being able to be altered retrospectively. The blockchain 140 provides a secure database that does not require a trusted administrator. The information contained within the blockchain 140 may be public or private. The information contained within the blockchain 140 enables parties who wish to contract with the user 102 to “locate” the information.”). The same motivation to modify Dvorak in view of Miyano in view of Butler, as applied in claim 4 above, applies here.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Lynn D Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431