Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to preliminary amendments received on 6/27/24.
Claims 6-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 4-5 have been amended.
Claims 19-32 have been added.
Therefore, Claims 1-5, 19-32 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 19-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1, 2-5, 19-20 are directed to a method, claims 29-32 are directed to a non-transitory medium and claims 21-28 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 21 and 29 recite methods for verifying source of text message including receiving a first request for verification data for a text message, the request containing at least an originating address and a destination address of the text message; determining, from the originating address, a first number; determining, from the destination address, a second number; accessing a set of prime numbers; converting the first number to a first prime number using the set of prime numbers; converting the second number to a second prime number using the set of prime numbers; calculating a verification value by multiplying the first prime number and the second prime number; and storing at least the verification value as the verification data to a verification database. (Claims 2, 21 and 29) recite receiving a second request to verify at least sender of a text message, the request containing at least an originating address and a destination address of the text message; determining, from the originating address, a third number; determining, from the destination address, a fourth number; accessing an ordered set of prime numbers; converting the third number to a third prime number using the ordered set of prime numbers; converting the fourth number to a fourth prime number using the set of prime number; calculating a search value by multiplying the third prime number and the fourth prime number; searching a match at least to the search value in a verification data stored to a database; sending, in response to finding at least a verification value matching to the search value, a response indicating that the text message sender is verified; and sending, in response to not finding a match, a response indicating that the text message sender is not verified.
.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer) and mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as (Claim 1,2) a computer implemented method, (Claim 21) processor, memory including computer program code, apparatus to perform a first or second process, (Claim 29) non-transitory medium), the claims are directed to verifying the source of text message by calculating a verification value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and calculating verification value for text message. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – (Claim 1,2) a computer implemented method, (Claim 21) processor, memory including computer program code, apparatus to perform a first or second process, (Claim 29) non-transitory medium. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “receiving a first request (claims 1,21, 29); receiving a second request (Claims 2, 21, 29)“ are insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Also, the limitations reciting “storing at least the verification value…in database (Claim 1, 21, 29); sending a response.. (Claim 2, 21, 29) ” are merely a post-solution step of sending/transmitting data output—a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these steps are an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; verifying source of text message. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to (Claim 1,2) a computer implemented method, (Claim 21) processor, memory including computer program code, apparatus to perform a first or second process, (Claim 29) non-transitory medium), these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0024] details “ The end user device 130 may be any apparatus, computing device or user equipment configured to receive text messages and display/output them to a user via one or more user interfaces. A non-limiting list of examples of the end user device 130 include a personal computer, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop and/or a touch screen computer, a tablet (tablet computer), a multimedia device, a vehicle information system, a wearable computer and other types of wearable devices, such as clothing and accessories incorporating computer and advanced electronic technologies. [0075]. Generally a processor is a central processing unit” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. , [0076] A memory 804 is usable for storing a computer program code required for one or more source verification functionalities”. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “receiving steps” and “storing/sending steps” amount to receiving or sending data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-5, 19-20, 22-28, and 30-32 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claims.
Claims 3-4, 19-20, 22-24, 30-32 recites storing to the verification data additional data associated with the verification value; receiving in the second request one or more pieces of additional data; searching a match to a combination of the search value and additional data in the verification data; sending, in response to finding a match, a response indicating that the text message sender and text message content are verified; and sending, in response to not finding a match, a response indicating that the text message sender or the text message content is not verified; receiving in a request at least one of name information of the text message recipientat least one of the name information . The receiving function is similar to a data gathering function. The displaying/transmitting function is a generic computer function and is also considered as an insignificant post solution activity. These limitations further limit the abstract idea by defining how verification is calculated and merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 25-28 recites receive the first request from a second apparatus, which transmitted the text message towards the destination address; receive the second request from a third apparatus, which received, at a destination address, the text message, wherein the second request is received in response to a user input to the second apparatus requesting verification; at least perform the first process and the second process including: receiving the first request from a second apparatus, which transmitted the text message towards the destination address; and receiving the second request from a third apparatus, which received, at a destination address, the text message. The receiving function is similar to a data gathering function. The displaying/transmitting function is a generic computer function and is also considered as an insignificant post solution activity. These limitations further limit the abstract idea and merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Subject Matter free of prior art
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 21 and 29. (Original) Swain et al. (US 2010/0274862 A1) discloses the computer implemented method ([0001] systems for establishing the legitimacy of communications.) comprising at least:
Swain discloses receiving a first request for verification data for a text message, the request containing at least an originating address and a destination address of the text message (Fig 1 # message M shows To: XYZ (destination address) and From: ABC (originating address)), [0020] processing received electronic messages from senders, [0069] verifying whether a particular received message 306 contains a DOL and, if so, whether the DOL is valid and, if so, whether adequate effort was expended by the sender.);
Swain discloses determining, from the address, a first number ([0045] At step 206, the sender-side message processing function 104 attempts to solve the computational problem involving the original message M by first converting the original message M into a string hereinafter denoted "<M>". For instance, the string may be a string of ones and zeroes (number), bytes, characters, etc., [0046], [0104]); assign prime number ([0091] after the original message M is inputted, the sender-side message processing function 704 at step 804 obtains knowledge of the minimum threshold effort E. It is recalled that the minimum threshold effort E may be a quantitative value or it may be more loosely defined (e.g., a restriction on the sizes and number of prime factors of <M>, or a combination thereof). Also, it is recalled that the minimum threshold effort E may be specified by the sender on a message-by-message basis or it may be set to a specific value, for example, a default value. Fig 4 # 414, [0144]-[0145] date information in the received message M* could point to the received message M* having been generated long ago and the DOL 1006 computed by means of some relatively inexpensive resource. [0145] (III) Whether the factors p1, p2, . . . are indeed prime.); converting the message/data into a first prime ([0095] convert the whole message body plus the portion identifying the recipient into a large number (using for example the ASCII code for assigning numerical values to the letters in the Roman alphabet, numbers, control signals, typographic characters and other symbols) and consider the remainder modulo some large prime number, together with some algorithm for ensuring that one obtains n digits number, [0149]) the Pratt certificate gives a proof that a number a is a primitive root of the multiplicative group (mod p) which, along with the fact that a has order p-1, proves that p is a prime).; calculating a verification value ([0083] a legitimacy score T1 . . . T4 for each message. when clicked by a user, causes the recipient-side messaging client 308 to sort the messages in accordance with the legitimacy score in ascending or descending order. Thus, for example, the recipient can instantly obtain a glimpse of which received messages have the highest legitimacy score.)
Gordon (US 2022/0103571 A1) teaches receiving a first request for verification data for a text message ([0061]; the request containing at least an originating address and a destination address of the text message ([0044] The request may comprise a request for an authentication token to use in relation to authentication of messages sent to message recipient using the verified channel. The channel information for the verified channel may comprise, for example, a phone number or identifier assigned to a user in a messaging communication media, such as a text, SMS, audio, visual, or software programming communication media.); receive verification information (Fig 6 # 628); device to enable a message recipient to verify the source of a message. The components of messaging source verification datastore 300 may include data groups used by modules and/or routines, e.g., registered channel data 305, verification code data 310, keyword data 315, and authentication token data 320 (to be described more fully below). The data groups used by modules or routines illustrated in FIG. 3 may be represented by a cell in a column or a value separated from other values in a defined structure in a digital document or file.)
Schwarz (US 11,108567) discloses instruction to verify a signed message. the message is pre-hashed to a fixed length. For instance, the message is pre-hashed for a subset of functions of the plurality of verify functions and not for another subset of functions of the plurality of verify functions. In one example, the key includes an elliptic curve public key. The elliptic curve public key includes, for instance, a point on a curve and a plurality of coordinates with a prime field. Further, in one example, the signature is represented by a plurality of values. In one example, the plurality of values includes a first integer and a second integer between zero and an order of a curve for the verify function to be performed. (Col 1 lines 59-67). The instruction, referred to as a Compute Digital Signature Authentication instruction (KDSA), is used to generate a signature for use in signing a message to be transmitted and for verifying the authenticity of the message when received. (Col 3 lines 49-54)
Daemen (US 8,472,621 B2) discusses generating prime numbers
Futa (US 7,706,528) discloses the prime calculating apparatus (i) generates a random number, (ii) calculates a multiplication value R by multiplying a management identifier by the random number, and (iii) calculates a prime candidate N
Bettger (US 2019/0052467 & 12021998 B2) teaches upon the download of the application being complete and/or when a user attempts to open the application for the first time, the application can transmit a message to the application generator 441 in which the message identifies a prime number p and a primitive root modulo of the prime number, represented as g. The application can then select a first secret integer value a and transmit a message to the application generator 441 in which the message includes a value C equal to g.sup.a mod p. In response, the application generator 441 can select a second secret integer value b and transmit a message to the application in which the message includes a value D equal to g.sup.b mod p. The application can then generate a first code by setting the first code equal to D.sup.a mod p. The application generator 441 can independently generate the same first code as the application by calculating C.sup.b mod p (where C.sup.b mod p equals D.sup.a mod p).
Stibel (US 2013/0013927 A1) teaches a verification system that automatedly verifies entities using a two-part verification process. One part verifies that the entity is the true owner of the entity account to be verified. The verification step involves the entity receiving a verification code at the entity account and returning the verification code to the verification system, the entity associating an account that it has registered at a service provider to an account that the verification system has registered at the service provider. Another part verifies the entity can respond to communications that are sent to methods of contact that have been previously verified as belonging to the entity. The verification system submits a first communication with a code using a verified method of contact. The verification system then monitors for a second communication to be returned with the code.
KR102567737B1 discloses a method for providing a secure message service that improves message security and an apparatus therefor. A security service apparatus for providing a security message service according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a message receiving unit for receiving an original message; a security message generation unit that encrypts the original message to generate a security message and transmits the generated security message to a called terminal; and an acknowledgment unit configured to compare and analyze the security data included in the acknowledgment message with the security data of the generated security message to verify the receipt
NPL, Gambhir, “Prime product number based malicious node detection”, 2012 discloses When any intermediate node/Destination Node generates RREP packet to the Source Node then it has to reply with Prime Product Number i.e. the product of prime numbers from destination node to the source node and some other information. If Prime Product Number is fully divisible and Replied information is right then declare node as trustworthy node otherwise Call the process Removal of Malicious nodes.
NPL, Hsu, “Prime Numbering address allocation mechanism”, 2005 discloses a PNAA (Prime Numbering Address Allocation ) algorithm to guarantee the uniqueness of addresses. PNAA is originated from the canonical factorization theorem of positive integers, that is, every positive integer can be written as a product of prime numbers in a unique way. Figure 1 gives an example of addresses a DHCP proxy can assign. The root proxy of a MANET has an address of 1, and can allocate prime numbers, in ascending order, to new hosts attached to it. For a non-root DHCP proxy, it can assign the address equal to its own address multiplied by the unused prime number, starting from the largest prime factor of its own address.
NPL, Wang, “Enhanced Instant message security and privacy protection”, 2018 discusses security of IM systems, such as authentication between user and server, encryption of data that are transferred over mobile social networks, verification of when a message reaches the recipient, storage security of data that are received from a sender through IM systems for smartphones, and anonymity among users in IM systems
Regarding claims 2, 21, 29, Swain et al. (US 2010/0274862 A1) teaches a response indicating that the text message sender is verified; and sending, in response to not finding a match, a response indicating that the text message sender is not verified. ([0132] Each of the received messages 906 may or may not contain a DOL and, if they contain a putative DOL, such putative DOL may or may not be a "valid" DOL (i.e., one which expresses the correct solution to a problem involving all or part of the associated message 906). Accordingly, the recipient-side message processing function 902 executes a process that begins by verifying whether a particular received message 906 contains a putative DOL and, if so, whether the putative DOL is valid and, if so, whether sufficient effort was expended by the sender.). Further, Gordon (US 2022/0103571 A1) teaches a response indicating that the text message sender is verified ([0073] At block 620, verification page provider module 600 may receive verification information (or “summary information”) from the message verification provider module 500. Verification information or summary information may comprise, for example the date-time when messages were sent to or from the message recipient, the sender's identifier, and the like.[0074] At block 625, verification page provider module 600 may display the verification information received from the message verification provider module 500 on the verification page. Because the verification page may be maintained by the message sender, e.g. the customer or user of messaging service provider module 400, display on the verification page may be accomplished by transmission to a webserver of such message sender
Modeo (US 7,634,280) discusses a method for authenticating messages, comprising: having a message sender send a message to be authenticated to a signature generator entity in the communications system; having the signature generator entity generate a signature with respect to the received message, the signature being dependent on the message sender; comparing signatures/values (Fig 3C #337)
However, prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor render obvious the combination of claim limitations, in particular at least “determining, from the originating/destination address, a first/second number; converting the first number to a first prime number using the set of prime numbers; converting the second number to a second prime number using the set of prime numbers; calculating a verification value by multiplying the first prime number and the second prime number (Claims 1, 21, 29); determining, from the originating address, a third number; determining, from the destination address, a fourth number; accessing an ordered set of prime numbers; converting the third number to a third prime number using the ordered set of prime numbers; converting the fourth number to a fourth prime number using the set of prime number; calculating a search value by multiplying the third prime number and the fourth prime number (Claims 2, 21, 29)”. Prior art is not applied to dependent claims due to their dependence from claims 1,2,21,29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2002215025 discusses enable the third person to verify a signed cipher text which only a receiver can verify. In the verification method, p and q are prime numbers, and p is divided by q without a remainder, and g is an element of the order q of Zp*, and H(.) is defined as a hash function, and a public verification key y= gxmod q is given for a signature key x, and a public ciphering key e=gdmod p is given for a deciphering key d, and W=egwmod p and K=H1(W) are given, and a plain text m is ciphered into a cipher text C=EKs(m) by K, and V=gwmod p, b=H2(V||C), and a=w-bxmod q are given, and V=gavbmod p and W= Vdmod p are obtained in a reception terminal which has received C and signatures a and b, and random numbers u are selected from Zq, and i= H3(W||Vumod p||gumod p||m) and j=u-idmod p are calculated, and the result is outputted as (Σ,W,i,j) (Σ=(C,a,b)). A verifier calculates K=H1(W) and m= DKs(C) to obtain the plain text m and calculates V=gavbmod p and verifies whether H3(W VjWimod p gjeimod p m)=i is true or not.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626