DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on July 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented to examination.
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on July 29, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because begins with “Embodiments of the present disclosure provider”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 (and similar for claim 17) recites “wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to perform the acts of communicating with the vendor support site, downloading the version of software, and communicating with the target computing device when the target computing device is housed in a shipping container.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 3 and 18 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
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 5-6, 13-14 and 19-20 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.
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 19-20 recite "the instructions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-4, 8-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US Pub. No. 2019/0250898) in view of Rosenblatt (US Pub. No. 2019/0084723). With respect to claim 1, Yang teaches an Information Handling System (IHS) (Yang paragraph [0017] discloses: "Embodiments can include a network monitor device operable to detect and classify IoT or smart devices and then detect IoT or smart device software (e.g., firmware or application) versions ..., monitor (e.g., constantly a device vendor's site) for software updates, use application programming interfaces (APIs) where possible to automatically trigger software updates ...." Yang paragraph [0025] describes the network monitor device 102 as a computing system performing the recited operations. The network monitor device 102 of Yang reads on the recited Information Handling System (IHS)), comprising: a processor (Yang paragraph [0025] and Yang FIG. 6 illustrate the network monitor device 102 as a computing system having a processing device that executes program instructions. Yang's processing device reads on the recited processor) and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to, (Yang FIG. 6 illustrates the network monitor device 102 having main memory communicatively coupled to the processing device. Yang paragraph [0025] and the body of the disclosure describe program instructions stored in the memory and executed by the processor to perform the operations of the network monitor device 102, including monitoring vendor websites, identifying software versions, and updating the device software. Yang's memory and program-instructions arrangement reads on the recited "memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to" perform the recited acts) [[after manufacture of a target computing device and before end user access to the target computing device]]: communicate with a vendor support site to identify a version of software on the target computing device (Yang paragraph [0045]: "a latest software version associated with the device is determined .... The latest software version can be determined using device identification information (e.g., manufacturer and model) to access vendor resources (e.g., websites, FTP sites, etc.) ... based on monitoring one or more websites (e.g., via an out-of-band daemon) and other resources (e.g., emails) from device vendors." Yang paragraph [0025] confirms: "Network monitor device 102 may be operable for a variety of tasks including detecting or determining device software version, monitoring available device software versions (e.g., available via vendor websites) ...." Yang's vendor websites and FTP sites read on the recited "vendor support site," and the version identified through this communication reads on the recited "version of software on the target computing device."). download the version of software from the vendor support site (Yang paragraph [0052]: "automated updating of the software of the device is attempted. The updating of the software may be attempted using an API or a CLI where credentials are available, as described herein." Yang paragraph [0091]: "the software of device is updated (e.g., automatically). Where a device supports API calls, an API can be called (e.g., by network monitor device 102) to update the software." Yang's automated update flow necessarily entails the network monitor device acquiring the software from the vendor source so that the update can be applied to the target; this acquisition reads on the recited download step) and communicate with the target computing device to install the version of software on the target computing device (Yang paragraph [0091]: "Where a CLI interface and device credentials are available, remote execution of one or more CLI commands (e.g., by network monitor device 102) on the device can be performed to update the software (e.g., firmware or application)." The CLI-driven install operation performed by Yang's network monitor device on the target reads directly on the recited "communicate with the target computing device to install the version of software."). Yang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Rosenblatt teaches: after manufacture of a target computing device and before end user access to the target computing device (Rosenblatt paragraph [0086]: "firmware and application updates may be transmitted to selected devices needing the updates. After receiving the updates, the devices may automatically apply or execute the updates. In this way, devices on display unit 622 may have the most up-to-date application patches and firmware updates before being purchased by a consumer." Rosenblatt paragraph [0117]: "all electronic media devices may have the most up-to-date version of firmware and software available before the device leaves the retail location." These passages place the entire firmware/software update operation in the window between manufacture (at the factory) and end-user access (when the consumer purchases the device), reading on the recited temporal qualifier). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang's automated, vendor-site-driven 3-step update procedure to the pre-end-user update context expressly disclosed in Rosenblatt to achieve the predictable result of an up-to-date target at the moment the end user takes delivery. Yang's security and currency rationale (Yang paragraphs [0016]-[0017]) maps directly onto Rosenblatt's pre-purchase update functionality (Rosenblatt paragraphs [0006], [0117]). The combination is no more than applying a known automated update technique to a known pre-end-user packaging context to yield predictable results. With respect to claim 2, Yang teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to perform the acts of communicating with the vendor support site, downloading the version of software, and communicating with the target computing device (These operative acts are taught by Yang per the mappings for limitations of claim 1 above: Yang paragraph [0045] (communicating with vendor support site to identify a version); Yang paragraphs [0052] and paragraphs [0091] (download and install via API or CLI).) [[are performed when the target computing device is housed in a shipping container]]. Yang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Rosenblatt teaches when the target computing device is housed in a shipping container (Rosenblatt paragraph [0004]: "The inside of the device packaging is typically designed to securely house the electronic media device. The main design consideration for the inside of electronic device packaging may be to prevent damage to the device during shipping, storage, or consumer handling." Rosenblatt paragraph [0040]: "the active packaging of the present invention may be used to supply power, data, or both power and data to electronic media devices while the devices are housed within the active packaging." Rosenblatt paragraph [0086]: "firmware and application updates may be transmitted to selected devices needing the updates ... while housed in active packaging." Rosenblatt expressly teaches performing the recited operative acts while the target is housed in its (shipping) packaging). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the Yang-taught operative acts while the target is housed in its shipping container as expressly taught by Rosenblatt (Rosenblatt paragraphs [0004], [0040], [0086]), because Rosenblatt expressly teaches the benefit of supplying firmware and software updates to devices while they remain housed within their packaging (Rosenblatt paragraph [0006]), thereby extending Yang's automated update procedure to the post-packaging window of the supply chain without requiring de-packaging and re-packaging of the target. With respect to claim 3, Yang teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to communicate with the target computing device (Yang paragraph [0091] (remote execution of CLI commands by the network monitor device 102 on the target to update the software) [[via a connector configured on the shipping container.]]
Yang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Rosenblatt teaches via a connector configured on the shipping container (Rosenblatt paragraph [0011]: "The backing may be printed (or in-molded) with one or more wire traces to supply power, ground, and data to the device. In some embodiments, the wire traces are routed to the appropriate pins or connectors on the electronic media device through the hooks or clasps that hold the device onto the backing. For example, one hook or connector may interface with a dock connector interface (or other suitable interface) on the electronic media device." Rosenblatt paragraph [0013]: "At least one data signal may also be printed (or in-molded) onto or within the encasing or backing. The at least one data signal may be routed to the appropriate pins or connectors on the electronic media device for supplying data to the device." The connector that interfaces with the device's interface, integrated with the packaging body itself, reads directly on the recited "connector configured on the shipping container.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Yang's communicate-with-target step via a connector configured on the shipping container as expressly taught by Rosenblatt (Rosenblatt paragraphs [0011], [0013]), because doing so provides the predictable physical communication path needed when the target is housed in its shipping container during the update per the claim 2 combination above; integrating the connector with the packaging itself avoids any need to disturb the packaging to deliver power and data to the housed target. With respect to claim 4, Yang teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to communicate with the target computing device using at least one of an Ethernet protocol or a USB On-The-Go (OTG) protocol (Yang paragraph [0028]: "network monitor device 102 may monitor communication using a variety of protocols (e.g., Samba, hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), secure shell (SSH), file transfer protocol (FTP), transfer control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP), user datagram protocol (UDP), Telnet ...." Yang paragraph [0029]: "Network monitor device 102 may be operable to use one or more APIs to communicate with aggregation device 106, device 120, device 130, or system 150." TCP/IP, the standard protocol stack carried by Ethernet links, reads on the "Ethernet protocol"). With respect to claim 8, Yang teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to perform the acts of communicating with the vendor support site, downloading the version of software, and communicating with the target computing device to update a plurality of components on the target computing device (Yang paragraph [0016]: "Beyond identifying software versions, embodiments can determine which software versions are out-of-date based on monitoring available versions of software." Yang paragraph [0017] enumerates the species of software components updated: "IoT or smart device software (e.g., firmware or application) versions." Yang's flowchart at FIG. 2 applies the 3-step monitor-and-update flow per software component; the plurality of components updated by Yang (firmware components and application components on the same target) reads on the recited "plurality of components.").
With respect to claim 9, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 1, respectively (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 10, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 2, respectively (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
With respect to claim 11, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 3, respectively (see the rejection of claim 3 above).
With respect to claim 12, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 4, respectively (see the rejection of claim 3 above). With respect to claim 15, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 8, respectively (see the rejection of claim 8 above). With respect to claim 16, Yang teaches an Information Handling System (IHS) (Yang paragraph [0017] discloses: "Embodiments can include a network monitor device operable to detect and classify IoT or smart devices and then detect IoT or smart device software (e.g., firmware or application) versions ..., monitor (e.g., constantly a device vendor's site) for software updates, use application programming interfaces (APIs) where possible to automatically trigger software updates ...." Yang paragraph [0025] describes the network monitor device 102 as a computing system performing the recited operations. The network monitor device 102 of Yang reads on the recited Information Handling System (IHS)), comprising: a processor (Yang paragraph [0025] and Yang FIG. 6 illustrate the network monitor device 102 as a computing system having a processing device that executes program instructions. Yang's processing device reads on the recited processor) and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to, (Yang FIG. 6 illustrates the network monitor device 102 having main memory communicatively coupled to the processing device. Yang paragraph [0025] and the body of the disclosure describe program instructions stored in the memory and executed by the processor to perform the operations of the network monitor device 102, including monitoring vendor websites, identifying software versions, and updating the device software. Yang's memory and program-instructions arrangement reads on the recited "memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to" perform the recited acts) [[when a target computing device is at least one of in transit or in storage]]: communicate with a vendor support site to identify a version of software on the target computing device (Yang paragraph [0045]: "a latest software version associated with the device is determined .... The latest software version can be determined using device identification information (e.g., manufacturer and model) to access vendor resources (e.g., websites, FTP sites, etc.) ... based on monitoring one or more websites (e.g., via an out-of-band daemon) and other resources (e.g., emails) from device vendors." Yang paragraph [0025] confirms: "Network monitor device 102 may be operable for a variety of tasks including detecting or determining device software version, monitoring available device software versions (e.g., available via vendor websites) ...." Yang's vendor websites and FTP sites read on the recited "vendor support site," and the version identified through this communication reads on the recited "version of software on the target computing device."). download the version of software from the vendor support site (Yang paragraph [0052]: "automated updating of the software of the device is attempted. The updating of the software may be attempted using an API or a CLI where credentials are available, as described herein." Yang paragraph [0091]: "the software of device is updated (e.g., automatically). Where a device supports API calls, an API can be called (e.g., by network monitor device 102) to update the software." Yang's automated update flow necessarily entails the network monitor device acquiring the software from the vendor source so that the update can be applied to the target; this acquisition reads on the recited download step) and communicate with the target computing device to install the version of software on the target computing device (Yang paragraph [0091]: "Where a CLI interface and device credentials are available, remote execution of one or more CLI commands (e.g., by network monitor device 102) on the device can be performed to update the software (e.g., firmware or application)." The CLI-driven install operation performed by Yang's network monitor device on the target reads directly on the recited "communicate with the target computing device to install the version of software."). Yang is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Rosenblatt teaches:
when a target computing device is at least one of in transit or in storage (Rosenblatt paragraph [0004] expressly describes the disclosed packaging as being used "during shipping, storage, or consumer handling" - reading directly on both prongs of the recited "at least one of in transit or in storage" disjunction. Rosenblatt paragraph [0086]: "firmware and application updates may be transmitted to selected devices needing the updates ... while housed in active packaging." The target's state during the update operation taught by Rosenblatt reads on the recited limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang's automated, vendor-site-driven 3-step update procedure to a target while the target is in transit or in storage as expressly disclosed in Rosenblatt (Rosenblatt paragraphs [0004], [0086]) to achieve the predictable result of an up-to-date target at the moment the target arrives at its destination or is taken out of storage. Yang's security and currency rationale (Yang paragraphs [0016]-[0017]) maps directly onto Rosenblatt's in-packaging update functionality (Rosenblatt paragraphs [0006], [0086]). The combination is no more than applying a known automated update technique to a known in-transit / in-storage update context to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 17, the claim is directed to an information handling system that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 2, respectively (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
With respect to claim 18, the claim is directed to an information handling system that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 3, respectively (see the rejection of claim 3 above).
Claims 5, 7, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US Pub. No. 2019/0250898) in view of Rosenblatt (US Pub. No. 2019/0084723) and further in view of Worsley (US Pat. No. 8,745,730). With respect to claim 5, Yang in view of Rosenblatt is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Worsley teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to inhibit the instructions from communicating with any other entity than the vendor support site (Worsley, column 1 lines 6-12: "The computers ... are typically customized by an organization to operate with software that the organization has licensed, as well as with the particular settings, protocols, and configurations that have been adopted for use within the organization." This frames the pre-end-user customization context. Worsley, column 3 lines 48-60 describes the firmware/BIOS memory structure in which the provisioning logic resides: "The computer 102 may have or be associated with various types of boot memory, including firmware. Firmware generally comprises non-volatile computer-readable media or memory containing instructions that are executed by the processor 106 upon startup of the computer 102 or startup of an associated hardware component." Worsley, column 2 lines 11-18 identifies the single authority that the firmware recognizes as the legitimate destination: "the firmware of the computer device is customized so that it contains a global identification of a specific service/authority from which the computer device is to be provisioned." Worsley, column 9 lines 27-36 teaches the corresponding restriction on outbound communications: "the network interface, upon startup, may attempt to obtain authorization from the service/authority 104, and upon failure to receive such authorization may limit its future communications to certain types of traffic or to certain other network entities." Restricting the software updating device's outbound communications to the single identified vendor support site reads on the recited "inhibit ... from communicating with any other entity than the vendor support site." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Yang in view of Rosenblatt combination with Worsley's firmware-based restriction of network communications (Worsley, column 3 lines 48-60), because (i) Worsley addresses the same pre-end-user customization context as the present claims (Worsley, column 2 lines 6-12), and (ii) restricting outbound communications to a single identified service/authority provides the security and predictability benefits expressly recognized by Worsley, both of which are especially valuable for an automated update tool operating in the unattended pre-end-user window described by Rosenblatt, where the sole legitimate outbound destination is the vendor support site. With respect to claim 7, Yang in view of Rosenblatt is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Worsley teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to mutually authenticate with the target computing device (Worsley, column 7 lines 25-32: "the authentication may be bilateral, in which both the computer 102 and the service/authority 104 authenticate themselves to each other." Worsley, column 7 lines 33-47 further specifies that the authentication exchange may include "the exchange and/or validation of one or more certificates, signatures, credentials, keys, key pairs ... cryptographic elements and techniques," which reads on a shared-secret authentication arrangement under the BRI of "mutually authenticate." Worsley's bilateral authentication operates in the firmware/BIOS structure described at Worsley, column 3 lines 48-60, and addresses the pre-end-user customization context framed at Worsley, column 1 lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Yang in view of Rosenblatt combination with Worsley's bilateral authentication between a computer and a service/authority (Worsley, Description column 7 lines 25-32), because (i) Worsley operates in the same pre-end-user provisioning context as the present claims (Worsley, column 1 lines 6-12) and within the firmware/BIOS structure described at Worsley, column 3 lines 48-60, and (ii) bilateral authentication ensures that, during the unattended pre-end-user update window described by Rosenblatt, neither the target nor the software updating device may be impersonated by an unauthorized party, addressing a security need expressly recognized by Worsley.
With respect to claim 13, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 5, respectively (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
With respect to claim 19, the claim is directed to an information handling system that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 5, respectively (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US Pub. No. 2019/0250898) in view of Rosenblatt (US Pub. No. 2019/0084723) and further in view of Fallon et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0124568, hereinafter Fallon). With respect to claim 6, Yang in view of Rosenblatt is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Fallon teaches wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to inhibit the instructions from performing any other operations on the target computing device other than installing the version of software (Fallon paragraph [0072]: "The firmware update utility located on the computer system 312 may be able to send a command to the UPS that will allow the UPS to enter into boot load mode. The computer system 314 may then send one or more new firmware files to the UPS and load those new firmware files into memory." Fallon paragraph [0070] describes boot load mode as a constrained operational state: "When the UPS is first powered on, the operating system, which may be necessary to run UPS 10, is not loaded into either ROM or RAM. The UPS may initially execute a boot load program in ROM along with the bare minimum of data needed to access the nonvolatile, non-transitory devices, from which the operating system programs and data are loaded into RAM." Because the target in Fallon's boot load mode does not have the operating system loaded, the core UPS functions defined by the firmware (Fallon paragraph [0056]: "core functions could be UPS communication instructions for communicating with the equipment connected ... or various functions or displays available to the user 314") are not available to run; the target is restricted to receiving and installing the firmware update files. Fallon's boot load mode thus reads on the recited inhibition of operations other than installing the version of software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Yang in view of Rosenblatt combination with Fallon's boot-load-mode restriction of target operations (Fallon paragraph [0072]), because (i) Fallon expressly teaches that limiting the target to update-only operations during firmware update is a known measure for avoiding mistakes that could render the target inoperable (Fallon paragraph [0085]), and (ii) this benefit is especially valuable for an automated update performed during the unattended pre-end-user window described by Rosenblatt, where there is no end user present to recover the device if a stray operation compromises its integrity prior to delivery. With respect to claim 14, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 6, respectively (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
With respect to claim 20, the claim is directed to an information handling system that corresponds to the information handling system recited in claim 6, respectively (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Garrabrant et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0141628) discloses a system for updating firmware on an industrial device including a user interface device storing a computer program with executable instructions; one or more industrial devices comprising firmware; and a communication network interfacing with the user interface device and the industrial device and adapted to transmit data, wherein the computer program of the user interface device comprises instructions to scan the communication network and to identify an industrial device that requires an update of the firmware, and wherein the computer program of the user interface device comprises further instructions to update the firmware on the industrial device via the communication network after establishing communication with the industrial device. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights