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 Claim
1. Applicant's amendment dated 03/30/2026 responding to the Office Action 12/31/2025 provided in the rejection of claims 1-16.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application, of which claims 1 and 5 in independent form and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
4. (A). Regarding Abstract objection: Abstract objection raised in previous office action has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
(B). Regarding claim objection: Claim objection raised in previous office action has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
(C). Regarding claim interpretation: Claim interpretation raised in previous office action has been maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
(D) Regarding art rejection: Applicants' amendment necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection. Please see Ivan De Oliveira Nunes (CASU: Compromise Avoidance via Secure Update for Low-end Embedded Systems, 2022) and Cenk Gundogan (Reliable Firmware Updates for the Information-Centric Internet of Things, 2021).
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
6. 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”) (communication means configured to receive; comparing means configured to compare; processing means configured to update) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivan De Oliveira Nunes (CASU: Compromise Avoidance via Secure Update for Low-end Embedded Systems, 2022 – herein after Nunes) in view of Cenk Gundogan (Reliable Firmware Updates for the Information-Centric Internet of Things, 2021 – herein after Gundogan).
Regarding claim 1.
Nunes discloses
A method for updating a software stored in a first memory of a sensor (remote software updates and memory erasure. RA aims to detect compromise by authenticated measurement of the device’s current software state – See page 1, right column), the method comprising:
receiving, by the sensor (embedded devices (sensors) – See page 1, left column), a first data frame requesting an update of a current version of the software stored in the first memory (a scheme to enable secure software updates – See page 2, left column and the software stored in ROM – See page 2, right column), the first data frame (update requests containing new software to be installed (Snew) and an authorization token (ATok) that must be issued – See page 4, left column) comprising a header and data for updating the current version of the software (the Snew header consisting of its size, version number, and a random nonce, respectively – See page 5, right column), the header comprising [[a first identifier and]] a second identifier (software version number – See page 5, right column), the second identifier comprising a software version (the Snew header consisting of its size, version number – See page 5, right column);
comparing, by the sensor, the first identifier with a predetermined sensor identifier stored in a second memory of the sensor (comparison with related architecture – See page 8, right column. Verified hybrid (hardware/software) RA design comprising verified hardware and software sub-modules. The software sub-module, which is immutable (stored in ROM), implements the authenticated integrity function computed over some “Attested Region” (AR) of Prv memory (usually in PMEM) – See page 2, right column. This paper focuses on CPS/IoT sensors and actuators (or hybrids thereof) with low computing power. These are some of the smallest and weakest devices based on ultra-low-power single-core MCUs with only a few KBytes of memory. Two prominent examples are Atmel AVR ATmega and TI MSP430, MSP430, stored in data memory (DMEM or RAM) – See page 2, left column and Fig. 1); and
updating the current version of the software from the data of the first data frame with the software version identified by the second identifier (verify the update request before it installs the new software on the device – See page 2, right column and Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) when the first identifier includes the predetermined sensor identifier (casu_install runtime is constant because it updates fixed-size memory ranges (including EP, IV TR, and SF) and computes HMAC on a fixed size input. Whereas, casu_authenticate scales linearly with S-new size, over which HMAC is computed – see page 8, right column).
Nunes does not disclose
the header comprising a first identifier.
Gundogan discloses
the first data frame comprising a header (It supports a header compression to reduce header verbosity and a fragmentation scheme – See page 2, right column) and data for updating the current version of the software (Retrieval of firmware versions. To discover a new version, IoT devices send Interests to the name that identifies the latest firmware version by setting the correct time frame. Following our previous example, the Interest may describe the name /OilRig-3/IoTCompany 5/Valve-7/1632261600/manifest, in which the requested time frame is greater than the time frame of the locally running firmware – See page 6, left column), the header comprising a first identifier and a second identifier, the second identifier comprising a software version (Retrieval of firmware versions. To discover a new version, IoT devices send Interests to the name that identifies the latest firmware version by setting the correct time frame. Following our previous example, the Interest may describe the name /OilRig-3/IoTCompany-5/Valve-7/1632261600/manifest, in which the requested time frame is greater than the time frame of the locally running firmware – See page 5, left column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to discover a new version to the name that identifies the latest firmware version as suggested by Gundogan (See page 5, left column).
Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1,
Nunes discloses
wherein updating the current version of the software (The timestamp in the naming scheme updates for new firmware versions to reflect the upload time – See page 4, left column) comprises:
replacing the current version of the software by the data in the first memory (replaces S-old with S-new– See page 3, right column);
resetting the sensor when the current version of the software is replaced by the data in the first memory (After each boot or reset, it executes authorized software that was previously installed. When an update request is received, CASU-SW must be invoked to securely apply the update and re-configure CASU-HW to protect the memory region where S-new is installed– See Fig. 4, left column); and
transmitting a second data frame comprising the second identifier when the sensor is reset (DM A-addr Memory address being accessed by DMA, when active reset Signal that reboots the MCU when set to logic ‘1’ TCR Trusted Code Region, a fixed ROM region storing CASUSW – See page 4, right column).
Regarding claim 5.
Nunes discloses
A sensor (embedded device (sensors) – See Instruction, page 1, left column) comprising:
a first memory storing a software (memory region where authorized software is stored – See Table 1, page 4);
communication means configure to receive a first data frame requesting an update of the current version of the software stored in the first memory (when an update request is received, CASU-SW must be invoked to securely apply the update and re-configure CASU-HW to protect the memory region where Snew is installed – See page 4, left column), the first data frame comprising a header and data for updating the current version of the software (the Snew header consisting of its size, version number, and a random nonce, respectively – See page 5, right column), the header comprising [[a first identifier and]] a second identifier (software version number – See page 5, right column), the second identifier comprising a software version (the Snew header consisting of its size, version number – See page 5, right column);
a second memory storing a predetermined sensor identifier (Our initial implementation of CASU uses MSP430 MCU, a common platform for low-end embedded devices. Atmel AVR ATmega and TI MSP430, with 8- and 16-bit CPUs respectively, typically running at 1-16MHz clock frequencies, with = 64 Kbytes of addressable memory – See page 2, left column. This paper focuses on CPS/IoT sensors and actuators (or hybrids thereof) with low computing power. These are some of the smallest and weakest devices based on ultra-low-power single-core MCUs with only a few KBytes of memory. Two prominent examples are Atmel AVR ATmega and TI MSP430, MSP430, stored in data memory (DMEM or RAM) – See page 2, left column and Fig. 1);
comparing means configured to compare the first identifier with the predetermined sensor identifier (comparison with related architecture – See page 8, right column. Verified hybrid (hardware/software) RA design comprising verified hardware and software sub-modules. The software sub-module, which is immutable (stored in ROM), implements the authenticated integrity function computed over some “Attested Region” (AR) of Prv memory (usually in PMEM) – See page 2, right column. This paper focuses on CPS/IoT sensors and actuators (or hybrids thereof) with low computing power. These are some of the smallest and weakest devices based on ultra-low-power single-core MCUs with only a few KBytes of memory. Two prominent examples are Atmel AVR ATmega and TI MSP430, MSP430, stored in data memory (DMEM or RAM) – See page 2, left column and Fig. 1); and
processing means configured to update the current version of the software from the data of the first data frame with the software version identified by the second identifier (verify the update request before it installs the new software on the device – See page 2, right column and Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) when the first identifier includes the predetermined sensor identifier (casu_install runtime is constant because it updates fixed-size memory ranges (including EP, IV TR, and SF) and computes HMAC on a fixed size input. Whereas, casu_authenticate scales linearly with S-new size, over which HMAC is computed – see page 8, right column).
Nunes does not disclose
the header comprising a first identifier.
Gundogan discloses
the first data frame comprising a header (It supports a header compression to reduce header verbosity and a fragmentation scheme – See page 2, right column) and data for updating the current version of the software (Retrieval of firmware versions. To discover a new version, IoT devices send Interests to the name that identifies the latest firmware version by setting the correct time frame. Following our previous example, the Interest may describe the name /OilRig-3/IoTCompany 5/Valve-7/1632261600/manifest, in which the requested time frame is greater than the time frame of the locally running firmware – See page 6, left column), the header comprising a first identifier and a second identifier (Retrieval of firmware versions. To discover a new version, IoT devices send Interests to the name that identifies the latest firmware version by setting the correct time frame. Following our previous example, the Interest may describe the name /OilRig-3/IoTCompany-5/Valve-7/1632261600/manifest, in which the requested time frame is greater than the time frame of the locally running firmware – See page 5, left column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to discover a new version to the name that identifies the latest firmware version as suggested by Gundogan (See page 5, left column).
Regarding claim 6, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 9.
Gundogan discloses
A network (Fig. 1, heterogeneous networks – See page 1, right column) comprising:
a gateway (Our design enables a cascading firmware roll-out from a gateway towards leaf nodes in a low-power multi-hop network – See Abstract, left column);
at least one sensor (wireless sensor – see page 2, right column) according to claim 5, the communication means being configured to communicate wirelessly with the gateway (The deployment of Information-Centric Networking (ICN) on embedded wireless devices – See Introduction, page 1, left column);
the gateway being configured to send the first data frame (Our approach primarily relies on a pull-driven version discovery, where the embedded devices periodically request the latest manifest file for a dedicated time frame– See page 5, left column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to provide the deployment of Information Networking on embedded wireless devices as suggested by Gundogan (See Introduction, page 1).
Regarding claim 10.
Gundogan discloses
A network (Fig. 1, heterogeneous networks – See page 1, right column) comprising:
a gateway (Our design enables a cascading firmware roll-out from a gateway towards leaf nodes in a low-power multi-hop network – See Abstract, left column);
at least one sensor (wireless sensor – see page 2, right column) according to claim 6, the communication means being configured to communicate wirelessly with the gateway (The deployment of Information-Centric Networking (ICN) on embedded wireless devices – See Introduction, page 1, left column);
the gateway being configured to send the first data frame (Our approach primarily relies on a pull-driven version discovery, where the embedded devices periodically request the latest manifest file for a dedicated time frame– See page 5, left column);
wherein the gateway is further configured to receive at least the second data frame transmitted by the processing means of the sensor (The lifetimes of cacheable NACKs need to be aligned with the firmware release cycles to prevent them from wrongly satisfying requests for eventually released versions. To reduce the attack surface, NACKs require similar security considerations as manifest packets – See page 5, right column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to provide the deployment of Information Networking on embedded wireless devices as suggested by Gundogan (See Introduction, page 1).
Regarding claim 11, the network according to claim 9,
Nunes discloses
further comprising a network supervisor configured to monitor the update of the software from data frame transmitted by the processing means of the sensor (hardware security monitor – See page 4, right column).
Regarding claim 12, the network according to claim 9,
Gundogan discloses
wherein the network is a mesh network (distributed network – See Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to provide distribution across updating network nodes as suggested by Gundogan (See Introduction, page 1).
8. Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunes and Gundogan as applied to claims 1 and 5 respectively above, and further in view of JP (JP 2023017782 A – art of record -- herein after JP).
Regarding claim 3, the method according to claim 1,
JP discloses
wherein when the first identifier does not include the predetermined sensor identifier, the method comprises transmitting a third data frame representative of the non-update of the software (view handle field 1338 contains a value that matches the respective view handle field from view request message 1290 to which view response message 1334 is responding View Cancel Request When a viewing node 1286 wishes to cancel an in-progress view (e.g., a periodic update or a monitor view), the viewing node 1286 sends a view request message 1290 to a view cancel request as shown in FIG. It may be transmitted in the form of frame 1332. View Cancel Request When a viewing node 1286 wishes to cancel an in-progress view (e.g., a periodic update or a monitor view), the viewing node 1286 sends a view request message 1290 to a view cancel request as shown in FIG. It may be transmitted in the form of frame 1332 . A view cancel request frame 1332 is essentially a previous request that the viewed node 1288 can recognize as a previous request to cancel the current periodic update or monitor view using the view handle value in the refresh request frame 1330 . Retransmit the view handle field from the previous periodic update from the request or monitor view (e.g., view handle fields 1310 or 1322) – See pages 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use JP’s teaching into Nunes’ and Gundogan’s inventions because incorporating JP’s teaching would enhance Nunes and Gundogan to enable to cancel periodic update as suggested by JP (page 31).
Regarding claim 4, the method according to claim 2,
JP discloses
wherein when the first identifier does not include the predetermined sensor identifier, the method comprises transmitting a third data frame representative of the non-update of the software (view handle field 1338 contains a value that matches the respective view handle field from view request message 1290 to which view response message 1334 is responding View Cancel Request When a viewing node 1286 wishes to cancel an in-progress view (e.g., a periodic update or a monitor view), the viewing node 1286 sends a view request message 1290 to a view cancel request as shown in FIG. It may be transmitted in the form of frame 1332 . A view cancel request frame 1332 is essentially a previous request that the viewed node 1288 can recognize as a previous request to cancel the current periodic update or monitor view using the view handle value in the refresh request frame 1330 . Retransmit the view handle field from the previous periodic update from the request or monitor view (e.g., view handle fields 1310 or 1322) – See pages 31 -32).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use JP’s teaching into Nunes’ and Gundogan’s inventions because incorporating JP’s teaching would enhance Nunes and Gundogan to enable to cancel periodic update as suggested by JP (page 31).
Regarding claim 7, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 8, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13.
Gundogan discloses
A network (Fig. 1, heterogeneous networks – See page 1, right column) comprising:
a gateway (Our design enables a cascading firmware roll-out from a gateway towards leaf nodes in a low-power multi-hop network – See Abstract, left column);
at least one sensor (wireless sensor – see page 2, right column) according to claim 8, the communication means being configured to communicate wirelessly with the gateway (The deployment of Information-Centric Networking (ICN) on embedded wireless devices – See Introduction, page 1, left column);
the gateway being configured to send the first data frame (Our approach primarily relies on a pull-driven version discovery, where the embedded devices periodically request the latest manifest file for a dedicated time frame– See page 5, left column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to provide the deployment of Information Networking on embedded wireless devices as suggested by Gundogan (See Introduction, page 1).
JP also discloses
A network (network - See Abstract) comprising:
a gateway (central router - See page 11);
at least one sensor according to claim 8, the communication means being configured to communicate wirelessly with the gateway, the gateway being configured to send the first data frame (send updates when changes are made to the data of interest at the viewed node 1288 so that the viewing node1286 maintains a synchronized list of that data - See page 31).
Regarding claim 14, the network according to claim 13,
Gundogan discloses
wherein the gateway is further configured to receive at least the second data frame transmitted by the processing means of the sensor (The lifetimes of cacheable NACKs need to be aligned with the firmware release cycles to prevent them from wrongly satisfying requests for eventually released versions. To reduce the attack surface, NACKs require similar security considerations as manifest packets – See page 5, right column).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to provide the deployment of Information Networking on embedded wireless devices as suggested by Gundogan (See Introduction, page 1).
JP also discloses
wherein the gateway is further configured to receive at least the second data frame transmitted by the processing means of the sensor (the software update profile frame may include a message type field 1172 indicating additional information, which may be selected according to Table 9 below and the type of message being sent - See page 26).
Regarding claim 15, the network according to claim 13,
Nunes discloses
further comprising a network supervisor configured to monitor the update of the software from data frame transmitted by the processing means of the sensor (hardware security monitor – See page 4, right column).
Regarding claim 16, the network according to claim 15,
Gundogan discloses
wherein the network is a mesh network (distributed network – See Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Gundogan’s teaching into Nunes’ invention because incorporating Gundogan’s teaching would enhance Nunes to enable to provide distribution across updating network nodes as suggested by Gundogan (See Introduction, page 1).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0350669 A1) discloses control the transceiver to transfer the software update request to the software update server via the public network, control the transceiver to receive differential update data for the software of the at least one first IoT device from the software update server via the public network, generate a second version of the full update data for the software of the at least one first IoT device based on the first version and the differential update data, and control the transceiver to transmit the generated second version of the full update data of the at least one first IoT device to the at least one first IoT device via the public network based on a collected operational status of the software update gateway – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Parangatti et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0260635 A1) discloses updating software in a first wireless access point, the method comprising sending, by the first access point, an instruction to a client device associated with the first wireless access point to roam to a second wireless access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN), determining that the client device is no longer associated with the first access point, and performing a software update on the first wireless access point – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Polar (US pub. No. 2017/0220404 A1) discloses and method for validating and upgrading firmware in an intelligent electronic device (IED) are provided. In one aspect of the present disclosure, an IED is provided including at least one processor and at least one memory. The at least one memory includes at least a first firmware and a second firmware, where the second firmware is a version of the first firmware – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Acharya et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0076669 A1) discloses send messages to the broker for routing to other registered electronic devices. In this way, the broker may act as an intermediary to route communications using the eSync bus protocol. A multi-client architecture is also provided in which multiple domains may be defined by the functions performed by electronic devices within a respective domain – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Crosby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0355900 A1) discloses determine which software elements identifiers correspond to which software elements. This provides a level of indirection which can be used to make software updates more efficient, by updating only parts of the software while leaving old parts of the software as they are. Updated software elements can be stored to memory and the mapping information updated to point to the new elements, while existing mappings may be retained – See Abstract and specification for more details.
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 MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights