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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, Line 17 states “the master node is configure to generate”. The word “configure” should be “configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149908 by Unagami et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0031036 by Chauncey et al.
As to claims 1 and 13, Unagami discloses a system/method for performing secure key exchange between a plurality of nodes of a communication network, the system comprising a master node (Unagami: Fig 1 – 100; controller) and a first slave node and a second slave node (Unagami: Fig 1 – 200 a-c; Devices A, B and C), the system comprising:
the master node (Unagami: Fig 1 – 100; controller);
the first slave node (Unagami: Fig 1 – 200 a-c; Devices A, B and C); and
the second slave node (Unagami: Fig 1 – 200 a-c; Devices A, B and C), wherein;
the master node is configured to authenticate the first slave node based on the first pair-wise authentication key computed at first slave node, and the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the master node (Unagami: Fig 12; Sec 154 -164; mutual authentication using the shared key),
the master node is configured to authenticate the second slave node based on the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node, and the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the master node (Unagami: Fig 12; Sec 154 -164; mutual authentication using the shared key),
the master node is configure to generate a group authentication key common to the plurality of nodes (Unagami: Page 1, Sec 7, Page 3, Sec 57 and Page 4, Sec 73; group key generated),
the master node is configured to generate a first encrypted group authentication key by encrypting the group authentication key with the first pair-wise authentication key and to generate a second encrypted group authentication key by encrypting the group authentication key with the second pair-wise authentication key (Unagami: Page 1, Sec 7, Page 4, Sec 77-79 and Page 14, Sec 267; controller shares encrypted group key with devices), and
the master node is configured to communicate the first encrypted group authentication key to the first slave node and to communicate the second encrypted group authentication key to the second slave node (Unagami: Page 1, Page 14, Sec 268; encrypted group key distributed).
Unagami does not expressly disclose the master node and the first slave node are both configured to compute a first pair-wise authentication key,
the master node and the second slave node are both configured to compute a second pair-wise authentication key.
Chauncey discloses the master node and the first slave node are both configured to compute a first pair-wise authentication key (Chauncey: Fig 18; Page 7, Sec 89 – Page 9, Sec 104; the process by which a master node and a slave node compute pair-wise keys is disclosed by Figure 18 and the associated text. Additionally Figure 1 shows a master node in communication with a plurality of slave nodes).,
the master node and the second slave node are both configured to compute a second pair-wise authentication key (Chauncey: Fig 18; Page 7, Sec 89 – Page 9, Sec 104; the process by which a master node and a slave node compute pair-wise keys is disclosed by Figure 18 and the associated text. Additionally Figure 1 shows a master node in communication with a plurality of slave nodes).
Umagami and Chauncey are analogous art because they are from the common area of hierarchical systems.
It would have been obvious, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the pair-wise key computation of Chauncey in the system of Umagami. The rationale would have been to have a key unique to each master-slave pair to use for communications (Chauncey: Page 7, Sec 89).
As to claims 2 and 14 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further discloses wherein: the master node is configured to transmit an ephemeral public key to the first and second slave nodes, the first slave node is configured to compute the first pair-wise authentication key after receiving the ephemeral public key transmitted by the master node, and the second slave node is configured to compute the second pair-wise authentication key after receiving the ephemeral public key transmitted by the master node (Unagami: Fig 10; Page 8, Sec 139-147; public key sent to nodes as part of pairwise key generation) .
As to claims 3 and 15 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further discloses wherein: the first slave node is configured to compute, and transmit to the master node, a first digital signature, and a first message authentication code using the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the first slave node, the second slave node is configured to compute, and transmit to the master node, a second digital signature, and a second message authentication code using the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node, the master node is configured to verify the first digital signature is valid, compute the first pair-wise authentication key for the first slave node, and verify the first message authentication code is valid using the first pair-wise authentication key for the first slave node computed at the master node, and the master node is configured to verify the second digital signature is valid, compute the second pair-wise authentication key for the second slave node, and verify the second message authentication code is valid using the second pair-wise authentication key for the second slave node computed at the master node (Unagami: Fig 16; Page 11, Sec 193-202 and Page 15, Sec 287; MAC and digital signature authentication).
As to claims 4 and 16 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further discloses wherein: the first slave node computes the first message authentication code on a long term public key corresponding to the first slave node and the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the first slave node, and the second slave node computes the second message authentication code on a long term public key corresponding to the second slave node and the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node (Unagami: Fig 16; Page 11, Sec 193-202 and Page 15, Sec 287).
As to claims 5 and 17 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further discloses wherein:
the first slave node is configured to decrypt the first encrypted group authentication key to obtain the group authentication key, and the second slave node is configured to decrypt the second encrypted group authentication key to obtain the group authentication key (Unagami: Page 14, Sec 271; shared key used to decrypt group key).
As to claim 11 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further discloses wherein identities of the master node and the first and second slave nodes are known by each other (Unagami: Fig 12; Sec 154 -164).
As to claim 12 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further discloses wherein identities of the master node and the first and second slave nodes are unknown by each other (Unagami: Fig 12; Sec 154 -164).
As to claim 20 the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference further disclose further comprising the master node and the first and second slave nodes learning identities of each other (Unagami: Fig 10; Page 8, Sec 139-147).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149908 by Unagami et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0031036 by Chauncey et al. further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0103730 by Ward et al.
As to claim 6, the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
The modified reference does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second slaves use the group authentication key for distance bounding.
Ward discloses wherein the first and second slaves use the group authentication key for distance bounding (Ward: Page 4, Sec 29 and Page 6, Sec 49; distance bounding using a shared key)
The modified reference and Ward are analogous art because they are from the common area of shared keys.
It would have been obvious, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the distance bounding of Ward in the system of the modified reference. The rationale would have been to prevent man in the middle attacks ((Ward: Page 4, Sec 29 and Page 6, Sec 49)
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149908 by Unagami et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0031036 by Chauncey et al. further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,003,593 to Mihm Jr. et al.
As to claim 7 and 18, the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference discloses all recited elements of claim 1 and 13 from which claims 7 and 18 depend.
The modified reference does not expressly disclose wherein the master node and the at least two slave nodes are synchronized with one another.
Mihm Jr. discloses wherein the master node and the at least two slave nodes are synchronized with one another (Mihm Jr.: Col 3, Lines 1-29).
The modified reference and Mihm Jr. are analogous art because they are from the common area of hierarchical systems.
It would have been obvious, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the synchronization of Mihm Jr., in the system of the modified reference. The rationale would have been to enable the establishment of secure connections (Mihm Jr.: Col 1, Lines 34-40).
As to claim 8, the modified Unagami/Chauncey/Mihm Jr. reference further discloses wherein the master node and the at least two slave nodes are clock-synchronized with one another (Mihm Jr.: Col 1, Lines 34-40).
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149908 by Unagami et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0031036 by Chauncey et al. further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0160459 by Cavalcante et al.
As to claim 9, the modified Unagami/Chauncey reference discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 9 depends.
The modified reference does not expressly disclose wherein: the master node comprises a first transmit mode and a first receive mode, and the first and second slave nodes both comprise a second transmit mode, a second receive mode, and a sleep mode.
Cavalcante discloses wherein: the master node comprises a first transmit mode and a first receive mode, and the first and second slave nodes both comprise a second transmit mode, a second receive mode, and a sleep mode. (Cavalcante: Page 7, Sec 48; devices and modes).
The modified reference and Cavalcante are analogous art because they are from the common area of hierarchical systems.
It would have been obvious, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the modes Cavalcante in the system of the modified reference. The rationale would have been to control data transmissions (Cavalcante: Page 7, Sec 48).
As to claims 10 and 19, the modified Unagami/Chauncey/ Cavalcante reference further discloses wherein: for a first given time slot, the master node is configured to operate using the first transmit mode and the first and second slave nodes are each configured to operate using the second receive mode or the sleep mode, and/or for a second given time slot, the master node is configured to operate using the first receive mode and the first and second slave nodes are both configured to operate using one of the second transmit mode, the second receive mode, or the sleep mode Cavalcante: Page 7, Sec 48).
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, 5, 7-13 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12.199,955. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application broaden the scope of the claims of the ‘955 Patent and on that basis the claims of the ‘955 Patent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
As to claim 1, the ‘955 Patent discloses a system configured to perform secure key exchange between a plurality of nodes of a communication network, the plurality of nodes comprising at least a master node, a first slave node, and a second slave node, the system comprising (Claim 1: A system for performing secure key exchange between a plurality of nodes of a communication network, the system comprising):
the master node (Claim 1: a master node comprising a first transmit mode and a first receive mode);
the first slave node (Claim 1: and at least two slave nodes comprising a second transmit mode, a second receive mode, and a sleep mode); and
the second slave node (Claim 1: and at least two slave nodes comprising a second transmit mode, a second receive mode, and a sleep mode), wherein:
the master node and the first slave node are both configured to compute a first pair-wise authentication key (Claim 1: wherein the master node and the slave nodes are configured to compute respective pair-wise authentication keys,),
the master node and the second slave node are both configured to compute a second pair-wise authentication key (Claim 1: wherein the master node and the slave nodes are configured to compute respective pair-wise authentication keys,),
the master node is configured to authenticate the first slave node based on the first pair-wise authentication key computed at first slave node, and the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the master node (Claim 1: and wherein the master node is configured to: authenticate the at least two slave nodes with the respective pair-wise authentication keys corresponding to each pair of master node and slave nodes),
the master node is configured to authenticate the second slave node based on the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node, and the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the master node (Claim 1: and wherein the master node is configured to: authenticate the at least two slave nodes with the respective pair-wise authentication keys corresponding to each pair of master node and slave nodes),
the master node is configure to generate a group authentication key common to the plurality of nodes (Claim 1: generate a group authentication key common to the plurality of nodes,),
the master node is configured to generate a first encrypted group authentication key by encrypting the group authentication key with the first pair-wise authentication key and to generate a second encrypted group authentication key by encrypting the group authentication key with the second pair-wise authentication key (Claim 1: encrypt the group authentication key with the pair-wise authentication key for each respective pair of master node and slave nodes, thereby generating a respective encrypted group authentication key), and
the master node is configured to communicate the first encrypted group authentication key to the first slave node and to communicate the second encrypted group authentication key to the second slave node (Claim 1: communicate the encrypted group authentication key to the respective slave nodes.).
As to claim 5, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein: the first slave node is configured to decrypt the first encrypted group authentication key to obtain the group authentication key, and the second slave node is configured to decrypt the second encrypted group authentication key to obtain the group authentication key (Claim 3: The system according to claim 2, wherein the at least two slave nodes are configured to receive the respective encrypted group authentication key from the master node sequentially or simultaneously, and wherein each of the at least two slave nodes is configured to decrypt the encrypted group authentication key with its respective pair-wise authentication key).
As to claim 7, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the master node, the first slave node and the second slave node are synchronized with one another (Claim 6: The system according to claim 1, wherein the master node and the at least two slave nodes are synchronized with one another.).
As to claim 8, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the master node, the first slave node, and the second slave node are clock-synchronized with one another (Claim 7: The system according to claim 1, wherein the master node and the at least two slave nodes are clock-synchronized with one another.).
As to claim 9, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein: the master node comprises a first transmit mode and a first receive mode, and the first and second slave nodes both comprise a second transmit mode, a second receive mode, and a sleep mode (Claim 1: a master node comprising a first transmit mode and a first receive mode, and at least two slave nodes comprising a second transmit mode, a second receive mode, and a sleep mode,).
As to claim 10, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein: for a first given time slot, the master node is configured to operate using the first transmit mode and the first and second slave nodes are each configured to operate using the second receive mode or the sleep mode, and/or for a second given time slot, the master node is configured to operate using the first receive mode and the first and second slave nodes are both configured to operate using one of the second transmit mode, the second receive mode, or the sleep mode (Claim 8: The system according to claim 1, wherein: for a first given time slot, the master node is configured to operate on the first transmit mode and the at least two slave nodes are each configured to operate on the second receive mode or on the sleep mode, and/or for a second given time slot, the master node is configured to operate on the first receive mode and the at least two slave nodes are each configured to operate on the second transmit mode or on the second receive mode or on the sleep mode.).
As to claim 11, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein identities of the master node and the first and second slave nodes are known by each other (Claim 9: The system according to claim 1, wherein an identity of the master node and of the at least two slave nodes are known to each other, or wherein the identity of the master node and of the at least two slave nodes are unknown to each other.).
As to claim 12, the ‘955 Patent discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein identities of the master node and the first and second slave nodes are unknown by each other (Claim 9: The system according to claim 1, wherein an identity of the master node and of the at least two slave nodes are known to each other, or wherein the identity of the master node and of the at least two slave nodes are unknown to each other.).
Claims 13, 18 and 19 recite a method commensurate in scope to the systems of claims 1, 7 and 10 and are rejected under a substantially similar rationale.
Claims 2-4, 14-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,955 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0149908 by Unagami et al.
As to claims 2 and 14, the ‘955 Patent discloses all recited elements of claims 1 and 13 from which claims 2 and 14 depend.
The ‘955 Patent does not expressly disclose wherein: the master node is configured to transmit an ephemeral public key to the first and second slave nodes, the first slave node is configured to compute the first pair-wise authentication key after receiving the ephemeral public key transmitted by the master node, and the second slave node is configured to compute the second pair-wise authentication key after receiving the ephemeral public key transmitted by the master node.
Unagami discloses wherein: the master node is configured to transmit an ephemeral public key to the first and second slave nodes, the first slave node is configured to compute the first pair-wise authentication key after receiving the ephemeral public key transmitted by the master node, and the second slave node is configured to compute the second pair-wise authentication key after receiving the ephemeral public key transmitted by the master node (Unagami: Fig 10; Page 8, Sec 139-147; public key sent to nodes as part of pairwise key generation).
The ‘955 Patent and Unagami are analogous art because they are from the common area of key exchange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the public key of Unagami in the system of the ‘955 Patent. The rationale would have been to leverage PKI ( Unagami: Fig 10; Page 8, Sec 139-147).
As to claims 3 and 15, the ‘955 Patent discloses wherein: the first slave node is configured to compute, and transmit to the master node, a first digital signature, and a first message authentication code using the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the first slave node, the second slave node is configured to compute, and transmit to the master node, a second digital signature, and a second message authentication code using the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node, the master node is configured to verify the first digital signature is valid, compute the first pair-wise authentication key for the first slave node, and verify the first message authentication code is valid using the first pair-wise authentication key for the first slave node computed at the master node, and the master node is configured to verify the second digital signature is valid, compute the second pair-wise authentication key for the second slave node, and verify the second message authentication code is valid using the second pair-wise authentication key for the second slave node computed at the master node.
Unagami discloses wherein: the first slave node is configured to compute, and transmit to the master node, a first digital signature, and a first message authentication code using the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the first slave node, the second slave node is configured to compute, and transmit to the master node, a second digital signature, and a second message authentication code using the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node, the master node is configured to verify the first digital signature is valid, compute the first pair-wise authentication key for the first slave node, and verify the first message authentication code is valid using the first pair-wise authentication key for the first slave node computed at the master node, and the master node is configured to verify the second digital signature is valid, compute the second pair-wise authentication key for the second slave node, and verify the second message authentication code is valid using the second pair-wise authentication key for the second slave node computed at the master node (Unagami: Fig 16; Page 11, Sec 193-202 and Page 15, Sec 287; MAC and digital signature authentication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the MAC/signature of Unagami in the system of the ‘955 Patent. The rationale would have been to utilize sell known authentication protocols (Unagami: Fig 16; Page 11, Sec 193-202 and Page 15, Sec 287).
As to claims 4 and 16, the ‘955 Patent as modified by Unagami further discloses wherein: the first slave node computes the first message authentication code on a long term public key corresponding to the first slave node and the first pair-wise authentication key computed at the first slave node, and the second slave node computes the second message authentication code on a long term public key corresponding to the second slave node and the second pair-wise authentication key computed at the second slave node (Unagami: Fig 16; Page 11, Sec 193-202 and Page 15, Sec 287; MAC and digital signature authentication).
As to claim 17, the ‘955 Patent as modified by Unagami further discloses further comprising: decrypting, at the first slave node, the first encrypted group authentication key to obtain the group authentication key, and decrypting, at the second slave node, the second encrypted group authentication key to obtain the group authentication key (Claim 3: The system according to claim 2, wherein the at least two slave nodes are configured to receive the respective encrypted group authentication key from the master node sequentially or simultaneously, and wherein each of the at least two slave nodes is configured to decrypt the encrypted group authentication key with its respective pair-wise authentication key).
As to claim 20, the ‘955 Patent as modified by Unagami further discloses further comprising the master node and the first and second slave nodes learning identities of each other (Unagami: Fig 10; Page 8, Sec 139-147).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,955 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0103730 by Ward et al.
As to claim 6, the ‘955 Patent discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
The ‘955 Patent does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second slaves use the group authentication key for distance bounding.
Ward discloses wherein the first and second slaves use the group authentication key for distance bounding (Ward: Page 4, Sec 29 and Page 6, Sec 49; distance bounding using a shared key)
The ‘955 Patent and Ward are analogous art because they are from the common area of shared keys.
It would have been obvious, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the distance bounding of Ward in the system of the ‘955 Patent. The rationale would have been to prevent man in the middle attacks (Ward: Page 4, Sec 29 and Page 6, Sec 49)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469)295-9235. 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.
MICHAEL S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432