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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on 1/17/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-12 are currently presented in the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Near Field Communication (NFC) tagging detection module…”, “audio device pairing detection module…”, “digital key process initiation module…”, “user interface display module” and “digital key registration module…” in claim 1, “digital key process initiation module…” in claims 2, 4, 5, “email sending module…” in claim 3, and “audio device pairing detection module …” in claim 6. Therefore, claims 1-6 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
“Module” is a generic, nonce term;
Each claim recites only the function of the module, without reciting any structure; and
There is no indication in the claims as to how the module is implemented (e.g., hardware, software, circuitry).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “Near Field Communication (NFC) tagging detection module…”, “audio device pairing detection module…”, “digital key process initiation module…”, “user interface display module” and “digital key registration module…” in claim 1, “digital key process initiation module…” in claims 2, 4, 5, “email sending module…” in claim 3, and “audio device pairing detection module …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Module” is a generic, nonce term; Each claim recites only the function of the module, without reciting any structure; and there is no indication in the claims as to how the module is implemented (e.g., hardware, software, circuitry). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner note: Although claim given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification in order to determine whether the claimed invention is taught, disclosed or suggested by the prior art. MPEP 2111 and 2112.01(II). Therefore, any rejection below is based on the best understood.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Document ID WO 2018002895 (hereinafter referred to as Hoskeri) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20190281450 (hereinafter referred to as Lu).
Consider claim 1, Hoskeri discloses a digital key pairing device (see at least ¶ [0021], “…the dock station 108 comprises a passive data store such as NFC tag 110. The
20 system 100 further comprises the in-vehicle Bluetooth device 125 in communication with the user device 102…”), comprising:
a Near Field Communication (NFC) tagging detection module for detecting that a mobile device is located on a wireless charger and NFC tagging is occurred (see at least ¶ [0027], “…at least a NFC tag or a wireless charging … in proximity. At step 304, upon detecting a NFC tag associated with 10 the dock station 108 mounted in the vehicle, the subsequent steps are performed…”);
an audio device pairing detection module for detecting a pairing of the mobile device with an audio device (see at least ¶ [0027], “…detecting the presence of wireless charging coil in proximity, the user device 102 identifies and pairs with the in-vehicle Bluetooth profile…”);
a digital key process initiation module for initiating a digital key process in response that the NFC tagging and the pairing with the audio device have occurred (see at least ¶ [0027], “…the user device 102 identifies and pairs with the in-vehicle Bluetooth profile. After storing the instance of NFC or in-vehicle Bluetooth and wireless charging coil, the user application 104 is triggered at step 310 to selectively activate … one or more functions on the user device 102. The one or more functions include but are not limited to turning on a camera of the user device 102 to capture one or more images, videos of the path being navigated, communicating a multimedia playlist to the in-vehicle entertainment system…”).
Hoskeri disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri does not particularly disclose a user interface display module for displaying a user interface requesting confirmation to register a digital key on an in-vehicle display device; and a digital key registration module for registering the digital key in response that an registration request is received through the user interface. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lu, which teaches a user interface display module for displaying a user interface requesting confirmation to register a digital key on an in-vehicle display device (see Lu, at least ¶ [0033], “…intercept the Bluetooth pairing request broadcasted by the system program when the Bluetooth pairing request broadcasted by the system program is monitored via the filter…” and further see at least ¶ [0043], “…pop up the preset PIN code pairing inputting box at an interface of the operating system and receive the PIN code input by the user…”); and a digital key registration module for registering the digital key in response that an registration request is received through the user interface (see Lu, at least ¶ [0045], “…pop up the preset PIN code pairing inputting box at the interface of the operating system by using inputPin method, and receiving the PIN code input by the user…” and see at least ¶ [0046], “…pair the mobile device with the target Bluetooth device according to the PIN code input by the user…” and see at least ¶ [0048], “…determine whether the mobile device and the target Bluetooth device are paired successfully according to the pairing result of pairing the mobile device with target Bluetooth device…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have a user interface display module for displaying a user interface requesting confirmation to register a digital key on an in-vehicle display device; and a digital key registration module for registering the digital key in response that an registration request is received through the user interface, as taught by Lu, thereby, to provide a Bluetooth devices are connected to mobile devices such as smart phones, tablet computer, as discussed by Lu, (see at least ¶ [0004]).
Consider claim 7, Hoskeri discloses a digital key pairing method, comprising:
detecting that a mobile device is located on a wireless charger and Near Field Communication (NFC) tagging has occurred (see at least ¶ [0027], “…at least a NFC tag or a wireless charging … in proximity. At step 304, upon detecting a NFC tag associated with 10 the dock station 108 mounted in the vehicle, the subsequent steps are performed…”);
detecting that a pairing of the mobile device with an audio device has occurred (see at least ¶ [0027], “…detecting the presence of wireless charging coil in proximity, the user device 102 identifies and pairs with the in-vehicle Bluetooth profile…”);
in response that the NFC Tagging and the pairing with the audio device have occurred, initiating a digital key process (see at least ¶ [0027], “…the user device 102 identifies and pairs with the in-vehicle Bluetooth profile. After storing the instance of NFC or in-vehicle Bluetooth and wireless charging coil, the user application 104 is triggered at step 310 to selectively activate … one or more functions on the user device 102. The one or more functions include but are not limited to turning on a camera of the user device 102 to capture one or more images, videos of the path being navigated, communicating a multimedia playlist to the in-vehicle entertainment system…”).
Hoskeri disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri does not particularly disclose displaying a user interface requesting confirmation to register a digital key on an in-vehicle display device; and registering the digital key in response that an registration request is received through the user interface. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lu, which teaches displaying a user interface requesting confirmation to register a digital key on an in-vehicle display device (see Lu, at least ¶ [0033], “…intercept the Bluetooth pairing request broadcasted by the system program when the Bluetooth pairing request broadcasted by the system program is monitored via the filter…” and further see at least ¶ [0043], “…pop up the preset PIN code pairing inputting box at an interface of the operating system and receive the PIN code input by the user…”); and registering the digital key in response that an registration request is received through the user interface (see Lu, at least ¶ [0045], “…pop up the preset PIN code pairing inputting box at the interface of the operating system by using inputPin method, and receiving the PIN code input by the user…” and see at least ¶ [0046], “…pair the mobile device with the target Bluetooth device according to the PIN code input by the user…” and see at least ¶ [0048], “…determine whether the mobile device and the target Bluetooth device are paired successfully according to the pairing result of pairing the mobile device with target Bluetooth device…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have displaying a user interface requesting confirmation to register a digital key on an in-vehicle display device; and registering the digital key in response that an registration request is received through the user interface, as taught by Lu, thereby, to provide a Bluetooth devices are connected to mobile devices such as smart phones, tablet computer, as discussed by Lu, (see at least ¶ [0004]).
Consider claims 2, 8 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Hoskeri in view of Lu discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Hoskeri disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri does not particularly disclose wherein the digital key registration module is configured not to register the digital key in response that a cancel input is received through the user interface. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lu, which teaches wherein the digital key registration module is configured not to register the digital key in response that a cancel input is received through the user interface (see Lu, at least ¶ [0094], “…the displayed content of the pPIN code pairing inputting box is: “input a PIN code please”, a PIN code pairing inputting box for receiving the PIN code input by the user, “OK”, and “cancel”…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have wherein the digital key registration module is configured not to register the digital key in response that a cancel input is received through the user interface, as taught by Lu, thereby, to provide a Bluetooth devices are connected to mobile devices such as smart phones, tablet computer, as discussed by Lu, (see at least ¶ [0004]).
Consider claims 3, 9 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Hoskeri in view of Lu discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Hoskeri disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri does not particularly disclose wherein the digital key registration module is configured not to register the digital key in response that a cancel input is received through the user interface. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lu, which teaches wherein the digital key registration module is configured not to register the digital key in response that a cancel input is received through the user interface (see Lu, at least ¶ [0094], “…the displayed content of the pPIN code pairing inputting box is: “input a PIN code please”, a PIN code pairing inputting box for receiving the PIN code input by the user, “OK”, and “cancel”…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have wherein the digital key registration module is configured not to register the digital key in response that a cancel input is received through the user interface, as taught by Lu, thereby, to provide a Bluetooth devices are connected to mobile devices such as smart phones, tablet computer, as discussed by Lu, (see at least ¶ [0004]).
Claims 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Document ID WO 2018002895 (hereinafter referred to as Hoskeri) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20190281450 (hereinafter referred to as Lu) and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20160269403 (hereinafter referred to as Koutenaei).
Consider claims 4, 10 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Hoskeri in view of Lu discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Hoskeri in view of Lu disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri in view of Lu does not particularly disclose wherein the digital key registration module is configured to register the digital key in response that an registration request is received through a link included in the email. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Koutenaei, which teaches wherein the digital key registration module is configured to register the digital key in response that an registration request is received through a link included in the email (see Koutenaei, at least ¶ [0101], “…initial registration, the authentication device 20 creates a pair of public key and private key and send the public key along with addition information…” and further see at least ¶ [0131], “…the user is authenticated by existing credentials, following the link sent to the user via a message or an email, or entering a one-time password, and the like, the user's authentication device 20 is registered with his/her account…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have wherein the digital key registration module is configured to register the digital key in response that an registration request is received through a link included in the email, as taught by Koutenaei, thereby, to provide a secure multi-factor authentication system and method that utilizes an authentication device to authenticate a user to a browsing device using biometric information, as discussed by Koutenaei, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Document ID WO 2018002895 (hereinafter referred to as Hoskeri) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20190281450 (hereinafter referred to as Lu) and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20240204536 (hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Consider claims 5, 11 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Hoskeri in view of Lu discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Hoskeri in view of Lu disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri in view of Lu does not particularly disclose wherein the digital key process initiation module does not initiate the digital key process even when the NFC tagging and the pairing with the audio device have occurred in response that a digital key teaching mode is disabled on the mobile device. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Koutenaei, which teaches wherein the digital key process initiation module does not initiate the digital key process even when the NFC tagging and the pairing with the audio device have occurred in response that a digital key teaching mode is disabled on the mobile device (see Koutenaei, at least ¶ [0015], “…deactivating the digital key registration mode in response that the predetermined activation condition is not satisfied or the digital key data is not obtained from the mobile device, and re-determining whether the digital key registration mode is activated based on the mobile device being placed back after being disconnected from the wireless charger…” and see at least ¶ [0074], “…The controller 50 may deactivate the digital key registration mode based on dissatisfaction of the predetermined activation condition or failure to obtain the digital key data from the mobile device 2. The controller 50 may re-determine whether the digital key registration mode is activated based on the mobile device 2 being placed back after being separated (or disconnected) from the wireless charger 10.…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have wherein the digital key process initiation module does not initiate the digital key process even when the NFC tagging and the pairing with the audio device have occurred in response that a digital key teaching mode is disabled on the mobile device, as taught by Koutenaei, thereby, to provide a vehicle configured for switching an operation mode of the wireless charger so that a digital key registration may be performed in a state where an ignition of the vehicle is turned on, and a method and system for controlling the vehicle, as discussed by Koutenaei, (see at least ¶ [0006]).
Consider claims 6, 12 (depends on at least claims 1, 7), Hoskeri in view of Lu discloses the limitations of claims 1, 7 as applied to claim rejection 1, 7 above and further discloses:
Hoskeri in view of Lu disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Hoskeri in view of Lu does not particularly disclose wherein the audio device pairing detection module is configured to change vehicle audio Bluetooth from an OFF state to an ON state in response that a digital key teaching mode is enabled on the mobile device. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Koutenaei, which teaches wherein the audio device pairing detection module is configured to change vehicle audio Bluetooth from an OFF state to an ON state in response that a digital key teaching mode is enabled on the mobile device (see Koutenaei, at least ¶ [0015], “…deactivating the digital key registration mode in response that the predetermined activation condition is not satisfied or the digital key data is not obtained from the mobile device, and re-determining whether the digital key registration mode is activated based on the mobile device being placed back after being disconnected from the wireless charger…” and see at least ¶ [0074], “…The controller 50 may deactivate the digital key registration mode based on dissatisfaction of the predetermined activation condition or failure to obtain the digital key data from the mobile device 2. The controller 50 may re-determine whether the digital key registration mode is activated based on the mobile device 2 being placed back after being separated (or disconnected) from the wireless charger 10.…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Hoskeri disclosed invention, and have wherein the audio device pairing detection module is configured to change vehicle audio Bluetooth from an OFF state to an ON state in response that a digital key teaching mode is enabled on the mobile device, as taught by Koutenaei, thereby, to provide a vehicle configured for switching an operation mode of the wireless charger so that a digital key registration may be performed in a state where an ignition of the vehicle is turned on, and a method and system for controlling the vehicle, as discussed by Koutenaei, (see at least ¶ [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG A NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony S Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/CHUONG A NGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645