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 amendment filed 11/21/2025. In the instant amendment, claims 1, 17 and 19 are amended; claims 1, 17 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection to claim 17 has been withdrawn as per applicant’s amendment filed 11/21/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claims 17-18 has been withdrawn as per applicant’s amendments filed 11/21/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 17 has been withdrawn as per applicant’s amendment filed on 11/21/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 17 and 19 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) and further in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005).
Regarding claim 1, Britt discloses a method of operating a client device, the method comprising:
receiving a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; (Britt, [0040] describes receiving a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, [0101] said data packet comprising one or more data structures [0108] addressed to one or more client devices [0229])
decrypting said data packet to obtain said one or more data structures; (Britt describes [0106] decrypting said data packet to obtain said one or more data structures [0108])
establishing whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device; (Britt describes [0040] establishing whether any of the one or more data structures [0108] is addressed to the client device [0229])
and if a data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticating the data packet; (Britt describes and if a data structure [0108] of the data packet [0106] is addressed to the client device [0229], authenticating the data packet [0142])
Britt fails to explicitly disclose and if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Kent discloses and if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Kent discloses Pages 11, 16, 27, 29 describes a client device where if no SA exists, must discard and the integrity verification is not executed; also see page 43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kent with the method/system of Britt to include and if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet. One would have been motivated to provide a mix of security services in IPv4 and IPv6 (Kent, Page 1, Abstract, Page 29).
Regarding claim 17, Britt discloses a client device comprising
a radio receiver (Britt, [0040], cellular radio; [0054] describes a receiver) and a processor; (Britt, [0115], processor)
wherein the radio receiver is arranged to: (Britt, [0040], cellular radio; [0054] describes a receiver)
receive a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more client devices; and the processor is arranged to: (Britt, [0040] describes receiving a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, [0101] said data packet comprising one or more data structures [0108] addressed to one or more client devices [0229])
decrypt said data packet to obtain said one or more data structures; (Britt describes [0106] decrypting said data packet to obtain said one or more data structures [0108])
establish whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device; (Britt describes [0040] establishing whether any of the one or more data structures [0108] is addressed to the client device [0229])
and if a data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticate the data packet; (Britt describes and if a data structure [0108] of the data packet [0106] is addressed to the client device [0229], authenticating the data packet [0142])
Britt fails to explicitly disclose and if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discard the data packet without authenticating the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Kent discloses if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discard the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Kent discloses Pages 11, 16, 27, 29 describes and endpoint device [client device] if no SA exists, must discard and the integrity verification is not executed; also see page 43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kent with the method/system of Britt to include and if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet. One would have been motivated to provide a mix of security services in IPv4 and IPv6 (Kent, Page 1, Abstract, Page 29).
Regarding claim 19, Britt discloses a radio communication system comprising:
a plurality of client devices; (Britt describes [0229] a plurality of client devices)
and an access point arranged to transmit a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more of the plurality of client devices; (Britt describes [0040] and an access point arranged to transmit a radio signal comprising an encrypted data packet, said data packet comprising one or more data structures addressed to one or more of the plurality of client devices)
wherein each of the plurality of client devices is arranged to: (Britt describes wherein each of the plurality of client devices is arranged to)
receive the radio signal comprising the encrypted data packet from the access point; (Britt describes receive the radio signal comprising the encrypted data packet from the access point)
decrypt said data packet to obtain said one or more data structures; (Britt describes [0106] decrypt said data packet to obtain said one or more data structures [0108])
establish whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device; (Britt describes [0040] establish whether any of the one or more data structures [0108] is addressed to the client device [0229])
and if a data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticate the data packet; (Britt describes [0108] and if a data structure of the data packet [0106] is addressed to the client device [0229], authenticate the data packet [0142])
Britt fails to explicitly disclose and if a data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticate the data packet without authenticating the data packet;
However, in an analogous art, Kent discloses and if a data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, authenticate the data packet without authenticating the data packet, (Kent discloses Pages 11, 16, 27, 29 describes an endpoint device [client device] where if no SA exists, must discard and the integrity verification is not executed; also see page 43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kent with the method/system of Britt to include and if no data structure of the data packet is addressed to the client device, discarding the data packet. One would have been motivated to provide a mix of security services in IPv4 and IPv6 (Kent, Page 1, Abstract, Page 29).
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005). and further in view of Park et al (“Park,” US 20210185522).
Regarding claim 2, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices, (Park describes wherein the data packet [0140] comprises a plurality of data structures [0126], [0062] addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices [0098], [0110], [0109])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 3, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose comprising, if authentication of the data packet succeeds, the client device following one or more commands contained in a data structure of the data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses comprising, if authentication of the data packet succeeds, the client device following one or more commands contained in a data structure of the data packet, (Park describes comprising, if authentication [0109] of the data packet succeeds, the client device following one or more commands [0008] contained in a data structure [0126], [0062] of the data packet [0140])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include comprising, if authentication of the data packet succeeds, the client device following one or more commands contained in a data structure of the data packet. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 5, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein each data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said data structure is addressed and establishing whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein each data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said data structure is addressed and establishing whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device, (Park, [0109]-[0110], [0114], wherein each data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said data structure is addressed and establishing whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein each data structure includes address information which identifies one or more client devices to which said data structure is addressed and establishing whether any of the one or more data structures is addressed to the client device comprises the client device comparing the address information of each data structure in the data packet to address information of the client device. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption (Park [0151] describes wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the data packet is encrypted using symmetric encryption. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 10, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose comprising the client device outputting information based on one or more data structures received in an encrypted data packet.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses comprising the client device outputting information based on one or more data structures received in an encrypted data packet, (Park, comprising the client device outputting information [0031] based on one or more data structures [0042] received in an encrypted data packet [0044])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include comprising the client device outputting information based on one or more data structures received in an encrypted data packet. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Regarding claim 18, Britt and Kent disclose the client device of claim 17.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices, (Park describes wherein the data packet [0140] comprises a plurality of data structures [0126], [0062] addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices [0098], [0110], [0109])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the data packet comprises a plurality of data structures addressed to a corresponding plurality of client devices. One would have been motivated to provide secure distribution of information via wireless broadcasting (Park, [0001]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Loupos et al (“Loupos,” US 20210099875).
Regarding claim 4, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet
However, in an analogous art, Loupos discloses comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet, (Loupos describes [0004] comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Loupos with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include comprising, if authentication of the data packet fails, discarding the data packet. One would have been motivated to manage data received from different IoT sensors (Loupos, [0001]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264)) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Suzuki et al (“Suzuki,” US 20070150732).
Regarding claim 6, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet includes group address information which identifies a group of client devices to which data structure(s) of the data packet are addressed, and the method comprises discarding the packet immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group.
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki discloses wherein the data packet includes group address information which identifies a group of client devices to which data structure(s) of the data packet are addressed, and the method comprises discarding the packet immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group, (Suzuki describes wherein the data packet [0154] includes group address information [0014] which identifies a group of client devices [0014] to which data structure(s) of the data packet [0154] are addressed [0164], and the method comprises discarding the packet [0168] immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group [0014])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the data packet includes group address information which identifies a group of client devices to which data structure(s) of the data packet are addressed, and the method comprises discarding the packet immediately if the client device does not belong to the identified group. One would have been motivated to provide user authentication and access control in a wireless access system (Suzuki, [0002]).
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Lee et al (“Lee,” CN107079023, See Google Patents Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag generated using cipher-block chaining and authenticating the data packet comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations to verify the authentication tag.
However, in an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag generated using cipher-block chaining and authenticating the data packet comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations to verify the authentication tag, (Lee describes wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag (Page 16, Lines 1-2) generated using cipher-block chaining (Page 13, First Paragraph) and authenticating the data packet (Page 15, Lines 41-43) comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations (Page 16, Lines 1-2) to verify the authentication tag (Page 16, Lines 1-2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the data packet comprises an authentication tag generated using cipher-block chaining and authenticating the data packet comprises performing cipher-block chaining operations to verify the authentication tag. One would have been motivated to increase security in next generation cellular networks (Lee, Page 7, Fourth Paragraph)
Regarding claim 9, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the data packet is authenticated and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM.
However, in an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the data packet is authenticated and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM., (Lee Page 15, Lines 41-43 describes wherein the data packet is authenticated) and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM (Page 15, Lines 36-43)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the data packet is authenticated and encrypted using a counter with cipher block chaining message authentication code method, such as AES-CCM. One would have been motivated to increase security in next generation cellular networks (Lee, Page 7, Fourth Paragraph).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Ravindra et al (“Ravindra,” US 20180039916).
Regarding claim 11, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose comprising the client device outputting pricing information.
However, in an analogous art, Ravindra discloses comprising the client device outputting pricing information, (Ravindra describes comprising the client device [0011] outputting pricing information [0059], [0049])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravindra with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include comprising the client device outputting pricing information. One would have been motivated to provide access control for a digital event (Ravindra, [0001]).
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Cheng et al (“Cheng,” US 20150326659).
Regarding claim 12, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device comprises a display.
However, in an analogous art, Cheng discloses wherein the client device comprises a display, (Cheng describes wherein the client device [0012] comprises a display [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the client device comprises a display. One would have been motivated to provide handheld mobile computing resources to smart connected devices (Cheng, [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device is battery powered.
However, in an analogous art, Cheng discloses wherein the client device is battery powered, (Cheng describes [0023] wherein the client device is battery powered)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the client device is battery powered. One would have been motivated to provide handheld mobile computing resources to smart connected devices (Cheng, [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Britt and Kent disclose the method of any claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device.
However, in an analogous art, Cheng discloses wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device, (Cheng describes [0032] wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the client device is a Bluetooth device. One would have been motivated to provide handheld mobile computing resources to smart connected devices (Cheng, [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Zeine et al (“Zeine,” US 20200127704).
Regarding claim 14, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose wherein the client device comprises an Electronic Shelf Label.
However, in an analogous art, Zeine discloses wherein the client device comprises an Electronic Shelf Label, (Zeine, [0033], describes wherein the client device [0033] comprises an Electronic Shelf Label [0086])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeine with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include wherein the client device comprises an Electronic Shelf Label. One would have been motivated to present communications in a wireless power delivery environment (Zeine, [0101]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) and further in view of Avetisov et al (“Avetisov,” US 20210258308).
Regarding claim 15, Britt and Kent disclose the method of claim 1.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose comprising the client device recording and/or transmitting data from one or more sensors.
However, in an analogous art, Avetisov discloses comprising the client device recording and/or transmitting data from one or more sensors, (Avetisov, [0045] describes comprising the client device and transmitting from one or more sensors)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Avetisov with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include comprising the client device recording and/or transmitting data from one or more sensors. One would have been motivated to provide out-of-band authentication of a user accessing a web service on a first computing device with network access by using a mobile computing device of the user without network access as an authentication factor, (Avetisov, [0002]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britt et al (“Britt,” US 20170169264) in view of Kent et al (“Kent,” “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), RFC 4303, Pages 1-44, 2005) further in view of Abell et al (“Abell,” US 20160035012).
Regarding claim 20, Britt and Kent disclose the radio communication system of claim 19.
Britt and Kent fail to explicitly disclose comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system in which the access point comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point and the client devices comprise Electronic Shelf Labels.
However, in an analogous art, Abell discloses comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system in which the access point comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point and the client devices comprise Electronic Shelf Labels, (Abell describes comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system [0051] in which the access point [0026] comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point [0026] and the client devices [0027] comprise Electronic Shelf Labels [0021])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Abell with the method/system of Britt and Kent to include comprising an Electronic Shelf Label system in which the access point comprises an Electronic Shelf Label access point and the client devices comprise Electronic Shelf Labels. One would have been motivated to provide a system that includes an electronic shelf display strip that extends along the front edge of existing store shelves (Abell, [0020]).
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 JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439