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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are subject to examination.
Priority
The claimed foreign priority (JAPAN 2023-081437 05/17/2023) in this application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), is acknowledged.
Specification
The title is objected to because the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The present title (INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM) is well known in the art (please see cited arts), too broad and not sufficient for proper classification of the claimed subject matter. The title should also reflect claimed invention,
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM PERMITTING SECOND AUTHENTICATION BASED ON RELATIONSHIP OF USERS, please refer to MPEP 606 for title contents.
Appropriate correction is required.
Also, regarding, addition of “DEVICE, METHOD AND SYSTEM” of the title, please refer to MPEP 606 for title contents. 37 C.F.R. 1.72 Title and abstract (a) The title of the invention must be as short and specific as possible.
The abstract is objected to because it does not comply with 37 CFR § 1.72. A brief abstract of the technical disclosure in the specification must commence on a separate sheet, preferably following the claims, under the heading "Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure." The sheet or sheets" presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract in an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 may not exceed 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the page presenting the abstract includes other parts of the application (i.e., the claimed subject matter of the invention, please see claim 1). Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to: para 3 is missing on pages 1-2 of the specification submitted on the filing date of this application are noted.
Drawings
The figures submitted on the filing date of this application are noted.
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See para 2 of the specification describes it. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
A proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled --Replacement Sheet-- in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the examiner does not accept the changes, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/9/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and has been considered and a copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It contains “may be”, which should be removed in order to positively recite limitations in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 contains identify a first user and a second user. Claim 3 contains the second user is the first user. Second user means additional user as compared to the first user. Claim 1 does not contain that the second user refer to the first user using “the” or “said”. Hence claim 1 contains two users. Claim 4 also does not include all the limitations of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 claim "identify a first user ... and a second user … and determine whether or not to permit the second authentication", in which instead of machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the users are identified/interacted. Hence, the claims do not fall under the above statutory requirement.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 13, 14 recite(s) "identify a first user ... and a second user … and determine whether or not to permit the second authentication"; that limitation is about collecting and comparing known Information, comparing data to determine a risk level, obtaining and comparing data, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options and is a recognized abstract idea. Limitations, "identify a first user ... and a second user … and determine whether or not to permit the second authentication" can be performed with pen and paper. (see Fed. Reg., vol. 79, No. 241, Dec 16, 2014, Smartgene v. Advanced Biological Labs, Federal Cir. 2014). The claims elements analyzed under the Mayo framework (Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294), considered individually and as an ordered combination do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they correspond to computer functions such as processor, image processing apparatus, terminal, display, etc.
Dependent claims 2-12 recite additional elements that can be implemented in a generic computer, they are therefore as well rejected for being abstract. Adding a nominal recitation of generic computing structure or a general purpose computer is insufficient to make a claim patent-eligible. See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Circ. 2012). See also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. In order to be patent eligible, the claims must recite limitations reciting significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Limitations referenced in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 (S. Ct2014) that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: Improvements to another technology or technical fields (Id., at 2358: e.g., a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber molding process (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,177-178(1981))); improvements to the functioning of the computer itself (Id. at 2359); and meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. at 2360: noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" (citing Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 611)).
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGISHI, FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20220083292 in view of DEGUCHI et al., FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20210289104.
Referring to claim(s) 1, YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM substantially discloses an information processing system comprising: one or more processors configured to (abstract, para 28) identify a first user who has been authenticated in first authentication to remotely connect (S100, figure 6, para 39, 30), using a terminal, to an image processing apparatus (figure 1, para 30) and the user who wishes to be authenticated in second authentication to use the image processing apparatus (para 40); and determine, based on information indicating a relationship between the identified first user and the identified user in second authentication, whether or not to permit the second authentication of the user (para 86, 87, 89).
YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM does not specifically mention about, which is well-known in the art, which DEGUCHI discloses, a second user (
[0125] The information processing apparatus 2 that has the processor 21 functioning as the first permission unit 211 and the second permission unit 212 is an example of a second apparatus that permits a first user to use this information processing apparatus 2 in a case where transmitted first permission information indicates this information processing apparatus 2 and a second user having an attribute that is in a predetermined relationship with an attribute of the first user is permitted to use this information processing apparatus 2. [0225] When the receiving unit 411 receives this inquiry, the issuing unit 413a searches the attribute information DB 422 for the user ID of the first user included in this inquiry and specifies attribute information of the first user. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts, from the attribute information DB 422, a user (i.e., a second user) having attribute information that is in a predetermined relationship with the specified attribute information on the basis of the specified attribute information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing the second user. The second user would enable providing an attribute that is in a predetermined relationship with an attribute of the first user, which would enable permitting to use this information processing apparatus, para 125.
Referring to claims 13, 14, the method/medium claims is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same rationale as the apparatus claim1.
Referring to claim 2, YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM discloses wherein the one or more
processors are configured to identify, based on information that has been input to the terminal
and used for the first authentication and information read by an authenticating unit of the
image processing apparatus, the first user and the second user (para 21, 40)
Referring to claim 3, YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM discloses wherein the one or more
processors are configured to permit the second authentication of the second user, based on
information indicating that the second user is the first user, as the information indicating the
relationship (YAMAGISHI, para 40, 86, DEGUCHI, para 125)
Referring to claim 4, DEGUCHI discloses wherein the information indicating that the second user is the first user is information indicating that identification information that is able to uniquely identify the first user, among a plurality of pieces of information that have been used for the first authentication, and identification information that is able to uniquely identify the second user, among a plurality of pieces of information used for the second authentication, are the same (
[0152] A case where “two attributes are in a predetermined relationship” is, for example, a case where these attributes are identical to each other to a certain degree or larger, are similar to each other, or belong to the same group. In the following description, the second user is a user whose at least one of the occupation, the department, and the location is identical to that of the first user.)
[0226] For example, in a case where the inquiry includes a user ID “U01” of a first user and an apparatus ID “D12”, the issuing unit 413a specifies an occupation “developer”, a department “EDS”, and a location “YMM” as attribute information of the first user by searching the attribute information DB 422 illustrated in FIG. 30A. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts a user having at least one of these pieces of attribute information from the attribute information DB 422. In this example, a location of a user identified by a user ID “U02” is “YMM”, which is identical to the location of the first user. Accordingly, this user is a candidate of the second user. Plural candidates of the second user may be extracted
Referring to claim 5, YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM discloses wherein the one or more
processors are configured to permit the second authentication of the second user, based on
information indicating that the first user and the second user are in a relationship in which the
second user is not the first user but the second authentication of the second user may be
permitted, as the information indicating the relationship.
([0152] A case where “two attributes are in a predetermined relationship” is, for example, a case where these attributes are identical to each other to a certain degree or larger, are similar to each other, or belong to the same group. In the following description, the second user is a user whose at least one of the occupation, the department, and the location is identical to that of the first user.)
[0226] For example, in a case where the inquiry includes a user ID “U01” of a first user and an apparatus ID “D12”, the issuing unit 413a specifies an occupation “developer”, a department “EDS”, and a location “YMM” as attribute information of the first user by searching the attribute information DB 422 illustrated in FIG. 30A. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts a user having at least one of these pieces of attribute information from the attribute information DB 422. In this example, a location of a user identified by a user ID “U02” is “YMM”, which is identical to the location of the first user. Accordingly, this user is a candidate of the second user. Plural candidates of the second user may be extracted
Referring to claim 6, DEGUCHI discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to permit the second authentication of the second user, based on
information indicating that the second user has confirmed that the first user and the second
user are in a relationship in which the second user is not the first user but the second
authentication of the second user may be permitted.
([0152] A case where “two attributes are in a predetermined relationship” is, for example, a case where these attributes are identical to each other to a certain degree or larger, are similar to each other, or belong to the same group. In the following description, the second user is a user whose at least one of the occupation, the department, and the location is identical to that of the first user.)
[0226] For example, in a case where the inquiry includes a user ID “U01” of a first user and an apparatus ID “D12”, the issuing unit 413a specifies an occupation “developer”, a department “EDS”, and a location “YMM” as attribute information of the first user by searching the attribute information DB 422 illustrated in FIG. 30A. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts a user having at least one of these pieces of attribute information from the attribute information DB 422. In this example, a location of a user identified by a user ID “U02” is “YMM”, which is identical to the location of the first user. Accordingly, this user is a candidate of the second user. Plural candidates of the second user may be extracted
Referring to claim 7, DEGUCHI discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to display on the image processing apparatus information for
allowing the second user to confirm that the first user and the second user are in a relationship
in which the second user is not the first user but the second authentication of the second user
may be permitted.
[0188] The first user who has confirmed this message clicks a button B33 having a character string “CONFIRM” displayed below the message. This allows the first user to start temporary use of the information processing apparatus 2 that has transmitted the temporary permission notification.
[0189] That is, the processor 21 of the information processing apparatus 2 is an example of a processor that shifts to a state for accepting an instruction from a third user who manages this information processing apparatus 2 in a case where first permission information indicates this information processing apparatus 2 and a second user has been permitted to use this information processing apparatus 2 and permits a first user to use this information processing apparatus 2 upon receipt of an instruction from the third user to give the first user permission to use this information processing apparatus 2.
[0190] According to this configuration, it is not until permission is obtained from the third user who manages the information processing apparatus 2 that the information processing apparatus 2 can permit the first user to use this information processing apparatus 2, even in a case where there is a history of use of this information processing apparatus 2 by a second user having an attribute that is in a predetermined relationship with an attribute of the first user. This improves security of the information processing apparatus 2 as compared with a case where permission from the third user is not asked for.
Referring to claim 9, DEGUCHI discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to permit the second authentication of the second user, based on
information indicating that the first user has confirmed that the first user and the second user
are in a relationship in which the second user is not the first user but the second authentication
of the second user may be permitted.
[0188] The first user who has confirmed this message clicks a button B33 having a character string “CONFIRM” displayed below the message. This allows the first user to start temporary use of the information processing apparatus 2 that has transmitted the temporary permission notification.
[0189] That is, the processor 21 of the information processing apparatus 2 is an example of a processor that shifts to a state for accepting an instruction from a third user who manages this information processing apparatus 2 in a case where first permission information indicates this information processing apparatus 2 and a second user has been permitted to use this information processing apparatus 2 and permits a first user to use this information processing apparatus 2 upon receipt of an instruction from the third user to give the first user permission to use this information processing apparatus 2.
[0152] A case where “two attributes are in a predetermined relationship” is, for example, a case where these attributes are identical to each other to a certain degree or larger, are similar to each other, or belong to the same group. In the following description, the second user is a user whose at least one of the occupation, the department, and the location is identical to that of the first user.)
[0226] For example, in a case where the inquiry includes a user ID “U01” of a first user and an apparatus ID “D12”, the issuing unit 413a specifies an occupation “developer”, a department “EDS”, and a location “YMM” as attribute information of the first user by searching the attribute information DB 422 illustrated in FIG. 30A. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts a user having at least one of these pieces of attribute information from the attribute information DB 422. In this example, a location of a user identified by a user ID “U02” is “YMM”, which is identical to the location of the first user. Accordingly, this user is a candidate of the second user. Plural candidates of the second user may be extracted
Referring to claim 10, DEGUCHI discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to display on the terminal information for allowing the first user to
confirm that the first user and the second user are in a relationship in which the second user is
not the first user but the second authentication of the second user may be permitted.
[0188] The first user who has confirmed this message clicks a button B33 having a character string “CONFIRM” displayed below the message. This allows the first user to start temporary use of the information processing apparatus 2 that has transmitted the temporary permission notification.
[0189] That is, the processor 21 of the information processing apparatus 2 is an example of a processor that shifts to a state for accepting an instruction from a third user who manages this information processing apparatus 2 in a case where first permission information indicates this information processing apparatus 2 and a second user has been permitted to use this information processing apparatus 2 and permits a first user to use this information processing apparatus 2 upon receipt of an instruction from the third user to give the first user permission to use this information processing apparatus 2.
[0152] A case where “two attributes are in a predetermined relationship” is, for example, a case where these attributes are identical to each other to a certain degree or larger, are similar to each other, or belong to the same group. In the following description, the second user is a user whose at least one of the occupation, the department, and the location is identical to that of the first user.)
[0226] For example, in a case where the inquiry includes a user ID “U01” of a first user and an apparatus ID “D12”, the issuing unit 413a specifies an occupation “developer”, a department “EDS”, and a location “YMM” as attribute information of the first user by searching the attribute information DB 422 illustrated in FIG. 30A. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts a user having at least one of these pieces of attribute information from the attribute information DB 422. In this example, a location of a user identified by a user ID “U02” is “YMM”, which is identical to the location of the first user. Accordingly, this user is a candidate of the second user. Plural candidates of the second user may be extracted
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGISHI, FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20220083292 in view of DEGUCHI et al., FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20210289104 and SERTAN, TR 2021021426 A2.
Referring to claim 8, DEGUCHI-FUJIFILM discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to, in a case where, at the time when the information for allowing
the second user to make a confirmation is displayed on the image processing apparatus,
[0188] The first user who has confirmed this message clicks a button B33 having a character string “CONFIRM” displayed below the message. This allows the first user to start temporary use of the information processing apparatus 2 that has transmitted the temporary permission notification.
[0189] That is, the processor 21 of the information processing apparatus 2 is an example of a processor that shifts to a state for accepting an instruction from a third user who manages this information processing apparatus 2 in a case where first permission information indicates this information processing apparatus 2 and a second user has been permitted to use this information processing apparatus 2 and permits a first user to use this information processing apparatus 2 upon receipt of an instruction from the third user to give the first user permission to use this information processing apparatus 2.
[0190] According to this configuration, it is not until permission is obtained from the third user who manages the information processing apparatus 2 that the information processing apparatus 2 can permit the first user to use this information processing apparatus 2, even in a case where there is a history of use of this information processing apparatus 2 by a second user having an attribute that is in a predetermined relationship with an attribute of the first user. This improves security of the information processing apparatus 2 as compared with a case where permission from the third user is not asked for.
YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM and DEGUCHI-FUJIFILM do not disclose, which SERTAN discloses,
an operation for an operation screen of the apparatus is restricted due to remote
connection between the apparatus and the terminal, temporarily remove the
restriction (
The software (4) is configured to unlock the screen by running the “powershell” command, which enables remote connection to another device in line with the user login information on the database (6). The software (4) is configured to update the job record status created by performing the screen unlock operation in the database (6) as "completed"., 4th para, page 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing temporarily remove the restriction of the screen. The unlock of the screen would enable entering information so that a remote connection would be made with another device, 4th para, page 3.
Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGISHI, FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20220083292 in view of DEGUCHI et al., FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20210289104 and Honda et al., 11144000.
Referring to claim 11, DEGUCHI-FUJIFILM discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured not to permit the second user to use the authenticating unit,
[0152] A case where “two attributes are in a predetermined relationship” is, for example, a case where these attributes are identical to each other to a certain degree or larger, are similar to each other, or belong to the same group. In the following description, the second user is a user whose at least one of the occupation, the department, and the location is identical to that of the first user.)
[0226] For example, in a case where the inquiry includes a user ID “U01” of a first user and an apparatus ID “D12”, the issuing unit 413a specifies an occupation “developer”, a department “EDS”, and a location “YMM” as attribute information of the first user by searching the attribute information DB 422 illustrated in FIG. 30A. Then, the issuing unit 413a extracts a user having at least one of these pieces of attribute information from the attribute information DB 422. In this example, a location of a user identified by a user ID “U02” is “YMM”, which is identical to the location of the first user. Accordingly, this user is a candidate of the second user. Plural candidates of the second user may be extracted
YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM and DEGUCHI-FUJIFILM do not disclose, which Honda discloses,
in a case where the authenticating unit functions as a charging unit that is not capable of identifying the
second user (col., 3, 2nd para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing charging unit. The charging unit would enable charging unit would enable charging components that provide functions in the system, 2nd para, col., 3.
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGISHI, FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20220083292 in view of DEGUCHI et al., FUJIFILM Business Innovation Corp, 20210289104, Honda et al., 11144000, MORIMURA et al., 20210279021.
Referring to claim 12, Honda discloses, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to, in a case where the authenticating unit functions as a charging
unit that is not capable of identifying the second user, (as claim 11).
YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM, Honda and DEGUCHI-FUJIFILM do not disclose, which MORIMURA discloses, when money is inserted, display on the image processing apparatus information for allowing the second user to confirm whether to permit reception of the inserted money (para 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by YAMAGISHI- FUJIFILM to implement these limitations and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing the apparatus accepting coins for using it. The user would be able to confirm or not confirm on whether to permit reception and use the apparatus for remote connection, para 79.
Conclusion
Pertinent prior arts: NAKATSUGAWA et al., 20210074393
[0106] In next Step S126, the second display control unit 50 determines whether or not to authenticate a user corresponding to the input user ID. Specifically, the second display control unit 50 determines whether or not the browsing of the relative relationship information 30 is permitted for the input user ID with reference to the authentication information 37. In a case where the browsing of the relative relationship information 30 is not permitted, the user is not authenticated. Therefore, the determination in Step S126 is negative and the processing proceeds to Step S128. In Step S128, the second display control unit 50 displays information, on the display unit 24, representing that the authentication is not possible, and then the processing returns to Step S122.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3973. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado, can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/HARESH N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights