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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 13 JUN 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/743,047, filed on 13 JUN 2024, is a continuation of national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/CN2022/140709, filed on 21 DEC 2022, and claims priority from foreign application CN202111615249.X, filed on 27 DEC 2021 in the People’s Republic of China.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 AUG 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first apparatus” in claim 1 (the first apparatus is configured to perform the method of claim 1; the first apparatus being a terminal device as described in ¶ [0054]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6-7, 12, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4:
Lines 2-3 of claim 4 recite “receiving, from the second communication apparatus, a third signal acknowledging the request.” In claim 3, “a third signal is sent to a second communication apparatus, wherein the third signal is used to request the second communication apparatus to send a signal...” It is unclear to examiner how “a third signal” can be both a request and an acknowledgement. For the purpose of prosecution this has been interpreted as “receiving from the communication apparatus, a fifth signal acknowledging the request.”
Regarding claim 6:
Lines 2-3 of claim 6 recite, “wherein the fourth signal indicates the second communication apparatus to stop sending the first signal,” which appears to suggest that the first signal is sent by the second communication apparatus. However, lines 2-3 of claim 1 recite “sending a first signal,” indicating that the first signal is sent by the first apparatus. The limitations of claim 6 appear to contradict the limitations of claim 1. It is unclear to the examiner if the fourth signal sent from the first apparatus to the second communication apparatus in order to request the second communication apparatus stop sending the first signal to the first apparatus, or if the fourth signal is sent from the first apparatus to inform the second communication apparatus that the first apparatus intends to stop sending the first signal. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 6 has been interpreted as “the fourth signal is sent from the first apparatus to inform the second communication apparatus that the first apparatus intends to stop sending the first signal.”
Regarding claim 7:
Lines 1-2 of claim 7 recite, “the excitation signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as “an excitation signal.”
Regarding claim 12:
Line 3 of claim 12 recites “receive, from the second communication apparatus, a third signal acknowledging the request.” In claim 11, “a third signal is sent to a second communication apparatus, wherein the third signal is used to request the second communication apparatus to send a signal...” It is unclear to examiner how “a third signal” can be both a request and an acknowledgement. For the purpose of prosecution this has been interpreted as “receiving from the communication apparatus, a fifth signal acknowledging the request.”
Regarding claim 14:
Lines 2-3 recite of claim 14, “wherein the fourth signal indicates the second communication apparatus to stop sending the first signal,” which appears to suggest that the first signal is sent by the second communication apparatus. However, lines 5-6 of claim 9 recite “sending a first signal,” indicating that the first signal is sent by the first apparatus. The limitations of claim 14 appear to contradict the limitations of claim 9. It is unclear to the examiner if the fourth signal sent from the first apparatus to the second communication apparatus in order to request the second communication apparatus stop sending the first signal to the first apparatus, or if the fourth signal is sent from the first apparatus to inform the second communication apparatus that the first apparatus intends to stop sending the first signal. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 6 has been interpreted as “the fourth signal is sent from the first apparatus to inform the second communication apparatus that the first apparatus intends to stop sending the first signal.”
Regarding claim 15:
Lines 1-2 of claim 15 recite, “the excitation signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution, this has been interpreted as “an excitation signal.”
Regarding claim 20:
Line 4 of claim 12 recites “receive, from the second communication apparatus, a third signal acknowledging the request.” In claim 19, “a third signal is sent to a second communication apparatus, wherein the third signal is used to request the second communication apparatus to send a signal...” It is unclear to examiner how “a third signal” can be both a request and an acknowledgement. For the purpose of prosecution this has been interpreted as “receiving from the communication apparatus, a fifth signal acknowledging the request.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2021/0195415 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. discloses:
A method implemented by a first apparatus (Yang et al. electronic device 400, Figs. 4A, 7) at a terminal side (Yang et al. “The electronic devices may include, for example, a portable communication device (e.g., a smartphone)…” - ¶ [0262]), comprising:
sending a first signal (Yang et al. "According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the processor 440 may control the second communication module 420 to activate the accessory 500 in response to reception of the discovery signal…” - ¶ [0079]) in response to the first apparatus discovering a target object (Yang et al. external electronic device 600, Figs. 6-7), wherein the first signal is used to authenticate that the target object is sensed (Yang et al. “The accessory 500 may transmit/receive data to/from the external electronic device 600 through the second communication scheme 320 by using the power supplied by the second communication module 420.” - ¶ [0079]; "For example, the electronic device 400 and the external electronic device 600 may transmit or receive date used for authentication therebetween through the accessory 500 to authenticate each other.” - ¶ [0151]);
receiving a second signal (Yang et al. “The processor 440 may receive, in the accessory mode 451, data that the accessory 500 has received from the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0079]), wherein the second signal indicates sensing permission information of the target object (Yang et al. "The first communication module 510 may transmit, to the electronic device 400, data received from the external electronic device 600 (e.g., position information of the electronic device 400 or the result of authentication of the electronic device 400)” - ¶ [0097]; where the result of the authentication of the electronic device 400 is considered to be the second signal); and
sensing, the target object when the terminal device is authenticated to sense the target object (Yang et al. "FIG. 9 has been drawn up with reference to the situation in which the external electronic device 600 measures the position information of the accessory 500, but the accessory 500 may also use the operations illustrated in FIG. 9 to identify the position information of the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0189]; where the electronic device 400 senses the external electronic device 600 by way of the accessory 500; “when authentication of the electronic device 400 is successful, the processor 630 may track (monitor) the distance between the electronic device 400 and the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0114]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, where the first signal is an excitation signal (Yang et al. "According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the processor 440 may control the second communication module 420 to activate the accessory 500 in response to reception of the discovery signal… For example, the accessory mode 451 may be a mode in which the second communication module 420 supplies power to the accessory 500 by using the third communication scheme 330 and stands by to receive data transmitted by the accessory 500." - ¶ [0079]).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending a third signal (Yang et al. “in operation 707, the electronic device 400 and the accessory 500 may switch to the accessory mode…” - ¶ [0143]) to a second communication apparatus (Yang et al. accessory 500, Figs. 5, 7), wherein the third signal is used to request the second communication apparatus to send a signal (Yang et al. “in operation 709, the accessory 500 and the external electronic device 600 may be connected to each other through the second communication scheme 320.” - ¶ [0144]) to a first communication apparatus (Yang et al. second communication module 620 in external electronic device 600, Fig. 6) comprised in the target object, and the second communication apparatus and the first communication apparatus (Yang et al. “external electronic device 600 may be a vehicle” - ¶ [0064]) are at different locations (Yang et al. “The electronic devices may include, for example, a portable communication device (e.g., a smartphone)…” - ¶ [0262]; “According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the accessory 500 may be attached to the electronic device 400.” - ¶ [0096]; where the accessory 500 may be attached to the electronic device 400 which may be a smartphone, which is portable and at a different location from the external electronic device 600, which may be a vehicle.).
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 3, further comprising:
receiving, from the second communication apparatus, a third signal acknowledging the request (Yang et al. "The processor 440 may authenticate the accessory 500 by using the accessory 500 and the third communication scheme 330 in response to sensing the accessory 500. ” - ¶ [0097]; switch to accessory mode 707, Fig. 7; where the step of switching to accessory mode includes the transmission of signals from the electronic device 400 to the accessory 500, and from the accessory 500 to the electronic device 400).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, where the second signal is a feedback signal associated with the first signal (Yang et al. "The first communication module 510 may transmit, to the electronic device 400, data received from the external electronic device 600 (e.g., position information of the electronic device 400 or the result of authentication of the electronic device 400)” - ¶ [0097]; where the result of the authentication of the electronic device 400 is considered to be a feedback signal).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. disclose:
The method according to claim 3, further comprising:
sending a fourth signal to the second communication apparatus (Yang et al. end accessory mode 717, Fig. 7), wherein the fourth signal indicates the second communication apparatus to stop sending the first signal (Yang et al. “in operation 717, the electronic device 400 and the accessory 500 may end the accessory mode in response to receiving the signal requesting release of the connection using the second communication scheme 330.” - ¶ [0160]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first signal is periodically sent or continuously sent during a period when the first apparatus senses the target object (Yang et al. “According to various embodiments of the disclosure, when the electronic device 400 switches to the accessory mode, the accessory 500 may receive power through the third communication scheme 330.” - ¶ [0083]; Because the accessory is a passive device receiving power via NFC from the electronic device 400, the accessory must periodically receive the signals through third communication scheme 330 in order to operate.).
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. discloses:
An apparatus (Yang et al. electronic device 400, Figs. 4A, 7 ), comprising:
one or more processors (Yang et al. processor 440, Fig. 4A); and
an interface (Yang et al. first communication module 410 and second communication module 420, Fig. 4A) coupled with the one or more processors,
wherein the interface is configured to
send a first signal in response to the apparatus discovering a target object (Yang et al. “According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the electronic device 400 may receive a discovery signal transmitted by the external electronic device 600, and may transmit a response signal corresponding to the discovery signal.” - ¶ [0107]), and wherein the first signal is used to authenticate that the apparatus senses the target object (Yang et al. external electronic device 600, Figs. 6-7); and
receive a second signal (Yang et al. “The processor 440 may receive, in the accessory mode 451, data that the accessory 500 has received from the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0079]; where the electronic device 400 receives the second signal from the external electronic device 600 by way of the accessory 500), wherein the second signal indicates sensing permission information of the target object (Yang et al. "The first communication module 510 may transmit, to the electronic device 400, data received from the external electronic device 600 (e.g., position information of the electronic device 400 or the result of authentication of the electronic device 400)” - ¶ [0097]; where the result of the authentication of the electronic device 400 is considered to be the second signal), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to
determine, based on the sensing permission information, whether the apparatus is authenticated to sense the target object (Yang et al. "The first communication module 510 may transmit, to the electronic device 400, data received from the external electronic device 600 (e.g., position information of the electronic device 400 or the result of authentication of the electronic device 400)” - ¶ [0097]; where the result of the authentication of the electronic device 400 is considered to be the second signal); and
sense the target object when the apparatus is authenticated to sense the target object (Yang et al. "FIG. 9 has been drawn up with reference to the situation in which the external electronic device 600 measures the position information of the accessory 500, but the accessory 500 may also use the operations illustrated in FIG. 9 to identify the position information of the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0189]; where the electronic device 400 senses the external electronic device 600 by way of the accessory 500; “when authentication of the electronic device 400 is successful, the processor 630 may track (monitor) the distance between the electronic device 400 and the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0114]).
Regarding claim 10, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al. discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Yang et al. internal memory 136, external memory 138, Fig. 1), storing computer programming instructions (Yang et al. “The one or more instructions may include a code generated by a complier or a code executable by an interpreter. The machine-readable storage medium may be provided in the form of a non-transitory storage medium.” - ¶ [0265]), that when executed by one or more processors (Yang et al. processor 120, Fig. 1) of an apparatus (Yang et al. electronic device 101, Fig. 1; electronic device 400, Fig. 4A; “The electronic devices may include, for example, a portable communication device (e.g., a smartphone)…” - ¶ [0262]), cause the apparatus to:
send a first signal (Yang et al. "According to various embodiments of the disclosure, the processor 440 may control the second communication module 420 to activate the accessory 500 in response to reception of the discovery signal…” - ¶ [0079]) in response to the apparatus discovering a target object (Yang et al. external electronic device 600, Fig. 7), wherein the first signal is used to authenticate that the apparatus senses the target object (Yang et al. “The accessory 500 may transmit/receive data to/from the external electronic device 600 through the second communication scheme 320 by using the power supplied by the second communication module 420.” - ¶ [0079]; "For example, the electronic device 400 and the external electronic device 600 may transmit or receive date used for authentication therebetween through the accessory 500 to authenticate each other.” - ¶ [0151]);
receive a second signal (Yang et al. “The processor 440 may receive, in the accessory mode 451, data that the accessory 500 has received from the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0079]; where the electronic device 400 receives the second signal from the external electronic device 600 by way of the accessory 500), wherein the second signal indicates sensing permission information of the target object (Yang et al. "The first communication module 510 may transmit, to the electronic device 400, data received from the external electronic device 600 (e.g., position information of the electronic device 400 or the result of authentication of the electronic device 400)” - ¶ [0097]; where the result of the authentication of the electronic device 400 is considered to be the second signal); and
determine, based on the sensing permission information, whether the apparatus is authenticated to sense the target object (Yang et al. "The first communication module 510 may transmit, to the electronic device 400, data received from the external electronic device 600 (e.g., position information of the electronic device 400 or the result of authentication of the electronic device 400)” - ¶ [0097]; where the result of the authentication of the electronic device 400 is considered to be the second signal); and sense the target object when the apparatus is authenticated to sense the target object (Yang et al. "FIG. 9 has been drawn up with reference to the situation in which the external electronic device 600 measures the position information of the accessory 500, but the accessory 500 may also use the operations illustrated in FIG. 9 to identify the position information of the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0189]; where the electronic device 400 senses the external electronic device 600 by way of the accessory 500; “when authentication of the electronic device 400 is successful, the processor 630 may track (monitor) the distance between the electronic device 400 and the external electronic device 600.” - ¶ [0114]).
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claims 1 and 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claims 3 and 11 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claims 4 and 12 is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2021/0195415 A1) in view of Wu et al. (CN 113840285 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Yang et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 3
Wu et al. discloses:
wherein a difference between a sending angle of the excitation signal for the first communication apparatus and a receiving angle of a reflected signal for a sensing signal used to sense the target object is less than a predetermined value (Wu et al. “Therefore, this disclosure compares the current state information of the current time period with the historical state information of one or more previously time periods, compares the differences between them, and uses the difference changes as the comparison result to compare with the corresponding threshold value. If it is lower than the threshold value, it proves that the requirements are met and the communication connection is legitimate.” - ¶ [n0066]; “In a specific embodiment, the current state information or historical state information includes at least one of the following: Channel impulse response information, signal amplitude information, and signal angle of arrival information.” - ¶ [n0078]-[n0079]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wu et al. into the invention of Yang et al. to yield the invention of claim 7 above. Both Yang et al. and Wu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose authentication between electronic devices. Yang et al. discloses the invention of claim 3. However, Yang et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a difference between a sending angle of the excitation signal for the first communication apparatus and a receiving angle of a reflected signal for a sensing signal used to sense the target object is less than a predetermined value. This feature is disclosed by Wu et al. where the difference between the angle of arrival of a current signal and historical signal are compared to a threshold value (Wu et al. ¶ [n0078]-[n0079]). The combination of Yang et al. and Wu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an authentication method that is simple and fast, and reduces the amount of computation required (Wu et al. ¶ [n0066]).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 7 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
27 APR 2026
/RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights