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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 04/21/2026 Amendments are entered. Claims 1-19 and 22-23 are amended. Claims 22-23 are canceled. No claims are newly added.
The §101 Rejections
The §101 rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
The Prior Art Rejections
The Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments made in the 14/21/2026 Remarks (“Remarks”) but finds them unconvincing for the reasons below.
Applicant alleges on pp. 8-9 of the Remarks that Patel does not teach “a predetermined vehicle digital key specification” because Bluetooth is not used with any such specification.
This argument is unconvincing because the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (“BRI”) of “a predetermined vehicle digital key specification” includes any specification used to perform vehicle digital key operations. Because Patel teaches Bluetooth can be used to remotely control a vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the protocol can be used to perform digital key operations.
Applicant contends on p. 9 of the Remarks that the Bluetooth encryption does not correspond to a “software root of trust, in accordance with the predetermined vehicle digital key specification” because Bluetooth is not a predetermined vehicle digital key specification. However, this argument is moot because Bluetooth is such a specification as detailed above.
In summary, the arguments above are unconvincing because the BRI of “predetermined vehicle digital key specification” covers any communication protocol used to perform vehicle digital key operations such as remote control. To overcome the §102 rejection on Patel, the predetermined vehicle digital key specification must be amended to preclude this interpretation.
The prior art rejections on Claim 1 and its dependents stand, as do the prior art rejections on Claims 22 and 23. The Examiner has updated the Prior Art Rejections section below to show how Patel reads on Applicant’s amended claims.
Applicant further contends that Patel in view of Jung does not teach Claim 9 of the present invention based upon three points. These arguments are moot in light of Claim 9’s dependency upon rejected Claim 1, but in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will address the arguments below.
First, on p. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that it is unclear how the CCC standard taught by Jung would be combined with the encrypted Bluetooth communications of Patel.
This argument is unconvincing. Patel is merely relied upon to teach that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the CCC standard of Jung could have been used alongside the Bluetooth protocol of Patel to perform keyless vehicle control before the effective filing date of the present invention.
Second, on p. 11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that it is uncertain how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Bluetooth protocol of Patel with the CCC standard for authentication taught by Patel, thus, the combination is not obvious.
This argument is also unconvincing. There are many reasons why one would configure a device and application to use multiple communication protocols, the main reason being to increase the number of vehicles the device and application are capable of connecting to. Because the CCC standard is known in the art as another means by which a user can remotely control their automobile (see for example Jung FIG. 5), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combination of Jung and Patel would have increased the number of vehicles the device and application would be able to control, improving versatility.
Third, on p. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that Jung does not read on Claim 9 because it does not teach communicating to cause a vehicle to perform functions or provide a secured software runtime environment.
This argument is unconvincing because Jung is not relied upon to teach these limitations in the claim, Patel is. Instead, Jung is merely relied upon to teach that a CCC specification could be used along with a Bluetooth specification. The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lastly, with regard to all three points made above declaring that it would not have been obvious to combine the Bluetooth keyless vehicle control of Patel with the CCC keyless control protocol of Jung, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure teaches that CCC protocol incorporated Bluetooth at pp. 2-3. This further supports the Examiner’s point that combination of a Bluetooth and CCC protocol would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the present invention.
The prior art rejections on Claim 9 and its dependents are maintained. The Examiner has identified how the prior art reads on Applicant’s amended claims in the Claim Rejections section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 17, 19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150148990 A1 to Patel, Dipam (“Patel”).
Regarding claim 1, Patel discloses a method comprising:
communicating, by an application of a mobile device, in accordance with a predetermined vehicle digital key specification (Patel [0021]: “In a preferred embodiment, the remote keyless system uses the Bluetooth protocol to communicate with its remote controllers. . . . Bluetooth uses frequency-hopping spread spectrum to split up the data being sent into packets, optionally encrypts the data using at least one encryption algorithm, and transmits the packets on up to 79 frequencies on the 2.4 GHz radio frequency bandwidth.”), with a digital key system of a vehicle via at least one short range communication protocol to cause performance of one or more vehicle functions without using a physical key for the vehicle (Patel Claim 1: “A mobile telephone comprising: an executable program which enables said mobile telephone to control a remote keyless system and onboard computer installed on an automobile . . ..”);
providing, by the application, at the mobile device, a secured software runtime environment (Patel [0021]: Environment where encryption is performed in the software taken as the runtime environment.); and
performing, by the application, via the secured software runtime environment, one or more secured operations (Patel [0021]: Performance of encrypted communication taken as a secured operation.), the one or more secured operations including the application acting as a software root of trust, in accordance with the predetermined vehicle digital key specification (Patel [0021]: “Bluetooth uses frequency-hopping spread spectrum to split up the data being sent into packets, optionally encrypts the data using at least one encryption algorithm, and transmits the packets on up to 79 frequencies on the 2.4 GHz radio frequency bandwidth.” Encryption algorithm understood as being aboard the mobile device and the keyless system. The algorithm taken as a software root of trust, in accordance with the Bluetooth protocol.), for performance of at least one of the one or more vehicle functions (Patel [0021]: “ . . . the remote keyless system uses the Bluetooth protocol to communicate with its remote controllers.” Understood that commands given from the remote controllers to control the vehicle’s various functions are given over Bluetooth.).
Regarding claim 2, Patel discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing the one or more secured operations independent of any keyless vehicle control functionality provided by a manufacturer of the mobile device (Patel [0023]: “ . . . a slide bar controls the interior temperature of the automobile by manipulating the air conditioning and heating system settings.”.).
Regarding claim 3, Patel discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing the one or more secured operations independent of any keyless vehicle control functionality provided as part of an operating system of the mobile device (Patel [0017]: “The mobile telephone of the present invention is a mobile telephone with an application installed on it that allows the user of the mobile telephone to interact with a remote keyless system . . ..” Understood that an executable application is not part of the operating system of a mobile device. See [0017], where Patel discloses that an operating system may run applications programmed by another developer. Such a distinction is taken as the operating system of the smartphone not containing keyless vehicle control functionality alone.).
Regarding claim 5, Patel discloses the method of claim 1,wherein the secured software runtime environment is provided based on one or more of:
(a) the application being implemented, at least in part, using whitebox cryptography for (i) securing storage of some or all data used for control of the digital key system;
and/or (ii) securing some or all instructions used to implement the application;
(b) the application being implemented, at least in part, using obfuscation of one or more of: (i) instructions used to implement the application; (ii) control flow for the application; and (iii) runtime data of the application (Patel [0021]: Data sent/received by the application implemented on the mobile device to control the vehicle keyless system taken as runtime data of the control system. It is obfuscated by merit of being encrypted.);
(c) the application comprising one or more secure storage functions for performing secure storage of one or more cryptographic keys and/or sensitive data;
(d) the application being arranged to perform node locking to lock execution of the application to the mobile device;
(e) the application being arranged to perform integrity verification for the application and/or the digital key system; and
(f) the application being arranged to perform anti-debug functionality.
Regarding claim 8, Patel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined vehicle digital key specification specifies one or more protocols and/or one or more functions and/or one or more requirements that enable the one or more vehicle functions to be performed at the vehicle without using a physical key for the vehicle (Patel [0021]: Bluetooth taken as the one or more protocols. Encryption key knowledge taken as the one or more requirements.).
Regarding claim 10, Patel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more vehicle functions comprises one or more of:
(a) physical unlocking and/or physical locking of at least a part of the vehicle (Patel [0023]: “Toggle switches are capable of controlling . . . the door locks . . ..”);
(b) physical opening and/or physical closing of at least a part of the vehicle (Patel [0022]: Operation of window movement systems understood as systems that open or close the windows.);
(c) starting and/or stopping an engine or a motor of the vehicle (Patel [0023]: “Toggle switches are capable of controlling the engine ignition system . . ..”); and
(d) operating an auxiliary system of the vehicle (Patel [0022]: Functions like lights, air conditioning, heating, video and so on taken as auxiliary systems of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 17, Patel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more secured operations include one or more of:
(a) authenticating an identity of the vehicle and/or an identity of the digital key system in accordance with the predetermined vehicle digital key specification (Patel [0020]: “In another embodiment, the executable program improves on previous remote keyless systems by providing a means for "two-way" authentication and identification, where both the remote keyless system and mobile telephone satisfy predetermined authentication requirements . . . .”);
(b) enabling the digital key system to authenticate an identity of the mobile device and/or an identity of the application in accordance with the predetermined vehicle digital key specification;
(c) sharing a digital key secured, at least in part, by the application with another mobile device;
(d) digital key management for one or more cryptographic keys used in accordance with the predetermined vehicle digital key specification; and
(e) secured storage of data used for performance of at least one of the one or more vehicle functions.
Regarding claim 19, Patel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the mobile device is a smartphone (Patel [0016]: “In a preferred embodiment, the mobile telephone is a mobile smartphone . . . .”).
Claim 22 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to a mobile device comprising a control system.
Claim 23 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel, and further in view of US 20170105120 A1 to Kang, Jong et al. (“Kang”).
Regarding claim 4, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
While teaching a method of secure wireless control of a vehicle using a Bluetooth-enabled smartphone, Patel does not appear to expressly teach further comprising performing the one or more secured operations without using a secure element of the mobile device for: (a) storage of data used for control of the digital key system; and (b) execution of instructions for implementing the control of the digital key system.
However, Kang teaches wireless control of a vehicle from a smartphone using NFC instead of Bluetooth (See FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of vehicles using Bluetooth taught by Patel with the system for wireless control of vehicles using NFC taught by Kang. Doing so would have “provide[d] an efficient security solution in order to integrate communication among various devices for a technological trend such as IoT” as suggested in [0027] of Kang.
Kang further teaches further comprising performing the one or more secured operations without using a secure element of the mobile device for: (a) storage of data used for control of the digital key system (Kang [0075]: “Embodiments of the present invention propose a plan that uses HCE (Host Card Emulation) and TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) to solve the problem due to a property right and safely implement a vehicle entrance/start secure logic through a smartphone application.”; Kang [0078]: “The TEE is a method of prevents a common developer from access to a corresponding portion by opening a safety security OS area in a CPU itself. When a key, a secure algorithm and the like are implemented in the security OS portion, it is possible to solve security problems without using an SE.”); and (b) execution of instructions for implementing the control of the digital key system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have further combined the NFC-based communication control system of the above combination of Patel and Kang with the TEE for exchanging encryption keys further taught by Kang. Doing so would have eliminated “defects of delay due to every connection to a cloud authentication server and unavailability due to disconnection from a cloud authentication server” that come along with using a secure element as taught in [0077] in Kang.
Regarding claim 6, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Patel does not appear to expressly teach further comprising causing data received from the vehicle via the at least one short range communication protocol to be routed to the application instead of being routed to a secure element of the mobile device.
However, Kang teaches wireless control of a vehicle from a smartphone using NFC instead of Bluetooth (See FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of vehicles using Bluetooth taught by Patel with the system for wireless control of vehicles using NFC taught by Kang. Doing so would have “provide[d] an efficient security solution in order to integrate communication among various devices for a technological trend such as IoT” as suggested in [0027] of Kang.
Kang further teaches further comprising causing data received from the vehicle via the at least one short range communication protocol to be routed to the application instead of being routed to a secure element of the mobile device (Kang [0075]: “Embodiments of the present invention propose a plan that uses HCE (Host Card Emulation) and TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) to solve the problem due to a property right and safely implement a vehicle entrance/start secure logic through a smartphone application.”; Kang [0078]: “The TEE is a method of prevents a common developer from access to a corresponding portion by opening a safety security OS area in a CPU itself. When a key, a secure algorithm and the like are implemented in the security OS portion, it is possible to solve security problems without using an SE.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have further combined the NFC-based communication control system of the above combination of Patel and Kang with the TEE for exchanging encryption keys further taught by Kang. Doing so would have eliminated “defects of delay due to every connection to a cloud authentication server and unavailability due to disconnection from a cloud authentication server” that come along with using a secure element as taught in [0077] of Kang.
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of Patel and Kang teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising performing host card emulation to enable communication of said data from a transceiver of the mobile device that implements the at least one short range communication protocol to the application (Kang [0079]: “Embodiments of the present invention provide a security technology using HCE and TEE to implement a vehicle entrance/start function using the smartphone 210 and the NFC module 220 in a vehicle control system.”).
Regarding claim 11, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
While teaching wireless control of the vehicle using Bluetooth, Patel does not appear to expressly teach wherein the at least one short range communication protocol comprises at least one of: a near field communication (NFC) protocol; a Bluetooth Low Energy (BTLE) protocol; and an Ultra- Wideband (UWB) protocol.
However, Kang teaches wherein the at least one short range communication protocol comprises at least one of: a near field communication (NFC) protocol (Kang FIG. 1); a Bluetooth Low Energy (BTLE) protocol; and an Ultra- Wideband (UWB) protocol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of vehicles using Bluetooth taught by Patel with the system for wireless control of vehicles using NFC taught by Kang. Doing so would have “provide[d] an efficient security solution in order to integrate communication among various devices for a technological trend such as IoT” as suggested in [0027] of Kang.
Claims 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel, and further in view of US 20210058252 A1 to Jung, Sooyeon et al. (“Jung”).
Regarding claim 9, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Patel does not appear to expressly teach wherein the predetermined vehicle digital key specification is one of: (a) a Car Connectivity Consortium specification; and (b) an Intelligent Car Connectivity Industry Ecosystem Alliance specification.
However, Jung teaches wherein the predetermined vehicle digital key specification is one of: (a) a Car Connectivity Consortium specification; and (b) an Intelligent Car Connectivity Industry Ecosystem Alliance specification (Jung [0091]: “The transaction may denote the mutual authentication procedure using the digital key between the vehicle 400 and the digital key applet 321 of the electronic device 300, which is defined in the car connectivity consortium (CCC) standard.” See for example Jung [0092]-[0093], digital key operations like an RKE session are disclosed as derived from the CCC specification transaction of s301.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of a vehicle’s key system taught by Patel with the system for wireless control of a vehicle’s key system per the Car Connectivity Consortium taught by Jung. Doing so would have provided a common standard for connecting to and controlling a vehicle wirelessly, improving the control system’s versatility by allowing it to connect to any compatible vehicles.
Regarding claim 12, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Patel does not appear to expressly teach wherein the application acting as the software root of trust comprises the application:
storing one or more cryptographic keys; and
using the one or more cryptographic keys to authenticate one or more digital signatures and/or to issue one or more digital certificates.
However, Jung teaches wherein the application acting as the software root of trust comprises the application:
storing one or more cryptographic keys (Jung [0083]: “Here, a digital key may be used for transmission and reception of encrypted data and for secure ranging.”); and
using the one or more cryptographic keys to authenticate one or more digital signatures and/or to issue one or more digital certificates (Jung [0096]: “ . . . the electronic device 101 accesses the secure element 107 and signs (e.g., needs to access and sign) by using a digital key stored in the secure element 107 whenever a remote control command is transmitted to the vehicle 103.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the control system controlling vehicle functions wirelessly taught by Patel with the control system that stores a digital key for transmission and reception of encrypted data and signs using that key taught by Jung. Doing so would have improved system accessibility while maintaining security by allowing those with the digital key to access the vehicle controls.
Regarding claim 13, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Patel does not appear to expressly teach further comprising exposing an API configured for receiving, from a user application that is user- installable on the mobile device, a command for the application to cause performance of at least one of the one or more vehicle functions.
However, Jung teaches further comprising exposing an API configured for receiving, from a user application that is user- installable on the mobile device, a command for the application to cause performance of at least one of the one or more vehicle functions (Jung FIG. 4B: The framework 310, disclosed as an API in [0080] of Jung, depicted as where user commands are input, then sent to the vehicle 400. Understood that the control systems expose the API by allowing it to receive user commands. Taken in combination with Patel above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user-installable application for vehicle control of Patel would have exposed the API of Jung.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of a vehicle taught by Patel with the system for wireless control of a vehicle that exposes an API for controlling the vehicle taught by Jung. Doing so would have increased the versatility of the control system by allowing it to be accessed by many kinds of external entities as suggested in for example [0081] of Jung.
Regarding claim 14, the above combination of Patel and Jung teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the command is based on input provided to the user application by a user of the mobile device (Patel [0017]: “The mobile telephone of the present invention is a mobile telephone with an application installed on it that allows the user of the mobile telephone to interact with a remote keyless system . . . .”).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination of Patel and Jung teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the user application is a native application for the mobile device (Patel [0016], [0017]: Understood a native application is one that is downloaded and run on a device.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of US 20210058252 A1 to Jung, Sooyeon et al. (“Jung”), further in view of US 20190215370 A1 to Granda, Shawn et al. (“Granda”)
Regarding claim 16, the above combination of Patel and Jung teaches the method of claim 13.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the user application is provided, at least in part, by a manufacturer of the vehicle.
However, Granda teaches wherein the user application is provided, at least in part, by a manufacturer of the vehicle (Granda [0039]: “The mobile device processor and software stored in the memory enable various software applications, which may be preinstalled or installed by the user (or manufacturer) (e.g., having a software application or graphical user interface (GUI)). This may include an application 92 that can allow a vehicle user to communicate with vehicle 12 and/or to control various aspects or functions of the vehicle—e.g., among other things, allowing the user to remotely lock/unlock vehicle doors, turn the vehicle ignition on or off, check the vehicle tire pressures, fuel level, oil life, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of a vehicle using a smartphone app taught by the above combination of Patel and Jung with the system for wireless control of a vehicle using a smartphone app installed by a vehicle manufacturer taught by Granda. Doing so would have improved compatibility of the app with a particular vehicle by ensuring it comes from the same manufacturer of the vehicle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of US 20210058252 A1 to Jung, Sooyeon et al. (“Jung”), further in view of US 20170311161 A1 to Kuenzi, Adam (“Kuenzi”).
Regarding claim 18, Patel teaches the method of claim 1.
Patel does not appear to expressly teach further comprising binding, by the application, with the vehicle, said binding controlled by a server in communication with the application.
However, Kuenzi teaches a system for wirelessly controlling a lock from a smartphone (see [0053]), further comprising binding, by the application, with the vehicle, said binding controlled by a server in communication with the application (Kuenzi [0045]: “ . . . a credential representative of data that would normally be physically encoded on the key card 92 is retrieved in a digital form (step 110), encapsulated in an encrypted credential (step 112), downloaded to the mobile device 12 (step 114), securely passed to the credential module 36 (step 116) that decrypts and validates the credential (step 118), extracts the virtual card data (step 120), then passes the virtual card data into the lock controller 24 as a “virtual card read” (step 122). . . . The encrypted credential may be generated by the server 14 using well known techniques for digital certificate creation and encryption using cryptographic algorithms such as AES, ECC, RSA, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for wireless control of a vehicle that uses encryption taught by Patel with the system that downloads an encryption key from a server for wireless control taught by Kuenzi. Doing so would have allowed permission to access encrypted controls to be given or revoked remotely, improving user convenience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ceylan, Adem et al.. US 20240383441 A1. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE ON THE BASIS OF ONE OR MORE KEY DEVICES.
Sun, Chengyu. US 20240317179 A1. TERMINAL DEVICE AND METHOD PROCESSING OF DATA FOR TERMINAL DEVICE.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights