DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are pending with claims 1, 10 and 15 having been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the limitation of “wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key”. This limitation still does not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1, 10 and 10 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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: first processor module in claims 1, 10 and 15.
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 § 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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recite “A computer implemented method of performing a cryptographic operation, the method comprising: for a first value corresponding to a first point on a first elliptic curve of a first type defined on a finite field, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second point on a second elliptic curve of a second type defined on the finite field; performing a first operation using the second value to determine a third value corresponding to a third point on the second elliptic curve, wherein the first operation is performed on a first processor module which supports the first operation on an elliptic curve of the second type; and transforming the third value to a fourth value corresponding to a fourth point on the first elliptic curve, wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key”.
The limitations of "for a first value corresponding to a first point on a first elliptic curve of a first type defined on a finite field, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second point on a second elliptic curve of a second type defined on the finite field”; “performing a first operation using the second value to determine a third value corresponding to a third point on the second elliptic curve, wherein the first operation is performed on a first processor module which supports the first operation on an elliptic curve of the second type”; and “transforming the third value to a fourth value corresponding to a fourth point on the first elliptic curve, wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recite “A system comprising: a first processor module which supports a first operation on a elliptic curve of a second type, the system configured to performing a cryptographic operation comprising: for a first value corresponding to a first point on a first elliptic curve of a first type defined on a finite field, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second point on a second elliptic curve of a second type defined on the finite field; performing on the first processor module a first operation using the second value to determine a third value corresponding to a third point on the second elliptic curve, wherein the first operation is performed on a first processor module which supports the first operation on an elliptic curve of the second type; and transforming the third value to a fourth value corresponding to a fourth point on the first elliptic curve, wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key”.
The limitations of "for a first value corresponding to a first point on a first elliptic curve of a first type defined on a finite field, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second point on a second elliptic curve of a second type defined on the finite field”; “performing on the first processor module a first operation using the second value to determine a third value corresponding to a third point on the second elliptic curve, wherein the first operation is performed on a first processor module which supports the first operation on an elliptic curve of the second type”; and “transforming the third value to a fourth value corresponding to a fourth point on the first elliptic curve, wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a processor module. The processor module is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor module and require no more than a generic computer component to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recite “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computer processor to perform the following method of performing a cryptographic operation comprising: for a first value corresponding to a first point on a first elliptic curve of a first type defined on a finite field, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second point on a second elliptic curve of a second type defined on the finite field; performing a first operation using the second value to determine a third value corresponding to a third point on the second elliptic curve, wherein the first operation is performed on a first processor module which supports the first operation on an elliptic curve of the second type; and transforming the third value to a fourth value corresponding to a fourth point on the first elliptic curve, wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key”.
The limitations of "for a first value corresponding to a first point on a first elliptic curve of a first type defined on a finite field, obtaining a second value corresponding to a second point on a second elliptic curve of a second type defined on the finite field”; “performing a first operation using the second value to determine a third value corresponding to a third point on the second elliptic curve, wherein the first operation is performed on a first processor module which supports the first operation on an elliptic curve of the second type”; and “transforming the third value to a fourth value corresponding to a fourth point on the first elliptic curve, wherein the fourth point on the first elliptic curve is equivalent to a point obtained by performing the first operation on the first point on the first elliptic curve, and wherein the fourth value corresponds to a cryptographic key” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of " wherein the first operation is a point multiplication operation, a point addition operation, a point doubling operation or a combination of one or more of these operations” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of "wherein the first type is an elliptic curve defined using parameters of a Montgomery equation or an Edwards equation, and wherein the second type is an elliptic curve defined using parameters of a Weierstrass equation” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of " wherein obtaining the second value comprises transforming the first value to the second value” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of " wherein transforming the first value to the second value comprises retrieving one or more constants defining the second elliptic curve” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of "further comprising: determining a further first value from the first value, the further first value corresponding to the first point, and transforming the further first value to a further second value corresponding to the second point, wherein the first operation is performed using the second value and the further second value” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of " wherein obtaining the second value comprises: determining whether the first point corresponds to a pre-defined point; responsive to determining that the first point corresponds to the pre-defined point, retrieving the second value” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim limitations of “wherein transforming the third value to the fourth value is performed at least in part on a second processor module” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a computer. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of " wherein transforming the third value to the fourth value is performed at least in part on a second processor module” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a processor module. The processor module is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor module and require no more than a generic computer component to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations of “wherein the second processor module is a general processor module within a hardware security module device and wherein the first processor module is a hardware coprocessor within the hardware security module device” amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor module and require no more than a generic computer component to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the limitations of “wherein the second processor module is a general processor module within a first computing device and the first processor module is within a smartcard device” amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general processor and require no more than a generic computer component to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations of “further comprising: a memory storing one or more constants defining the second elliptic curve, wherein the memory further stores the second value” are directed to a judicial exception. Specifically mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element a processor module. The processor module is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor module and require no more than a generic computer component to perform functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN E ALMEIDA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rupal Dharia, can be reached on 571-272-3880. 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).
/DEVIN E ALMEIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2492