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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This non-final action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 05/12/2026 (“Amendment”).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 3, 10, 17, and 21-23 have/had been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/718,044 filed on April 11, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,008,568 ("Parent Application") which is a continuation of U.S. application no. 15/897,370 filed on February 15, 2018, now U.S. Patent 11,301,847 ("Parent Application"). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claim 1, the claim recites in part determining, by the computing system, an operational status of the user device responsive to receiving the access request, the operational status determined by pinging the user device to identify whether the user device is off or an application on the user device is not running; determining, by the computing system, based on the operational status, that the user device is on; decrypting, by the computing system, the encrypted authentication information; matching, by the computing system, the decrypted authentication information against stored authentication information associated with the user identifier of the user; receiving, by the computing system, via querying a mobile network operator(MNO), data about the user device, the data including location data of the user device; verifying, by the computing system, the location data by confirming that the MNO-reported data corresponds to the user device; determining, by the computing system, a fraud level for the access request based at least partially on the verification of the location data, the operational status of the user device, and the decrypted authentication information. The applicant points to paragraphs [0021], [0038], [0039], [0049], and [0050] for support of the amendments and asserts that no new matter has been added. While the individuals of three identification methods, i.e., operational status as to whether the user device is on or off, matching of the decrypted authentication information against stored authentication information, and verification of the location data of the user device against the MNO-reported data, find support in the Specification, there is no support that the fraud level for the access request is determined based at least partially on the three identification techniques. For example, paragraph [0049] discloses use of location data from the carrier. [0049], however, discloses pinging technique as an alternate technique, i.e., “Alternatively, the authorized identification system 10 may ping the enrolled user device 104 when an aggregator account access request comes in. If the user device 104 is off, and/or the application(s) are not running, then the request is likely to be fraudulent and authentication of the aggregator 30 fails at 250.”
Furthermore, while the Specification discloses that the authorized identification system could also be structured to ping the enrolled user device when an aggregator request comes in and that if the user device 104 is off, and/or the application(s) are not running, then the request is likely to be fraudulent (see [0029], [0040], and [0049]), the Specification does not disclose that the particular pinging of the user device is to identify whether an application on the user device is not running. Moreover, even if the paragraph show support, the Specification does not disclose how the computing system determines that the application (i.e., particular application) on the user device is not running by merely pinging the user device as one of ordinary skill would appreciate that pinging technique is a network tool to test connectivity of two devices.
Furthermore, the Specification does not provide how the location of the user device is verified by confirming that the MNO-reported data (i.e., location data of the user device) corresponds to the user device.
The other independent claims, i.e., claims 8 and 15, are rejected similarly as they are significantly similar to claim 1.
The dependent claims are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-2 and 4-7 are directed to a directed to a method (i.e. process), claims 8-9, 11-14 are directed to a system, while claims 15-16 and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 1 recites: A method comprising:
a) receiving, by a computing system, from an aggregator computing system, an access request of an account at a financial institution, the access request including a user identifier associated with a user of the account and encrypted authentication information, wherein the encrypted authentication information comprises a token identifier and a device identifier associated with a user device of the user;
b) determining, by the computing system, an operational status of the user device responsive to receiving the access request, the operational status determined by pinging the user device to identify whether the user device is off or an application on the user device is not running;
c) determining, by the computing system, based on the operational status, that the user device is on;
d) decrypting, by the computing system, the encrypted authentication information;
e) matching, by the computing system, the decrypted authentication information against stored authentication information associated with the user identifier of the user;
f) receiving, by the computing system, via querying a mobile network operator(MNO), data about the user device, the data including location data of the user device;
g) verifying, by the computing system, the location data by confirming that the MNO-reported data corresponds to the user device;
h) determining, by the computing system, a fraud level for the access request based at least partially on the verification of the location data, the operational status of the user device, and the decrypted authentication information;
i) responsive to determining that the fraud level exceeds a threshold, prompting, by the computing system, the user device for additional authentication information and receiving a response from the user device; and
j) providing, by the computing system, based on the fraud level and response from the user device, an authentication decision to the aggregator computing system, the authentication decision enabling the aggregator computing system to access and display information of the account to the user.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))
The claim recites a process of j) providing authentication decision (i.e., authentication of a user) to an entity (aggregator) an authentication decision that enables the aggregator with access to information so that the aggregator is able to display information of an account to the user. To describe another way, the claim recites an authentication process for allowing an entity of access of the account at a financial institution. The claim achieves this by a) receiving an access request that includes a user identifier associated with a user of the account and encrypted authentication information (i.e., a token identifier and a device identifier) from an aggregator; b) determining an operational status of the user (i.e., user device)(equivalent to calling a user to determine status of the user); c) determining based on the operation status that the user is active; d) decrypting the encrypted authentication information; e) matching the decrypted authentication information against stored authentication information associated with the user identifier of the user; f) receiving data about the user (i.e., location data associated with the user); g) verifying the location data by confirming that the location data corresponds to the user; h) determining a fraud level for the access request based at least partially on the verification of the location data, operational status of the user, and the decrypted authentication information; i) responsive to determining that the fraud level exceeds a threshold, prompting the user for additional authentication information and receiving a response from the user; and j) providing based on the fraud level and the response from the user the authentication decision to the aggregator. As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity, mitigating risk/commercial or legal interactions. Furthermore, the encryption/decryption at high level generality, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process that can be performed in human mind with pen and paper. As such, the claim recites abstract idea. Moreover, the process of matching; verifying of information using gathered information; determining fraud level based on the verification, operational status and the decrypted authentication information; and determining whether the fraud level exceeds a threshold are a mental process that can be performed in human mind with pen and paper.
The other independent claims, i.e., claims 8 and 15, are significantly similar to claim 31. As such, claims 8 and 15 also recites abstract idea.
The examiner further notes that the claim recitation of “enabling the aggregator computing system to access and display information of the account to the user” is descriptive of intended use of the authentication decision.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e. computing system(s), network interface, database, and server system comprising a processor and instructions stored in non-transitory computer-readable media, computing system(s), user device, application of the user device, and MNO, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitation, e.g. abstract idea as described above, do not represent: Improvements to the functioning of the computing system or the components of the computing system(s) including the server system comprising the processor and non-transitory computer-readable media, network interface or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). The examiner also finds that the pinging the user device is merely a data gathering, i.e., insignificant post-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or computer components, and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer system or its components individually or in combination.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 further expand and recite the abstract idea without further additional element(s).
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 further expand and recite the abstract idea. Even when taking the asymmetric encryption or a commutative encryption algorithm into consideration, the algorithm is considered as mathematical formula, hence abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 further expand and recite abstract idea as the claims recite a particular algorithm, i.e., authenticated key exchange and a password authenticated key exchange protocol.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0012443 A1 (“Bhat”) in view of US 20150089568 A1 (“Sprague”) and US 20150089568 A1 (“Leevendig”).
Per claims 1, 8, and 15, Bhat fairly discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system (Financial Institution server system), from an aggregator computing system (aggregator server system 106), an access request of an account at a financial institution, the access request including a user identifier associated with a user of the account and encrypted authentication information ([0025]-[0026] the aggregator server system runs one or more agents to extract user-specific financial information from various webpages including utilizing screen scraping technique; ¶0027, aggregator server system typically logs into the user’s account on the financial institution’s website using the user’s login credentials, e.g. login and password, for the website; ¶0028, aggregator server system can capture the user’s login credentials and store them in a database for later usage to access and collect the user’s financial information from the financial institution’s website; ¶0031, use of encryption and multi-factor authentication; ¶0035, OAuth tokens; [0040], provides the encrypted values, i.e., username and password; [0041], the aggregator server stores the encrypted values to provide the encrypted values to the financial institution);
decrypting, by the computing system, the encrypted authentication information ([0007], decrypt the user’s encrypted login information and to authenticate);
matching, by the computing system, the decrypted authentication information against stored authentication information associated with the user identifier of the user ([0031], username and password used for the user to login; [0039]); and
providing, by the computing system, based on the authentication an authentication decision to the aggregator computing system, the authentication decision enabling the aggregator computing system to access and display information of the account to the user ([0007], if authentication is successful, the aggregation server system gains access and aggregates the user’s financial data; [0022]; [0023], presentation of financial information; [0027]; [0035], aggregation server system can use the alternative set of credentials for the particular user to access the particular user’s financial account on the financial institution server system; [0041], using the encrypted values to access the user’s account with the financial institution; [0042], can use the encrypted values to provide service, e.g. account aggregation; [0056], upon authentication, the aggregator server system can access and obtain financial data from the user’s server system).
Bhat further teaches a network interface, an account database, and a server system comprising a processor and instructions stored in non-transitory computer-readable media (see Fig. 1; Fig. 4).
Bhat further teaches a network interface configured to facilitate data transmission over a network; an account database including a plurality of user identifiers and associated encrypted authentication information; and a server system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions ([Fig. 1; [0041]; [0058]-[0060]).
While Bhat teaches multi-factor authentication questions with a user device (claim 6), Bhat does not particularly teach determining, by the computing system, an operational status of the user device responsive to receiving the access request, the operational status determined by pinging the user device to identify whether the user device is off or an application on the user device is not running; determining, by the computing system, based on the operational status, that the user device is on; receiving, by the computing system, via querying a mobile network operator(MNO), data about the user device, the data including location data of the user device; verifying, by the computing system, the location data by confirming that the MNO-reported data corresponds to the user device; determining, by the computing system, a fraud level for the access request based at least partially on the verification of the location data, the operational status of the user device, and the decrypted authentication information; responsive to determining that the fraud level exceeds a threshold, prompting, by the computing system, the user device for additional authentication information and receiving a response from the user device; and that the providing the authentication decision is based on the fraud level and response from the user.
Sprague, however, teaches determining, by the computing system, an operational status of the user device responsive to receiving the access request, the operational status determined by pinging the user device to identify whether the user device is off or an application on the user device is not running; determining, by the computing system, based on the operational status, that the user device is on; receiving, by the computing system, data about the user device, the data including location data of the user device; verifying, by the computing system, the location data by confirming that the data corresponds to the user device; determining, by the computing system, a fraud level for the access request based at least partially on the verification of the location data, the operational status of the user device, and the decrypted authentication information; responsive to determining that the fraud level exceeds a threshold, prompting, by the computing system, the user device for additional authentication information and receiving a response from the user device ([0094], tests may require that the user be contacted, that knowledge factors may be imposed; [0097] ping to SMS or IVR; [0099], first and/or second passwords … if password match is determined ..; [0125]).
As Bhat teaches authentication of the user as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to combine the technique of authenticating of the device identification as taught by Sprague as authentication method and to provide the authentication result based on Sprague as the combination provides reliable and flexibility method of authentication (see Sprague [0009]).
Bhat does not particularly teach that the encrypted authentication information comprises a token identifier and a device identifier associated with a user device of the user.
However, as Sprague teaches device ID (UUID) and token identifier (QR code) (see [0094], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include any known information as taught by Sprague as the information that is authenticated in Bhat as the simple substitution of one known information for another information in authentication produces a predictable result, rendering the claim obvious
Bhat/Sprague does not teach that the location data is obtained via querying a mobile network operator(MNO).
Leevendig, however, discloses receiving the location data via querying a mobile network operator (see [0018], the location information of the device may be obtained from mobile network operator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to utilize any technique of obtaining of the location information including via querying the mobile network operator as taught by Leevendig in obtaining of the location data technique in Bhat/Sprague as the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result, rendering the claim obvious.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, while Bhat discloses verifying, by the computing system, that the received authentication information corresponds to the stored authentication information ([0011], login, password, and one or more multi-factor authentication questions; [0031], username and password used for the user to login; [0039]), Bhat does not particularly teach that the authentication information that is matches includes device identifier and the token identifier.
However, as Sprague teaches device ID (UUID) and token identifier (QR code) (see [0094], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include any known information as taught by Sprague as the information that is authenticated in Bhat as the simple substitution of one known information for another information in authentication produces a predictable result, rendering the claim obvious
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig further teaches wherein: the encrypted authentication information comprises a token identifier; and the token identifier is encrypted using at least one of an asymmetric encryption algorithm or a commutative encryption algorithm (Bhat: [0005], PKI; [0007]; [0010]; [0031]; [0033]; [0035]).
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig further teaches transmitting, by the computing system and to the aggregator computing system, a challenge question; receiving, by the computing system and from the aggregator computing system, a challenge answer to the challenge question; and authenticating, by the computing system, the aggregator computing system based on the challenge answer and based on the decrypted authentication information (Bhat: [0006], challenge questions; [0031], multi-factor authentication including challenge questions).
As per claims 7 and 14, Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig does not particularly teach wherein the encrypted authentication information is encrypted by a password authenticated key exchange protocol.
The examiner takes Official Notice that encryption using password authenticated key exchange protocol is old and well known in the art before the effective filing of instant claim.
As Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig teaches encryption of the authentication information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any known encryption technique, i.e., password authenticated key exchange protocol, as encryption technique in Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig as the combination is no more than simple substitution of one known element for another.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig as applied in claims 1, 8, and 15 in further view of US 7742762 B1 (“Biere”).
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig does not teach, but Biere teaches verifying, by the computing system, an origin of the access request via at least one of a completion of an authenticated key exchange or an identification of a status of a user device associated with the user (c.9, ll. 14-34, authentication unit receives the subscriber identifier and device identifier so that the carrier network identifies the device. Authentication may include verifying that actions taken on the mobile device 102 are being performed by an approved problem solver by comparing the subscriber identifier and/or device identifier with the identifiers for the problem solver in the carrier database 306).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of instant claimed invention include the teachings of utilizing carrier network in identifying of the user device as taught by Biere to Bhat/Sprague/Leevendig as one of multi-factor authentication technique in Bhat as the combination generally improves the overall security of the invention. Also, as Bhat teaches multi-factor authentications as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of data security prior to the effective filing of instant claims to substitute one known technique for another for in authenticating the user, and further it would take no more than ordinary creativity for a person of ordinary skill to use any known authentication technique, i.e. utilizing carrier network for authentication, as authentication technique as disclosed in Bhat (In re Wolfe, 116 USPQ 443, 444 (CCPA 1961; Ex parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007))).
Response to Argument(s)
112
The claims remain rejected under 112(a) for the reasons outlined above.
101
The applicant asserts that the recited operations are not practically performable in the human mind, with or without pen and paper, because they require active network communications with multiple external computing systems, real-time device-state determination, MNO-based carrier data retrieval, and machine-based decryption and matching of encrypted information. The applicant is reminded that the abstract idea identified above in combination of certain method of organizing human activity, mental activities and mathematical formula.
The applicant further asserts that the claim is a concrete practical application because the claim uses the results of the device-status check, MNO verification, decryption, and threshold-triggered user-device prompting to control whether an aggregator computing system is permitted to access and display protected account information. Particularly, the applicant points to a specific adaptive authentication workflow implemented across networked computing components. In response, the examiner finds that an adaptive authentication workflow, i.e., whether an entity should be provided access, is an abstract idea, i.e., a certain method of organizing human activities, i.e., mitigating risk and/or managing relationship or interaction between entities. The networked computing components are merely instructions and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The applicant also asserts that the recited arrangement therefore reflects significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because it provides a concrete and unconventional way of improving security in aggregator-based account access systems, particularly improves the functioning of the authentication system itself by providing adaptive authentication. In response, the examiner reminds the applicant that the adaptive authentication, i.e., risk assessment using multi-factor authentications; using the risk assessment to require additional authentication; and providing access to a resource based on the additional information and the risk assessment, is an abstract idea. The computing system recited in the claim is used merely to implement the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100191837 A1 discloses location awareness and utilizing location in verification of the mobile device prior to providing requested service;
US 10154029 B1 discloses creating a symmetric key using the extracted secret knowledge data (e.g., using a Password Authenticated Key Exchange Protocol). The symmetric key is used to encrypt the biometric matching data. Also discloses a technique that utilize a key agreement scheme, such as Diffie-Hellman ("D-H"), to create the symmetric encryption key. Also discloses the financial institution using the stored secret knowledge factor to generate a symmetric key using the agreed-upon commutative encryption algorithm;
US 20090288143 A1 discloses Password-based protocols in which the client computer and server system shared the plaintext password and exchanged encrypted information to allow them to derive a shared session key;
US 9003506 B2 discloses mobile out of band authentication;
US 9552245 B1; US 9786015 B1; US 9953318 B1; US 10108432 B1; and US 10607300 B1 discloses aggregation service utilizing credentials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights