DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 and 10/23/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Third-party submissions under 37 CFR 1.290 were submitted on 3/10/2026 and 3/21/2026. Accordingly, these references are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 19 and 20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejections to the listed claim(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejections to the listed claim(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7-9, filed 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejections to the listed claim(s) have been withdrawn.
Drawings
Examiner notes that communication received from applicant on 3/16/2026, page 2, indicates that a replacement drawing was included in the submission. However, no new drawing is present in the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Regarding Fig. 2:
Abbreviation TPM is misspelled as TMP.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 9, and 16:
Claim 1 recites, “… the hash values corresponding to hash values verified during a booting of a system comprising the one or more security devices.” Claim(s) 9 and 16 recite(s) similar language. The specification fails to adequately describe this limitation. Both the title of the application and the specification are explicit that it is specifically the content of the platform configuration register (PCR) which are being verified as unmodified. The wording of the claim expands the scope of the invention beyond what is provided written description in the claims. This rejection can be overcome by amending the claim(s) such that they recite only that subject matter which is has adequate description in the original disclosure.
Regarding claims 3-8, 11-15, and 17-22:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
These rejections can be overcome by amending the claim(s) such that they recite only that subject matter which is has adequate description in the original disclosure.
It is important to note that in regards to an adequate written description, “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (MPEP 2161.01).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 9, and 16:
Claim 1 recites, “… use an absence of information stored in one or more volatile storage locations … to detect that hash values … have been subject to unauthorized modifications …”. Claim(s) 9 and 16 recite similar language. The claim(s) are indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. The breadth of this limitation are such that no meaningful limit can be placed on its scope to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that infringement has taken place. Specifically, the scope of the claim claims that any absence in any volatile storage location may be used in the determination that “unauthorized modifications” have taken place. This is inconsistent with the scope of the specification, which is particular regarding what information is checked and what locations it is to be located in. This rejection can be overcome by narrowing the scope of the claim to match the scope presented in the specification.
Regarding claims 3-8, 11-15, and 17-22:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim fails to further limit the depended-on claim because it recites functionally identical subject matter to a sibling claim. Specifically, claim 8, directly dependent on claim 1, recites, “… the information is erased upon a reboot of the one or more security devices.” Claim 4, also directly dependent on claim 1, recites, “… the information in the one or more volatile storage locations remains intact until the one or more securities devices are rebooted.” Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would find that data stored in volatile storage, no longer “intact” after a reboot of the device, is understood to have been “erased.” These claims recite identical subject matter.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim fails to further limit the depended-on claim because it recites functionally identical subject matter to its depended-on claim. Specifically, claim 17 recites, “… the absence of the information in the one or more volatile storage locations indicates that the security devices have been tampered with.” Where claim 16 recites, “… use an absence of information stored in one or more volatile storage locations … to detect that hash values … have been subject to unauthorized modifications …”, examiner notes that the term, “unauthorized modifications” is not functionally distinct from “tamper”; indeed, the terms are treated as synonymous in the specification. Examiner notes that this is likely an oversight, as sibling claims 2 and 10 were cancelled in this draft of the claims.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 9, 16, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1), and further in view of CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
AHMAD teaches:
One or more processors, comprising: circuitry to: use an absence of information stored in one or more volatile storage locations of one or more security devices to detect that hash values stored in one or more registers in the one or more security devices have been subject to unauthorized modifications ([0030] "… A modification of the TVP from its "trusted" version would be detected when any of the values stored in the PCR do not match an expected value."),
Examiner notes that an inherent property of a Platform Configuration Register (PCR) is that the values stored thereupon are hash values of system measurements used during a secure boot process.
CHOI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by AHMAD:
the hash values corresponding to hash values verified during a booting of a system comprising the one or more security devices ([0037] "... security intelligence system 120 identifies security-related information that is absent or missing, as an indicator of higher risk. … Missing security-related information may indicate inappropriate tampering or other suspicious activity …").
Detecting tampering of a device through detection of unexpected platform configuration register (PCR) values is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by AHMAD. Further, detecting tampering of a device when expected data is missing is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by CHOI. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PCR modification detection of AHMAD with the detection of absent information of CHOI with the motivation to detect a reboot as a form of tampering, where absent information in a volatile memory location indicates a previous loss of power and subsequent rebooting of the device.
Regarding claims 9 and 16:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The system of claim 16, wherein the absence of the information in the one or more volatile storage locations indicates that the security devices have been tampered with (CHOI [0037] "... security intelligence system 120 identifies security-related information that is absent or missing, as an indicator of higher risk. … Missing security-related information may indicate inappropriate tampering or other suspicious activity …").
Detecting tampering of a device when expected data is missing is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by CHOI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PCR modification detection of AHMAD with the detection of absent information of CHOI with the motivation to detect a reboot as a form of tampering, where absent information in a volatile memory location indicates a previous loss of power and subsequent rebooting of the device.
Regarding claim 22
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the hash values comprise platform configuration register (PCR) values (AHMAD [0030] "… A modification of the TVP from its "trusted" version would be detected when any of the values stored in the PCR do not match an expected value.").
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GIRAUD et al (Doc ID GB 2588647 A).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1,
GIRAUD teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the information comprises at least one of a random sequence of bytes, a string, a random number, or a counter ([0060] "Preferably, the second counter is adjusted to indicate the reboot of the device.").
Storing a counter to indicate reboot of a device is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by GIRAUD. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the reboot counter of GIRAUD with the motivation to provide an additional detail regarding the reboot of a device. It is obvious to track the number of times a device has been rebooted when detecting reboots of the device is a concern.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1,
GIRAUD teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the information in the one or more volatile storage locations remains intact until the one or more securities devices are rebooted ([0137] "… the written bit to the control register is configured to not clear unless there is a reboot of the device 102.").
Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that volatile memory locations are deleted upon a loss of power, whether by reboot of the device or otherwise. The GIRAUD reference is provided here to show the subject matter explicitly taught in the prior art. It is obvious that the AHMAD also recites this limitation by implication, as it explicitly recites a PCR, which comprises volatile memory by definition.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1,
GIRAUD teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the information is erased upon a reboot of the one or more security devices ([0137] "… the written bit to the control register is configured to not clear unless there is a reboot of the device 102.").
Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that volatile memory locations are deleted upon a loss of power, whether by reboot of the device or otherwise. The GIRAUD reference is provided here to show the subject matter explicitly taught in the prior art. It is obvious that the AHMAD also recites this limitation by implication, as it explicitly recites a PCR, which comprises volatile memory by definition.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of HOROVITZ et al (Doc ID US 20150227744 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1,
HOROVITZ teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the one or more security devices comprise a trusted platform modules (TPM) ([0005] "A TPM contains a set of fixed-size platform configuration registers ("PCRs") that store the resulting values of cryptographic one-way hashes of state information.").
Utilizing a TPM as a security device is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by HOROVITZ. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tamper detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the TPM of HOROVITZ with the motivation to detect tampering of the TPM itself, whereas AHMAD used a TPM to detect tampering of a separate system.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The method of claim 9,
HOROVITZ teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein each of the one or more security devices includes one or more registers that store the hash values to record a state of a computer ([0005] "A TPM contains a set of fixed-size platform configuration registers ("PCRs") that store the resulting values of cryptographic one-way hashes of state information.").
Using registers which record a computer’s state is a well-known technique in the art, as demonstrated by HOROVITZ. This subject matter is essentially taught by the primary reference of AHMAD, however; this reference is provided to recite the state information aspect of the registers, and that it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tamper detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the state measurements stored in registers of HOROVITZ with the motivation to use a known system state as a base of comparison when performing a secure boot process.
Claims 6, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of LEE et al (Doc ID US 9989043 B2).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors of claim 1,
LEE teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the circuitry is to cause a duplicate of the information to be stored (Col 28 lines 19-22 "… the CPU seals the newly created storage area to the hypervisor's identity by copying the contents of the hypervisor_hash register into the secure_storage_owner register.").
Duplicating security information is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by LEE. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the data duplication of LEE with the motivation to provide a backup or comparative copy of the data. It is obvious to create a duplicate of data which will be used to determine security related matters, so that a comparison can be made to ensure the data has not been tampered with.
Regarding claims 14 and 18:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PÅLSSON et al (Doc ID US 20210367787 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors claim 1,
PÅLSSON teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the circuitry is to cause the information to be stored in the one or more volatile storage locations of the one or more security devices via a secure session ([0067] "In step 170, the SC sends the encrypted population information (comprised in the previously received data packet and stored in the SC) and the public part (Kpub) of the temporary asymmetric key to the TPM using the secure session.").
Storing security information in a security device is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by PÅLSSON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the security device storage of PÅLSSON with the motivation to keep the data in a secure storage location which is less likely to be manipulated by an attacker.
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The one or more processors claim 1,
PÅLSSON teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the circuitry is to further store the information in the one or more volatile storage locations via a secure session between the one or more processors and the one or more security devices using security keys provisioned to the one or more processors and the one or more security devices at manufacture ([0067] "In step 170, the SC sends the encrypted population information ... and the public part (Kpub) of the temporary asymmetric key to the TPM using the secure session.").
Using a secure session to store security information in a security device is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by PÅLSSON. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the secure session of PÅLSSON with the motivation to use a well-known and established protocol for transferring information to a TPM.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of TARSAULIYA et al (Doc ID US 20220201010 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The method of claim 9,
TARSAULIYA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the information includes a unique identifier ([0030] "… a parameter may be a unique identifier that may be changed or modified after a factory reset …").
Including a unique identifier in data used in reboot detection is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by TARSAULIYA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the unique identifier of TARSAULIYA with the motivation to prevent a potential replay attack using previously used data, which could indicate a false result of reboot detection.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The method of claim 9,
TARSAULIYA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
further comprising: replacing the information with a different piece of information upon a reboot of the one or more security devices ([0030] "… a parameter may be a unique identifier that may be changed or modified after a factory reset …").
Modifying stored data after a reboot is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by TARSAULIYA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the altered data of TARSAULIYA with the motivation to prevent a potential replay attack using previously used data, which could indicate a false result of reboot detection.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of ARENO et al (Doc ID US 20190311126 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The method of claim 9,
ARENO teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
further comprising: storing a public key, which is to be compared with a public key stored on the one or more security devices to verify that the one or more security devices are intended security devices with which a central processing unit (CPU) is to communicate via a secure channel ([0043] "… step 320, the host platform 130 may authenticate the security device 110 based upon the received owner public key. ... the host platform 130 may generate a hash value from the received public key and compare the hash value with a hash value stored in the host platform ...").
Authenticating a security device through a comparison of stored keys is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by ARENO. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the security device authentication of ARENO with the motivation to ensure that the security device being communicated to is authenticated and not being spoofed by an attacker.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of THOM et al (Doc ID US 20120110644 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The system of claim 16,
THOM teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
The system of claim 16, wherein each of the one or more security devices includes one or more registers that store hash values to record a state of a computer, wherein the one or more processors have a public key that is used to verify the one or more security devices to extend hash values therein ([0038] "… extend operations … that can extend one or more of the PCRs 155 with measurement values of some or all of the components of the operating system 144 …" and [0042] "… one or more of the TPM-specific keys 151 can be utilized in a manner well known to those skilled in the art to quote the current values of one or more of the PCRs 155. For example, an AIK can be utilized to sign the values of one or more of the PCRs 155.").
Authenticating a security device prior to issuing an extend operation is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by THOM. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the security device authentication of THOM with the motivation to ensure that the security device being communicated to is authenticated and not being spoofed by an attacker.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHMAD et al (Doc ID US 20110302415 A1) and CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20140380484 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of LEE et al (Doc ID US 20100281273 A1).
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of AHMAD and CHOI teaches:
The system of claim 16,
LEE teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of AHMAD and CHOI:
wherein the one or more security devices are rebooted by a command issued through a session by a central processing unit (CPU) ([0012] "The fixed amount of TPM registers ... limits the number of software contexts that can be ... stored in the TPM. Similarly, its simple I/O interface prevents it from handling more than one session at a time (one session is a set of I/O transactions transferring the data and commands necessary to complete a specific security function).").
Limiting a security device to processing a single command per session is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by LEE. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reboot detection of AHMAD and CHOI with the single command processing of LEE with the motivation to work within the limits of known devices such as a TPM. It is obvious to limit processing to a single command in a system which has extremely limited memory for processing such commands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703)756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BB/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights