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 .
This Office Action is responsive to application 18/924,928 that the Applicant filed on October 23, 2024 and presented 20 claims. In accordance with the restriction requirement of March 4, 2026, Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-7, 8, and 15) for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/924,918 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are essentially the same as illustrated below in the claims table.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/924,928 Application
18/924,918 Application
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: storing a local copy of an identifier of an application that is configured to execute on customer equipment associated with a customer site that comprises the system; receiving a certificate, wherein the certificate comprises a vendor public key for the customer site, wherein the vendor public key is based on a vendor secret key and a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number; validating the certificate, wherein the validation comprises validating that the certificate was generated by vendor equipment associated with a vendor entity that corresponds to the vendor public key, and wherein the validating comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the customer site in the certificate matches the local copy of the identifier of the application of the customer equipment associated with the customer site; and based on the validating, enabling access to the application of the customer equipment associated with the customer site by the vendor equipment associated with the vendor entity.
1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: generating a vendor secret key for a customer site; generating a vendor public key for the customer site based on the vendor secret key and a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number; embedding the vendor public key and an identifier of an application of the customer site in a certificate, wherein the certificate is signed; enabling access to the certificate and the first number via a customer device corresponding to a customer entity that is associated with the customer site, the customer entity validating the certificate via the customer device, wherein the validating comprises validating that the certificate was generated by the system, and wherein the validating comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the customer site in the certificate matches a locally-stored copy of the identifier of the application of the customer site; and based on the validating, accessing the application of the customer site.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based on initiation of a support user account login session, using the application to generate a session secret key, using the application to generate a first shared secret comprising the vendor secret key and the session secret key, using the application to generate a first hash message authentication code based on the first shared secret and a random session identifier, and using the application to generate a challenge payload based on the random session identifier and the locally-stored copy of the identifier of the application of the customer site; and sending the challenge payload to the vendor equipment associated with the vendor entity, the vendor entity generating a second shared secret based on the challenge payload and the vendor secret key, generating a second hash message authentication code based on the second shared secret and the random session identifier, and generating a password based on the second hash message authentication code and the random session identifier, wherein the access to the application is based further on inputting the password to the application.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: based on initiation of a support user account login session, using the application to generate a session secret key, using the application to generate a first shared secret comprising the vendor secret key and the session secret key, using the application to generate a first hash message authentication code based on the first shared secret and a random session identifier, and using the application to generate a challenge payload based on the random session identifier and the locally-stored copy of the identifier of the application of the customer site; receiving the challenge payload; and based on receiving the challenge payload, generating a second shared secret based on the challenge payload and the vendor secret key, generating a second hash message authentication code based on the second shared secret and the random session identifier, and generating a password based on the second hash message authentication code and the random session identifier, wherein the accessing of the application comprises accessing the application based further on inputting the password to the application.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the using of the application to generate the first hash message authentication code comprises the using of the application to generate a first time-based one-time password based on the first shared secret and the random session identifier, wherein the generating of the second hash message authentication code based on the second shared secret and the random session identifier comprises generating a second time-based one-time password based on the second shared secret and the random session identifier, the vendor entity generating a time-based one-time password token based on the second time-based one-time password, and wherein the time-based one-time password token is valid for a specified amount of time, the application validating that the time-based one-time password token is valid based on the first time-based one-time password.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the using of the application to generate the first hash message authentication code comprises the using of the application to generate a first time-based one-time password based on the first shared secret and the random session identifier, wherein the generating of the second hash message authentication code based on the second shared secret and the random session identifier comprises generating a second time-based one-time password based on the second shared secret and the random session identifier, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a time-based one-time password token based on the second time-based one-time password, and wherein the time-based one-time password token is valid for a specified amount of time, the application validating that the time-based one-time password token is valid based on the first time-based one-time password.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein an output of a function produces the first hash message authentication code and the first time-based one-time password.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein an output of a function produces the first hash message authentication code and the first time-based one-time password.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the generating of the first hash message authentication code is based on a first value that indicates a number of iterations of the generating to perform, and based on a second value that indicates a key length of the first hash message authentication code.
5. The system of claim 2, wherein the generating of the first hash message authentication code is based on a first value that indicates a number of iterations of the generating to perform, and based on a second value that indicates a key length of the first hash message authentication code.
6. The system of claim 2, wherein the password comprises a session username to the application that comprises the random session identifier and a username, and wherein the password comprises a session password to the application that comprises the password and a time-based one-time password token.
6. The system of claim 2, wherein the accessing of the application based on the inputting of the password to the application comprises: inputting a session username to the application that comprises the random session identifier and a username; and inputting a session password to the application that comprises the password and a time-based one-time password token.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the password is a first password, wherein the time-based one-time password token is a first time-based one-time password token, wherein the application extracts the random session identifier and the username from the session username, wherein the application extracts the first password and the time-based one-time password token from the session password, wherein the application retrieves the first hash message authentication code and a time-based one-time password based on the random session identifier, wherein the application determines a second password based on the first hash message authentication code and the session username, wherein the application validates the first password based on the second password, and wherein the application validates the first time-based one-time password token based on a second time-based one-time password token.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the password is a first password, wherein the time-based one-time password token is a first time-based one-time password token, wherein the application extracts the random session identifier and the username from the session username, wherein the application extracts the first password and the time-based one-time password token from the session password, wherein the application retrieves the first hash message authentication code and a time-based one-time password based on the random session identifier, wherein the application determines a second password based on the first hash message authentication code and the session username, wherein the application validates the first password based on the second password, and wherein the application validates the first time-based one-time password token based on a second time-based one-time password token.
8. A method, comprising: receiving, by a system comprising at least one processor, a certificate, wherein the certificate comprises a vendor public key for the customer site, wherein the vendor public key is based on a vendor secret key and a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number; validating, by the system, the certificate, wherein the validating comprises validating that the certificate was generated by a vendor entity that corresponds to the vendor public key, and wherein the validating further comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the customer site in the certificate matches a local copy of the identifier of the application of the customer site; and based on the validating, facilitating, by the system, accessing the application of the customer site by the vendor entity.
8. A method, comprising: generating, by a system comprising at least one processor, a vendor public key for a customer site based on a vendor secret key for the customer site and a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number; embedding, by the system, the vendor public key and an identifier of an application of the customer site in a certificate, wherein the certificate is signed; enabling, by the system, access to the certificate and the first number via customer equipment of a customer entity that is associated with the customer site, the customer entity validating the certificate via the customer equipment, wherein the validating comprises validating that the certificate was generated by the system, and wherein the validating comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the customer site in the certificate matches a locally-stored copy of the identifier of the application of the customer site; and based on the validating, accessing, by the system, the application of the customer site.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, comprising: receiving a certificate, wherein the certificate comprises a vendor public key for the customer site, wherein the vendor public key is based on a vendor secret key and a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number; and permitting the application of the customer site to be accessed by the vendor entity based on validating the certificate, wherein the validating comprises validating that the certificate was generated by a vendor entity that corresponds to the vendor public key, and wherein the validating further comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the customer site in the certificate matches a local copy of the identifier of the application of the customer site.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, comprising: generating a public key for site equipment associated with a site based on a secret key for the site and a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number; embedding the public key and an identifier of an application of the site equipment in a certificate; enabling access to the certificate and the first number by an entity that is associated with the site equipment, the entity validating the certificate, wherein the validating comprises validating that the certificate was generated by the system, and wherein the validating comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the site equipment in the certificate matches a locally-stored copy of the identifier of the application of the site equipment; and based on the validating, accessing the application of the site equipment.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites “a customer site that comprises the system,” noting that claim is a claim for “A system comprising:…” As the claim reads, it seems circular, and thus indefinite.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites “a second prime number,” but a first prime number is not recited. Perhaps the recited “first number” can be inferred to be prime, but if inferences are to be made, then the secret and public keys can also be interpreted as prime numbers. To remove any uncertainty, inferences should be removed from the characterization of prime numbers within the claim.
Dependent claims 2-7 are similarly rejected under § 112(b) because they depend upon the rejected independent claim 1 and they fail to cure the indefinites of claim 1.
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 conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard et al. (US 2022/0191041, “Gerhard”) in view of Yarabolu et al. (US 2020/0382483, “Yarabolu”) and Lane (US 2024/0273428, “Lane”), and further in view of Prabhakar et al. (US 2024/0413983, “Prabhakar”) and Khandani (US 2019/0104121, “Khandani”).
Regarding Claim 1
Gerhard discloses
A system (abstract), comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations (¶ [0006], “Some embodiments of the present disclosure can also be illustrated as a system. The system comprises a processor and a memory that is in communication with the processor. The memory contains program instructions. When the program instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the processor to perform a method [operations].”), comprising:
storing a local copy of an identifier...1 that is configured to execute on customer equipment associated…2 (¶ [0034], “In some embodiments, obtaining the access-request package may take the form of loading a device ID [or alternatively an application ID as taught by Yarabolu ¶ [0040]] for the device and a timestamp from the device clock. For example, a device ID may be stored on a [local] memory of the device, and may include, depending on the circumstances, a device serial number, a universal unique ID, a worldwide unique ID, etc.”);
receiving…3, wherein the certificate comprises a vendor public key for the customer site (¶ [0029], “The device may then either reject the access attempt or enable access by validating the secure signature. For example, the device could hash the device ID and the original timestamp (for example, from the access-key package), decrypt the secure signature using the vendor's public key [delivered/received via a certificate as taught by Prabhakar ¶ [0051], noting certificates routinely possess public keys], and comparing the two resulting hashes.”),
wherein the vendor public key is based on a vendor secret key and…4 (¶ [0041], “For example, the trusted authority may combine the device ID and timestamp into a single data object, hash that data object, then encrypt that hash with the trusted authority's (e.g., the vendor's) private key [that’s based on the public key].”);
5 …, and
wherein the validating comprises validating that the identifier of the application of the customer site in the certificate matches the local copy of the identifier of the application of the customer equipment associated with the customer site (¶ [0029], “The device may then either reject the access attempt or enable access by validating the secure signature. For example, the device could hash the device [alternatively application] ID and the original timestamp (for example, from the access-key package), decrypt the secure signature using the vendor's public key, and comparing [matching] the two resulting hashes [of the data of the certificate and that of the local copy]. If the two resulting hashes match, the device can conclude with confidence that the secure signature originated from the trusted authority, which reviewed the device ID and confirmed that the attempt to access the privilege was legitimate.”); and
based on the validating, enabling access to the application of the customer equipment associated with the customer site by the vendor equipment associated with the vendor entity (¶ [0029], “The device may then either reject the access attempt or enable access by validating the secure signature.”).
Gerhard doesn’t disclose
1 … {identifier} of an application…
2 … with a customer site that comprises the system;
3 … a certificate,…
4 … a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number;
5 validating the certificate, wherein the validation comprises validating that the certificate was generated by vendor equipment associated with a vendor entity that corresponds to the vendor public key;
Yarabolu, however, discloses
1 … {identifier} of an application… (¶ [0040], “For instance, a user may be a customer or employee of an entity implementing the dynamic multi-device authentication computing platform 110 (e.g., a financial institution, government entity, corporation, or the like) having a plurality of devices comprising a key network. Registration information, such as name, contact information, device identifying information (e.g., IMEI), application identifying information (e.g., type, version, or the like) and the like may be provided.”)
Regarding the combination of Gerhard and Yarabolu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote access system of Gerhard to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the remote access system of Gerhard, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an application identifier feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the authentication system of Yarabolu, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the application identifier feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the application identifier feature to the base remote access system of Gerhard, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lane, however, discloses
2 …with a customer site that comprises the system (¶ [0080], “Customers of the vendor use customer devices connect to the server and the application to create service requests for problems they are having with the vendor's products. In most cases the customers need onsite service from a technician.”);
Regarding the combination of Gerhard-Yarabolu and Lane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an application identifier feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the authentication system of Lane, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the application identifier feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the application identifier feature to the base remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Prabhakar, however, discloses
3 … a certificate,… (¶ [0051], “Device access management server 300 may provide public key infrastructure (PKI) services 301 (e.g., executed using compute devices 104 and storage devices 106) and may maintain (e.g., create, store, delete or revoke, and/or otherwise update or manage) digital certificates (e.g., PKI certificates which are sometimes also referred to as public key certificates,…”)
5 validating the certificate, wherein the validation comprises validating that the certificate was generated by vendor equipment associated with a vendor entity that corresponds to the vendor public key (¶ [0051], “Device access management [associated with a vendor entity] server [vendor equipment] 300 may provide [generate] public key infrastructure (PKI) services 301 (e.g., executed using compute devices 104 and storage devices 106) and may maintain (e.g., create, store, delete or revoke, and/or otherwise update or manage) digital certificates (e.g., PKI certificates which are sometimes also referred to as public key certificates,...”; and ¶ [0063], “Server 300 may provide (e.g., as part of PKI services 301) one or more validation services 308 to facilitate the validation of certificate 312.”);
Regarding the combination of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane and Prabhakar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a certificate-public key feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the authentication system of Prabhakar, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the certificate-public key feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the certificate-public key feature to the base remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Khandani, however, discloses
4 … a first number that comprises a primitive root modulo of a second prime number (¶ [0170], “The simplest form of a one-way function is based on using the function “GVS modulo P”, i.e., multiplicative group of integers modulo P, where P is a prime number, and G is a primitive root modulo P. It is obvious to individuals skilled in the art that this operation can involve the entire key.”);
Regarding the combination of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane-Prabhakar and Khandani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane-Prabhakar to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane-Prabhakar, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a primitive-root-modulo feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the authentication system of Khandani, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the primitive-root-modulo feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the primitive-root-modulo feature to the base remote access system of Gerhard-Yarabolu-Lane-Prabhakar, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Independent Claims 8 and 15
With respect to independent claims 8 and 15, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights