DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the Applicant reply filed on 09/15/2025, Applicant' s amendments to claims have been entered and respective arguments carefully considered and responded in following:
On this Office Action, claims 1-17, consisting of independent claims 1, 6 and 14.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under the 35 USC § 103.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under the 35 USC § 112.
Claims 10-17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 10-17 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 110 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicants arguments, see amended independent claim 1 and Applicant’s Remarks regarding the newly added limitation have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Contrary to Applicant’s Remarks and other independent claims (amended independent claims 6 or newly added claim 14), independent claim 1 does not including “an alert when a number of denied access attempts to a given confidential information item exceeds a threshold.” Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented in this Office Action. For a comprehensive understanding of rejection, please refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below.
Applicants arguments, see amended independent claims 6 and 14 and Applicant’s Remarks regarding the newly added limitation have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented in this Office Action. For a comprehensive understanding of rejection, please refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below.
In response to the Applicants arguments regarding combination of Finlow-Bates and Arora on page 8, the Examiner emphasized that both references commonly address transaction-based processing using blockchain technology. Finlow-Bates’s disclosure is related to mechanisms for the transfer of payment from users to one or more service providers using blockchain technology, and Arora’s disclosure relates to the prevention of fraud in a payment transaction via blockchain. The additional references cited in this current OC were applied under same rationale, as they likewise pertain to transaction-related process in a blockchain context. As stated on Page 7 of the previous OC and reiterated current OC below, the grounds for obviousness was determined under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized.
Claim Objections
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 10-13, which depend from independent claim 1, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 2-5.
Independent claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of independent claim 6.
Claims 15-17, which depend from independent claim 6, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 7-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 112 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. For example, the claims recite substantially overlapping subject matter with claims 2-5 without clearly distinguishing their respective scopes. The duplication of claims introduces ambiguity regarding the invention sought to be protected.
Independent claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC § 112 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. For example, Independent claims 6 and 14 are drafted as independent method claims and recite substantially overlapping subject matter without clearly distinguishing their respective scopes. The duplication of claims introduces ambiguity regarding the invention sought to be protected.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 112 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. For example, the claims recite substantially overlapping subject matter with claim 7-9 without clearly distinguishing their respective scopes. The duplication of claims introduces ambiguity regarding the invention sought to be protected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlow-Bates et al. (US 20240281796 A1, hereinafter “Finlow-Bates”) in view of Arora (US 20190318359 A1) and in view of Lai et al. (US 20200344233 A1, hereinafter “Lai”).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Finlow-Bates discloses a blockchain ledger system for shared digital confidential information, comprising:
a blockchain ledger comprising a public access history of digital confidential information at a plurality of local ledgers (Finlow-Bates: [0093] An implementation of a public blockchain in accordance with an embodiments of the invention is illustrated in FIG. 4. As blockchain network devices 430, parties would have the capacity to participate in changes to the blockchain and participate in transaction verifications (“a public access history of digital confidential information”));
a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to (Finlow-Bates: [0093] individual users 410 may directly participate in relevant networks and operate as blockchain network devices 430; [0127] user devices may include at least one processor, which may be configured to process input data according to instructions stored in memory):
broadcast a transaction invocation request to a plurality of peer nodes (Finlow-Bates: [0093] Transactions are broadcast over the computer network and data quality is maintained by massive database replication and computational trust),
endorse the transaction at one or more peer nodes (Finlow-Bates: [0093] Despite being decentralized, an updated blockchain 460 cannot remove entries, even when anonymously made, making it immutable (“endorse the transaction”). In many decentralized blockchains, many blockchain network devices 430 (“peer nodes”), in the decentralized system may have copies of the blockchain, allowing the ability to validate transactions (“endorse the transaction”)),
deploy a block comprising the transaction on a blockchain, wherein the transaction is properly ordered at the order node (Finlow-Bates: [0093] individual users 410 (“order node”) may directly participate in relevant networks and operate as blockchain network devices 430. In many instances, the blockchain network device 430 may personally add transactions, in the form of blocks 420 (“a block”) appended to the public blockchain 440. To do so, the blockchain network device 430 would take steps to allow for the transactions to be validated 450 through various consensus mechanisms (Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, etc.)),
broadcast the transaction to the plurality of peers (Finlow-Bates: [0093]A number of consensus mechanisms in accordance with various embodiments of the invention are discussed further below; For example,[0107] An example of Proof of Work consensus mechanisms that may be implemented in decentralized blockchains, in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention, is conceptually illustrated in FIG. 6. A protocol classification in which one party presents a complex problem (“challenge”) 610 and another party must broadcast a valid answer (“proof”) 620 (“broadcast the transaction”) to have clearance to add a block to the decentralized ledger that makes up the blockchain 630).
However, Finlow-Bates does not disclose, Arora, in a same field of endeavor, teaches the blockchain ledger system, wherein a database comprising the digital confidential information accessible by users having access credentials (Arora: [0022] the payment instrument 106 may be a credit card with a magnetic stripe or integrated circuit chip (“database”) that stored payment credentials therein that are electronically transmitted to the point of sale device 102 during a proposed payment transaction);
initialize a transaction at a client node of the blockchain ledger, the transaction comprising access metadata corresponding to at least one of a permitted access attempt or a denied access attempt to confidential information, the associated access credentials, and a security designation associated with the confidential information (Arora: [0045] the receiving device 202 of the point of sale device 102 may receive payment credentials (“access metadata corresponding the associated access credentials”) from a payment instrument 106 for use in a proposed payment transaction. The payment credentials may include an account identifier, or other data that may be used (e.g., by the generation module 218 or querying module 214 of the point of sale device 102) to identify an account identifier (“access metadata corresponding the associated access credentials”), such as a primary account number that may be hashed to generate an account identifier),
submit the transaction to an order node (Arora: [0045] the receiving device 202 of the point of sale device 102 (“order node”) may receive payment credentials from a payment instrument 106 for use in a proposed payment transaction),
update the plurality of local ledgers with the transaction block including the metadata to the public access history (Arora: [0046] the determination module 216 of the processing server 102 may calculate a fraud score for the proposed payment transaction. The fraud score may be based on transaction details for the proposed payment transaction (e.g., stored in the memory 224 and queried therefrom by the querying module 214) and the data included in each of the data values identified for past declined payment transactions; [0048] the transmitting device 222 of the point of sale device 102 may electronically transmit a data signal to a node 112 in the blockchain network 110 that is superimposed or otherwise encoded with transaction details for the declined payment transaction. The transaction details may include at least the account identifier (“metadata”), a timestamp, and a point of sale identifier associated with the point of sale device 102).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blockchain system disclosed by Finlow-Bates with the teachings of Arora to include a database comprising the digital confidential information accessible by users having access credentials; initialize a transaction at a client node of the blockchain ledger, the transaction comprising access metadata corresponding to the associated access credentials; and submit the transaction to an order node; and update the plurality of local ledgers with the transaction block including the metadata to the public access history. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of a blockchain to track details regarding declined transactions/or history for a transaction account and use thereof in preventing fraud in future transactions on the same account (para. [0001]).
Finlow-Bates discloses the “Proof of Work consensus mechanisms” in paragraph 0107. However, Finlow-Bates does not teach, Lai in a same field of endeavor further teaches the blockchain ledger system, wherein both permitted and denied access attempts are immutably recorded in the blockchain via consensus among the plurality of peer nodes and propagated across the peer nodes to prevent re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data (Lai: [0061] Further depicted within host organization 110 is the blockchain services interface 190 having included therein both a blockchain consensus manager 191 and a block validator 192; [0068] When the block validator 192 calculates the prior hash 161 for the prior block 159, the hash must meet certain criteria defined by data stored as the standard of proof 165 (“consensus for preventing re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data”); [0074] Various standards of proof 165 may be utilized pursuant to the particular blockchain protocol chosen, such as proof of work, hash value requirements, proof of stake, a key, or some other indicator such as a consensus, or proof of consensus (“consensus for preventing re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data”). Where consensus based techniques are utilized, the blockchain consensus manager 191 provides consensus management on behalf of the host organization 110).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blockchain system disclosed by Finlow-Bates with the teachings of Lai to include both permitted and denied access attempts that are immutably recorded in the blockchain via consensus among the plurality of peer nodes and propagated across the peer nodes to prevent re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because blockchain systems use a peer-to-peer (P2P) network of nodes, and consensus algorithms ensure replication of digital data across nodes (para. [0070]). These consensus algorithms can make a blockchain network more secure. They also need to prevent serious breaches or security issues, such as double-spending, fraud, and data manipulation.
Regarding claim 2, (Original) the combination of Finlow-Bates, Arora and Lai teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Finlow-Bates discloses the blockchain ledger system for shared digital confidential information of claim 1, further comprising:
an event service capable of presenting the public access history in real time (Finlow-Bates: [0435] Traditional blockchain based payments rely on online, and near-real-time access to the blockchain used, to identify attempts of double-spending).
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) the combination of Finlow-Bates, Arora and Lai teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Arora teaches the blockchain ledger system for shared digital confidential information of claim 1, wherein to endorse the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor to:
validate the transaction based on the associated access credentials (Arora: [0045] In step 302, the receiving device 202 of the point of sale device 102 may receive payment credentials from a payment instrument 106 for use in a proposed payment transaction),
simulate the transaction (Arora: [0046] In step 304, the querying module 214 of the point of sale device 102 may execute a query on the memory 224 of the point of sale device 102 to identify data values stored in the blockchain associated with the blockchain network 110 that is stored therein that correspond to declined payment transactions involving the transaction account associated with the payment instrument 106, using the account identifier),
generate an endorsed proposal response comprising a read-write set (Arora: [0047] the fraud threshold may be stored in the memory 224 of the point of sale device 102 or obtained (“read”) from the issuing institution 108 during the process 300. If the calculated fraud score is not above the fraud threshold, then the proposed payment transaction may not be immediately determined as likely fraudulent (“write”)), and
transmit the endorsed proposal response comprising an approved (Arora: [0047] in step 310, the point of sale device 102 may proceed with the payment transaction as normal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blockchain system disclosed by Finlow-Bates with the teachings of Arora to include validate the transaction based on the access credentials; simulate the transaction; generate an endorsed proposal response comprising a read-write set; and transmit the endorsed proposal response comprising an approved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of a blockchain to track details regarding declined transactions/or history for a transaction account and use thereof in preventing fraud in future transactions on the same account (para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) the combination of Finlow-Bates, Arora and Lai teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Finlow-Bates discloses the blockchain ledger system for shared digital confidential information of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor to:
broadcast the new transaction block to a plurality of anchor nodes, wherein the plurality of anchor nodes are associated with a plurality of member organizations and record access attempts originating from external organizations with metadata identifying the originating organization (Finlow-Bates: [0093] A number of consensus mechanisms in accordance with various embodiments of the invention are discussed further below; For example, [0107] An example of Proof of Work consensus mechanisms that may be implemented in decentralized blockchains, in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention, is conceptually illustrated in FIG. 6. A protocol classification in which one party presents a complex problem (“challenge”) 610 and another party must broadcast a valid answer (“proof”) 620 to have clearance to add a block to the decentralized ledger that makes up the blockchain 630 (“broadcast the new transaction block”). As a number of miners may be competing to have this ability (“anchor nodes are associated with a plurality of member organizations and record access attempts originating from external organizations”), there may be a need for determining factors for the addition to be added first, which in this case is processing power (“metadata identifying the originating organization”). Once an output is produced, verifiers 640 in the network may verify the proof, something which typically requires much less processing power, to determine the first device that would have the right to add the winning block 650 to the blockchain 630).
Regarding claim 5, (Original) the combination of Finlow-Bates, Arora and Lai teaches all elements of the current invention as stated above. Finlow-Bates discloses the blockchain ledger system for shared digital confidential information of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor to:
deliver subscribed events to the client node (Finlow-Bates: [0240] In accordance with numerous embodiments of the invention, trustees may be associated with protective entities including but not limited to insurance companies and/or financial institutions. Their policies may be priced based on factors including but not limited to the security measures they put in place, the results of internal testing and audits, and their history of (un)successful provision of service to subscribing end users (“subscribed events”)).
Regarding claims 10-13, (New) they respectively corresponds to claims 3-5. Therefore, they are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 3-5.
Claims 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlow-Bates et al. (US 20240281796 A1) in view of Arora (US 20190318359 A1) and in view of Lai et al. (US 20200344233 A1, hereinafter “Lai”) and in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 20200143479 A1, hereinafter “Miyamoto”).
Regarding independent claim 6, (Currently Amended) Finlow-Bates discloses a method for tracking the proliferation of confidential data, the steps comprising:
broadcasting a transaction invocation request to a plurality of peer nodes (Finlow-Bates: [0093] Transactions are broadcast over the computer network and data quality is maintained by massive database replication and computational trust),
endorsing the transaction at one or more peer nodes (Finlow-Bates: [0093] Despite being decentralized, an updated blockchain 460 cannot remove entries, even when anonymously made, making it immutable (“endorse the transaction”). In many decentralized blockchains, many blockchain network devices 430 (“peer nodes”), in the decentralized system may have copies of the blockchain, allowing the ability to validate transactions (“endorse the transaction”)),
deploying a block comprising the transaction on a blockchain, wherein the transaction is properly ordered at the order node (Finlow-Bates: [0093] individual users 410 (“order node”) may directly participate in relevant networks and operate as blockchain network devices 430. In many instances, the blockchain network device 430 may personally add transactions, in the form of blocks 420 (“a block”) appended to the public blockchain 440. To do so, the blockchain network device 430 would take steps to allow for the transactions to be validated 450 through various consensus mechanisms (Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, etc.)),
broadcasting the transaction to the plurality of peers (Finlow-Bates: [0093]A number of consensus mechanisms in accordance with various embodiments of the invention are discussed further below; For example,[0107] An example of Proof of Work consensus mechanisms that may be implemented in decentralized blockchains, in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention, is conceptually illustrated in FIG. 6. A protocol classification in which one party presents a complex problem (“challenge”) 610 and another party must broadcast a valid answer (“proof”) 620 (“broadcast the transaction”) to have clearance to add a block to the decentralized ledger that makes up the blockchain 630).
However, Finlow-Bates does not disclose, Arora, in a same field of endeavor, teaches the blockchain ledger system, wherein a database comprising the digital confidential information accessible by users having access credentials (Arora: [0022] the payment instrument 106 may be a credit card with a magnetic stripe or integrated circuit chip (“database”) that stored payment credentials therein that are electronically transmitted to the point of sale device 102 during a proposed payment transaction);
initializing a transaction at a client node of the blockchain ledger, the transaction comprising access metadata corresponding to at least one of a permitted access attempt or a denied access attempt to confidential information, the associated access credentials, and a security designation associated with the confidential information (Arora: [0045] the receiving device 202 of the point of sale device 102 may receive payment credentials (“access metadata corresponding the associated access credentials”) from a payment instrument 106 for use in a proposed payment transaction. The payment credentials may include an account identifier, or other data that may be used (e.g., by the generation module 218 or querying module 214 of the point of sale device 102) to identify an account identifier (“access metadata corresponding the associated access credentials”), such as a primary account number that may be hashed to generate an account identifier),
submitting the transaction to an order node (Arora: [0045] the receiving device 202 of the point of sale device 102 (“order node”) may receive payment credentials from a payment instrument 106 for use in a proposed payment transaction),
updating the plurality of local ledgers with the transaction block including the metadata to the public access history (Arora: [0046] the determination module 216 of the processing server 102 may calculate a fraud score for the proposed payment transaction. The fraud score may be based on transaction details for the proposed payment transaction (e.g., stored in the memory 224 and queried therefrom by the querying module 214) and the data included in each of the data values identified for past declined payment transactions; [0048] the transmitting device 222 of the point of sale device 102 may electronically transmit a data signal to a node 112 in the blockchain network 110 that is superimposed or otherwise encoded with transaction details for the declined payment transaction. The transaction details may include at least the account identifier (“metadata”), a timestamp, and a point of sale identifier associated with the point of sale device 102).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blockchain system disclosed by Finlow-Bates with the teachings of Arora to include a database comprising the digital confidential information accessible by users having access credentials; initialize a transaction at a client node of the blockchain ledger, the transaction comprising access metadata corresponding to the associated access credentials; and submit the transaction to an order node; and update the plurality of local ledgers with the transaction block including the metadata to the public access history. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of a blockchain to track details regarding declined transactions/or history for a transaction account and use thereof in preventing fraud in future transactions on the same account (para. [0001]).
Finlow-Bates discloses the “Proof of Work consensus mechanisms” in paragraph 0107. However, Finlow-Bates does not teach, Lai in a same field of endeavor further teaches the blockchain ledger system,
wherein both permitted and denied access attempts are immutably recorded in the blockchain via consensus among the plurality of peer nodes and propagated across the peer nodes to prevent re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data (Lai: [0061] Further depicted within host organization 110 is the blockchain services interface 190 having included therein both a blockchain consensus manager 191 and a block validator 192; [0068] When the block validator 192 calculates the prior hash 161 for the prior block 159, the hash must meet certain criteria defined by data stored as the standard of proof 165 (“consensus for preventing re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data”); [0074] Various standards of proof 165 may be utilized pursuant to the particular blockchain protocol chosen, such as proof of work, hash value requirements, proof of stake, a key, or some other indicator such as a consensus, or proof of consensus (“consensus for preventing re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data”). Where consensus based techniques are utilized, the blockchain consensus manager 191 provides consensus management on behalf of the host organization 110).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blockchain system disclosed by Finlow-Bates with the teachings of Lai to include both permitted and denied access attempts that are immutably recorded in the blockchain via consensus among the plurality of peer nodes and propagated across the peer nodes to prevent re-propagation of unauthorized confidential data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because blockchain systems use a peer-to-peer (P2P) network of nodes, and consensus algorithms ensure replication of digital data across nodes (para. [0070]). These consensus algorithms can make a blockchain network more secure. They also need to prevent serious breaches or security issues, such as double-spending, fraud, and data manipulation.
However, the combination does not disclose, Miyamoto in a same field of endeavor discloses the blockchain ledger system further comprising, generating an alert when a number of denied access attempts to a given confidential information item exceeds a threshold ([0046] When the estimate is received, the ratio of declined estimates of the repair shop, the excessive repair steps by the type of accident, the deviation of estimate fee from the average randomized fee by each step is calculated. If any of these values exceed a pre-set criteria (i.e., a threshold) an alert may be issued).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blockchain system disclosed by Finlow-Bates with the teachings of Miyamoto to generate an alert when a number of denied access attempts to a given confidential information item exceeds a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the system may decline the estimate, and thus prevent a fraudulent claim (para. [0046]).
Regarding claims 7-9, (Original) they are method claim that respectively corresponds to claims 3-5. Therefore, they are rejected for at least the same reasons as the system of claims 3-5.
Regarding claims 14-17, (New) they respectively corresponds to claims 6-9. Therefore, they are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 6-9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUH whose telephone number is (571)270-5524. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/ANDREW SUH/Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights