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 Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 11/28/2025 Claims 1, 8, and 22 have been amended. Claims 26 and 30 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21-25, and 27-29 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-10 of Remarks, Applicant contends that the cited art fails to teach or suggest at least “rendering a verification that a relationship between an individual and entity is valid on a domain controlled by the identity verification platform”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As acknowledged by Applicant on page 9 of Remarks, the examiner cited to Rosenberg for this particular limitation. Specifically, the examiner considered the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 of Rosenberg as directed towards the “rendering” operation outlined in paragraph 62, where a secure communication between a client’s web browser and an Assuring Third Party Server (i.e., the claimed “identity verification platform”) is invoked via a secure https connection (see paragraphs 64 and 48-50). The details of this secure https connection is further detailed in paragraph 59, which discloses an image tag being formatted on a web site (i.e., the claimed “entity”) to invoke a script on the Assuring Third Party Server. The image tag specifically comprises a domain controlled by the Assuring Third Party Server (i.e.,https://www.thirdparty.com), which is utilized by the client’s web browser to securely connect to the Assuring Third Party Server (see operations 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Fig. 6).
In other words, Rosenberg provides a mechanism that allows a client’s web browser to automatically connect to an Assuring Third Party Server via a domain address that is controlled by the Assuring Third Party Server, in order for the Assuring Third Party Server to be able to render an image providing assurance of a web site. As noted above, the rendering is done on the client’s web browser via the connection established within the domain controlled by the Assuring Third Party Server, and thus the rendering of the image is “on a domain controlled by” the Assuring Third Party Server (i.e., the claimed “identity verification platform”). Therefore, the examiner maintains that Rosenberg fully teaches and suggests “rendering a verification that a relationship between an individual and entity is valid on a domain controlled by the identity verification platform”, and the rejection is sustained as below.
The examiner notes that if Applicant intends for this particular “domain” to somehow refer back to the “entity”, then the examiner respectfully suggests Applicant further amend claims 1 and 11 to reflect that interpretation.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21-25, and 27-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,841,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21-25, and 27-29 are either anticipated by and/or not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13, 15, and 16 of the ‘307 patent.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21-24, and 27-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,673. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21-24, and 27-29 are either anticipated by and/or not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 of the ‘673 patent.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,955,673 in view of “Chechani” (US 2017/0272468). While claim 4 of the ‘673 patent discloses claims 1 and 21 of the instant application, claim 4 does not disclose “transmitting, by the identity verification platform to the device of the second individual, confirmation of the relationship between the first individual and the entity, responsive to receipt of approval of the relationship between the first individual and the entity from the device of the first individual” as recited within claim 25 of the instant application. However, paragraph 36 of Chechani discloses “In this example, if a new employee joins the R&D team of Fortinet, he may try to join the closed group “R&D” of “Fortinet within the Facebook social media network … The administrator then approves this request as the new employee belongs to the “R&D” team of Fortinet” (i.e., upon a user approving their relationship with an organization, send a notification, via a social media platform, to an administrator user to provide confirmation of the user’s relationship). Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 4 of the ‘673 patent by enhancing the platform of the ‘673 patent to provide an administrator with confirmation of a user associating themselves to an organization, as taught by Chechani, in order to allow the administrator to verify the association. The motivation is to enhance security of a social media platform of an organization by decreasing the likelihood that a user may join an organization which they are not authorized for via manual intervention of an administrator of the organization.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 21-24, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Manry” (US 2014/0012908) in view of “Ellingson” (US 9448980) in further view of “Rosenberg” (US 2009/0228702).
Regarding Claim 1:
Manry teaches:
A method of establishing a chain of relationships (Abstract), comprising:
transmitting, by an identity verification platform (Fig. 3, element 206 and 212) to a device of a first individual (Fig. 3, element 202), a first request for approval of a relationship between the first individual and an entity (¶0043, “If Kyle is not already setup with an account in the social network, the invitation serves a dual role of inviting Kyle to join … the social network, as well as to associate the … account for Kyle with the account for XYZ Corporation, and verify the association”);
receiving, by the identity verification platform from the device of the first individual, approval of the relationship between the first individual and the entity (¶0045, “… where an invitation is provided, and then accepted by Kyle through his account (310), an association 312, if not already created, is created for Kyle user record 308”); and
Manry does not disclose:
creating, by the identity verification platform, a custom badge for display on the entity’s website, the custom badge representing the relationship between the first individual and the entity and valid for one or more domains associated with the entity;
receiving, by the identity verification platform, an identification of a selection by an end user of the custom badge; and
responsive to receiving the identification of the selection, rendering, by the identity verification platform, on a domain controlled by the identity verification platform, a verification that the relationship between the first individual and the entity is valid.
Ellingson teaches:
creating, by the identity verification platform, a custom badge for display on the entity’s website (Col. 7, lines 14-19, “The request may be provided to the control panel, at which an administrator of the organization may grant or deny the request. When the request is granted, the organization’s badge may be provided for display … on the employee’s profile page…”), the custom badge representing the relationship between the first individual and the entity (Col. 7, lines 59-63, “An ownership of the organization may then be verified, in block 408, based on the established first and second bi-directional links. The establishing of the first bi-directional link provides that the profile page for the organization is linked to the control panel designated to the organization”) and valid for one or more domains associated with the verified entity (Col. 8, lines 54-67 & Col. 9, lines 1-4, “Organizational badge 604 may correspond to the domain of email 602 … That is, Jack Johnson and Jane Doe may both be associated with XYZ, Inc., have organizational badges for XYZ, Inc., and have emails with the domain xyzinc.com”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manry's system of verifying that a user is associated with an organization by enhancing Manry’s system to create a custom badge representing a user that is verified by an organization, as taught by Ellingson, in order to prevent a user from misrepresenting their affiliation to an organization.
The motivation is to provide a visual object, such as a validation badge, that may be used to quickly and reliably ascertain whether a user is truly affiliated with an organization or not (Ellingson, Col. 3, lines 35-40).
Manry in view of Ellingson does not disclose:
receiving, by the identity verification platform, an identification of a selection by an end user of the custom badge; and
responsive to receiving the identification of the selection, rendering, by the identity verification platform, on a domain controlled by the identity verification platform, a verification that the relationship between the first individual and the entity is valid.
Rosenberg teaches:
receiving, by the identity verification platform, an identification of a selection by an end user of the custom badge (¶0060, “The browser attempting to render the image with invoke the associated program on the Assuring Third Party’s Server by transmitting the Internet domain name for the Web site page being viewed by the browser (Referrer Address)”); and
responsive to receiving the identification of the selection, rendering, by the identity verification platform, on a domain controlled by the identity verification platform (¶0062, “… as the Assuring Third Party Server will only render and return an image to the browser containing the registration data for the Referrer Address, and not for any other address”), a verification that the relationship between the first individual and the entity is valid (¶0062, “… the browser always provides the domain name of the Web site page being viewed by the browser (Referrer Address) at the time it invokes the program associated with the HTML dynamic image tag embedded on the Web site page … as the Assuring Third Party Server will only render and return an image to the browser containing the registration data for the Referrer Address, and not for any other address”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manry in view of Ellingson's system of verifying that a user is associated with an organization by enhancing Manry in view of Ellingson’s verification badge to include executable code that causes a web browser to verify a relationship, as taught by Rosenberg, in order to prevent hijacking of the badge and spoofing of web sites.
The motivation is to provide real-time confirmation of a web site that a user is viewing by implementing executable code within a verification badge that confirms the web site at a third-party verification service. This can prevent hijacking of the badge thus preventing spoofing of web sites (Rosenberg, ¶0016; ¶0069), thus strengthening trust in relationships the web site may have with the user.
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg further comprising generating a transaction for recordation in a centralized or distributed ledger at an address based on the entity and the first individual, the presence of the transaction in the centralized or distributed ledger indicating that the relationship between the first individual and the entity is legitimate (Manry, ¶0045, “… where an invitation is provided, and then accepted by Kyle through his account (310), an association 312, if not already created, is created for Kyle user record 308”).
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg further teaches rendering the verification that the relationship between the first individual and the entity is valid further comprises determining that validity of the relationship has not been revoked (Manry, ¶0073, “As an individual … leaves the organization, then his/her membership is maintained in that context by one of these administrators … terminations automatically flow through to a user’s status with the organization within the social network”).
Regarding Claims 8, 10, and 13:
System claims 8, 10, and 13 correspond to respective method claims 1, 3, and 6, and contain no further limitations. Therefore claims 8, 10, and 13 are rejected by applying the same rationale above used to reject claims 8, 10, and 13, respectively.
Regarding Claim 21:
The method of claim 1, Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg further comprising:
receiving, by the identity verification platform from a device of a second individual (Manry, Fig. 2, element 202; ¶0021, “The business context-based social network described herein enables verification of the organizational entities and enables the organizational entities themselves to certify the validity of the relationships with other organizational entities and users within the social network”; i.e., the social network of Manry supports multiple users of an organization), a second request for registration comprising an identification of the second individual, identification of the entity, and the relationship between the second individual and the entity (Manry, ¶0036, “… a verification entity will verify … not only an organizational entity, but also a user’s claim about an association that the user has to the organizational entity, for instance that the user is an authorized administrator of the account for the organizational entity”); and
verifying, by the identity verification platform responsive to receipt of the second request, the identity of the second individual and the relationship between the second individual and the entity (Manry, ¶0034, “… verify the organization and authorize the administrator/user based on an already-maintained status of the user and/or organization…”; ¶0036, “In this manner, a verification entity will verify… not only an organizational entity, but also a user’s claim about an association that the user has to the organizational entity, for instance, that the user is an authorized administrator of the account of the organizational entity”; ¶0037, “… verification entity 212 will verify that XYZ Construction is a real company, and that Mary is an authorized administrator of the account for XYZ Construction”).
Regarding Claim 22:
The method of claim 21, wherein Manry in view of Ellinson in further view of Rosenberg further teaches verifying the identity of the second individual and the relationship between the second individual and the entity further comprises verifying the existence of a record in a centralized or distributed ledger at an address corresponding to the entity (Manry, ¶0034, “… verify the organization and authorize the administrator/user based on an already-maintained status of the user and/or organization…”; ¶0036, “In this manner, a verification entity will verify… not only an organizational entity, but also a user’s claim about an association that the user has to the organizational entity, for instance, that the user is an authorized administrator of the account of the organizational entity”; ¶0037, “… verification entity 212 will verify that XYZ Construction is a real company, and that Mary is an authorized administrator of the account for XYZ Construction”.
Regarding Claim 23:
The method of claim 21, wherein Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg further teaches verifying the relationship between the second individual and the entity further comprises receiving a confirmation of the relationship between the second individual and the entity via a communication channel separate from a communication channel via which the second request was received (Manry, Fig. 2 disclose separate channels (204) and (214) being utilized in receiving a request to verify the user Mary and receiving confirmation that Mary is associated with XYZ organization)
Regarding Claim 24:
The method of claim 21, Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg further comprising verifying, by the identity verification platform, that the entity is legitimate (Manry, ¶0037, “… verification entity 212 will verify that XYZ Construction is a real company…”).
Regarding Claims 27-29:
System claims 27-29 correspond to respective method claims 21-23, and contain no further limitations. Therefore claims 27-29 are rejected by applying the same rationale above used to reject claims 21-23, respectively.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Manry” (US 2014/0012908) in view of “Ellingson” (US 9448980) in view of “Rosenberg” (US 2009/0228702) in further view of “Smith” (US 2017/0316390).
Regarding Claim 4:
Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg teaches:
The method of claim 3,
Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg does not disclose:
… wherein generating the transaction comprises adding a non-zero value to a record in the centralized or distributed ledger at the address based on the entity and the first individual.
Smith teaches:
… wherein generating the transaction comprises adding a non-zero value to a record in the centralized or distributed ledger at the address based on the entity and the first individual (¶0196, “In step 416, the verifier may check that the attestation address of the attestation transaction is valid, by verifying the existence of the attestation transaction at the attestation address in the centralized or distributed ledger and determining whether transaction was revoked, by verifying that the cryptocurrency associated with the attestation transaction has not been spent”; ¶0222, “… and whether the attestation transaction has not been revoked (e.g., cryptocurrency has not been spent) …If the user confirms the business transaction, the attestor 1330 notifies the organization 1320 that the user approves the business transaction”; i.e., a non-zero cryptocurrency value is utilized in verifying an existence of a business transaction between a user and an organization).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg's system of verifying that a user is associated with an organization by enhancing Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg’s method of verifying a relationship between a user and an organization to utilize a small cryptocurrency value, as taught by Smith, in order to create a transaction between the user and the organization using the smallest possible value required.
The motivation is to create minimalistic data which represents a transaction between two entities, such as a user and an organization, and that is easily revocable (Smith, ¶0132).
Regarding Claim 7:
Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg teaches:
The method of claim 6,
Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg not disclose:
… wherein determining that validity of the relationship has not been revoked further comprises identifying a record in a centralized or distributed ledger at an address based on the entity and the first individual having a non-zero value.
Smith teaches:
… wherein determining that validity of the relationship has not been revoked further comprises identifying a record in a centralized or distributed ledger at an address based on the entity and the first individual having a non-zero value (¶0196, “In step 416, the verifier may check that the attestation address of the attestation transaction is valid, by verifying the existence of the attestation transaction at the attestation address in the centralized or distributed ledger and determining whether transaction was revoked, by verifying that the cryptocurrency associated with the attestation transaction has not been spent”; ¶0222, “… and whether the attestation transaction has not been revoked (e.g., cryptocurrency has not been spent) …If the user confirms the business transaction, the attestor 1330 notifies the organization 1320 that the user approves the business transaction”; i.e., a non-zero cryptocurrency value is utilized in verifying an existence of a business transaction between a user and an organization).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manry in view of Ellingson's system of verifying that a user is associated with an organization by enhancing Manry in view of Ellingson’s method of verifying a relationship between a user and an organization to utilize a small cryptocurrency value, as taught by Smith, in order to create a transaction between the user and the organization using the smallest possible value required.
The motivation is to create minimalistic data which represents a transaction between two entities, such as a user and an organization, and that is easily revocable (Smith, ¶0132).
Regarding Claims 11 and 14:System claims 11 and 14 correspond to respective method claims 4 and 7, and contain no further limitations. Therefore claims 11 and 14 are each rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claims 4 and 7 above, respectively.
Claim(s) 25 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Manry” (US 2014/0012908) in view of “Ellingson” (US 9448980) in view of “Rosenberg” (US 2009/0228702) in further view of “Chechani” (US 2017/0272468).
Regarding Claim 25:
Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
receiving, by the identity verification platform from the device of the second individual, an invitation for a relationship between the first individual and the entity (Manry, ¶0043, “An authorized administrator of the social network account for XYZ Corporation can invite (304) Kyle to become associated with the organization in the social network, i.e. for an association to be made between Kyle’s account (308) and the account of XYZ Construction”; ¶0045, “Additionally, association 312 in this example is verified since it is based on an invitation from an authorized administrator of the account of the organization. An authorized administrator who invites a user to the social network and to become association with the organization is implicitly, in one example, verifying the association should the user accept the invitation”); and
transmitting … confirmation of the relationship between the first individual and the entity (Manry, ¶0045, “… where an invitation is provided, and then accepted by Kyle through his account (310), an association 312, if not already created, is created for Kyle user record 308. Association 312 indicates an association with organization XYZ Construction, indicates that this is a primary association for Kyle, and indicates Kyle's role within the organization (i.e. as Sr. Foreman). Additionally, association 312 in this example is verified since it is based on an invitation from an authorized administrator of the account of the organization”), responsive to receipt of approval of the relationship between the first individual and the entity from the device of the first individual (Manry, ¶0046, “Thereafter, based on association 312 being verified, access (314) to one or more features 316 offered in the social network, for instance by the account of XYZ Construction, is enabled for Kyle's account. Features 316 can include any services, privileges, tools, components, or other modules to which access can be granted and controlled, in whole or part, by the social network and/or the accounts in the social network”; i.e., confirmation is transmitted via enabling one or more features by an account of the organization responsive to the approval of the relationship between the user to the organization)
Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg does not disclose:
transmitting, by the identity verification platform to the device of the second individual, confirmation of the relationship between the first individual and the entity, responsive to receipt of approval of the relationship between the first individual and the entity …
Chechani teaches:
transmitting, by the identity verification platform to the device of the second individual, confirmation of the relationship between the first individual and the entity, responsive to receipt of approval of the relationship between the first individual and the entity (¶0036, “In this example, if a new employee joins the R&D team of Fortinet, he may try to join the closed group “R&D” of “Fortinet within the Facebook social media network … The administrator then approves this request as the new employee belongs to the “R&D” team of Fortinet”; i.e., upon a user approving their relationship with an organization, send a notification, via a social media platform, to an administrator user to provide confirmation of the user’s relationship) …
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg's system of verifying that a user is associated with an organization by enhancing Manry in view of Ellingson in further view of Rosenberg’s platform to provide an administrator with confirmation of a user associating themselves to an organization, as taught by Chechani, in order to allow the administrator to verify the association.
The motivation is to enhance security of a social media platform of an organization by decreasing the likelihood that a user may join an organization which they are not authorized for via manual intervention of an administrator of the organization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491