DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a wearable housing configured to be worn on a head of an individual; at least one light source incorporated with the wearable housing and configured to project light towards a facial region of the head; at least one detector incorporated with the wearable housing and configured to receive light reflections from the facial region and to output associated reflection signals; a wireless transmitter configured to communicate with a computing device to which access is restricted; and at least one processor configured to:…” in claims 561, 584, and 585; “processor is further configured to…” in claims 565, 570, 574, 575, 576, 577, 579, 580, 581, 582. Claim
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 561-563, 566-568, 574-579, and 582-585 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0065569) in view of NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0034608 hereinafter Nduka2) further in view of Agrafioti et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0267732).
Regarding claims 561, 584, and 585, Nduka teaches authenticating the user based on user’s skin, and coupling user device with remote device. [Para. 105and 107]; a head mountable system for initiating a pairing (coupling) with a computing device (remote device) based on facial skin micromovements [Para. 105, Para. 2, “system for detecting facial biosignals for biometric authentication. In particular, some embodiments relate to systems for detecting facial muscle activity and facial skin characteristics”; Para. 176 “The authentication signal can provide the user access to functionality at the headwear and/or at a remote computing device”];
a wearable housing configured to be worn on a head (headwear) of an individual [Para. 10, 84, abstract, fig. 1, 2 and related description];
at least one light source incorporated with the wearable housing and configured to project light towards a facial region of the head [Para. 188 “the headwear 100, 200 may include at least one optical sensor as well as or instead of other types of sensor”; Para. 192 “The optical sensor includes a light source 1020, a light sensor 1022, and a processor 1024 for processing the output of the light sensor so as to determine a time-varying signal representative of dynamic information such as the relative movement between the sensor 1000 and the skin 1004. The light source 1020 is arranged to illuminate the patch of skin 1004 whose dynamic behaviour is to be detected”]; at least one detector (light sensor) incorporated with the wearable housing (headwear) and configured to receive light reflections from the facial region and to output associated reflection signals (time-varying signal) [Para. 188 “the headwear 100, 200 may include at least one optical sensor as well as or instead of other types of sensor”; Para. 192 “The optical sensor includes a light source 1020, a light sensor 1022, and a processor 1024 for processing the output of the light sensor so as to determine a time-varying signal representative of dynamic information such as the relative movement between the sensor 1000 and the skin 1004” and “a suitable lens 1002 may be provided in the reflected light path so as to, for a given distance 1005 from the sensor to the skin, focus the reflected light onto the light sensor 1022”];
a wireless transmitter (wireless connection module) configured to communicate with a computing device (remote computing device) to which access is restricted [Para. 107 “The wireless connection module 406 can, for example, include a Bluetooth module such as a module configured to communicate using the Bluetooth LE protocol” and “Preferably or advantageously, the headwear 100, 200
includes a Bluetooth module and the remote device 400 includes a Bluetooth module, permitting the headwear and the remote device to communicate with one another wirelessly using the Bluetooth protocol”; and Para. 177 “The non-authentication signal (or a lack of an authentication signal) can restrict user access to functionality at the headwear and/or at a remote computing device”]; and
at least one processor configured to: analyze the received light reflections for use in authenticating the individual based on reference facial skin [Para. 23, 27, 188, and 192].
However, Nduka doesn’t explicitly teach that the authentication is based on reference facial skin micromovements.
Nduka2 teaches the authentication is based on reference (stored magnitude and direction of movement) particular facial skin micromovements (movement of the respective area of skin) [Para. 8 “wearable apparatus including a plurality of optical flow sensors each located so as to, in use when the apparatus is worn, image an area of skin associated with one or more facial muscles, each optical flow sensor being configured to capture time-varying data describing movement of the respective area of skin substantially in the plane of the imaged area of skin”; Para. 16 “The processor may be configured to identify a facial expression when the magnitude and direction of movement detected at each of one or more of the optical flow sensors matches within predefined bounds a respective stored magnitude and direction of movement for each of those optical flow sensors for that facial expression”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka’s optical sensor authentication processing by incorporating Nduka2’s teaching of particular facial skin micromovement compared with preference facial skin micromovements (stored magnitude and direction of movement) so that Nduka stored biometric comparison uses localized optical skin movement vectors. This modification improves Nduka by suing localized facial muscle skin movement vectors. This medication improves Nduka by using localized facial muscle skin movement features as discriminating biometric features, thereby improving user authentication accuracy.
Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches initiating a secured pairing (Bluetooth) with a computing device based on authentication [Para. 132 “the particular steps employed for pairing the biometric device with the AAD may vary depending on the underlying technology employed by the biometric device and the AAD for sensing and communicating. For example, well-known methods for Bluetooth pairing may be employed”; Para. 133 “In at least one of the various embodiments, the AAD may be, for example, a smartphone, tablet, desktop computer, laptop computer, a terminal or network connected personal device”; and Para. 139 “additional authentication factors may be employed during enrollment for high security applications”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Nduka teaches transmit authentication information (signal) associated with the particular facial skin to the computing device [para. 57 “The term “authentication signal” as used herein refers to the signal sent by the biometric device to an access point which may be a physical access, an augmented reality access or access to a computer-based environment. The authentication signal may be a binary encoded sequence transmitted by wireless transmitter, such as a wireless protocol, or wired component, such as a cable or electrical wire”; Para. 176 “The authentication signal can provide the user access to functionality at the headwear and/or at a remote computing device”].
Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach transmit authentication information associated with the particular facial skin micromovements to another device to enable authenticated access to the computing device.
Agrafioti teaches transmit authentication information associated with the particular facial skin (micromovements) to another device to enable authenticated access to the computing device [Para. 160 “If the answer is affirmative for both authorization and range to access point, the wearable biometric device may be arranged to transmit a control signal to the access point that affirmatively confirms that the biometric device is preauthorized” and “authorization for access to an access point may be enabled by the wearable device at multiple access points subsequent to a single authorization by the AAD”; and, Para. 164 “if a wearable biometric device has been preauthorized, other paired devices such as smartphones, computer terminals, tablets, laptops, environmental control systems which do not have the capability to authorize the wearable biometric device, but which would be otherwise locked, may be accessed via a control signal transmitted by the preauthorized wearable biometric device”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access paired computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 562, Nduke teaches wherein another device is the computing device (remote device) [fig. 4b, 8 and related description].
Regarding claim 563, Nduke in view of Nduke2 further in view Agrafioti teach all claim limitations as stated above. Furthermore, Agrafioti teaches wherein another device is a server (cloud server) associated with the computing device [Para. 102 and 103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access paired computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 566, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti teach all claim limitations as stated above.
Furthermore, Agrafioti teaches wherein enabling the authenticated access to the computing device includes unlocking the computing device (Smartphone) [Para. 106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access paired computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 567, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti teach all claim limitations as stated above.
Furthermore, Agrafioti teaches wherein unlocking the computing device involves using a biosignature (biometric profile) in conjunction with an associated password or passphrase [Para. 136].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access paired computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 568, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti teach all claim limitations as stated above.
Furthermore, Agrafioti teaches wherein enabling the authenticated access to the computing device includes communicating personal information over a wireless communication channel [Para. 137, and 94].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access paired computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 574, Nduka doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, NKUKA2 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare (matches) the particular facial skin micromovements (movement) with the reference facial skin micromovements (stored magnitude and direction of movement) to authenticate the individual [Para. 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka’s optical sensor authentication processing by incorporating Nduka2’s teaching of particular facial skin micromovement compared with preference facial skin micromovements (stored magnitude and direction of movement) so that Nduka stored biometric comparison uses localized optical skin movement vectors. This modification improves Nduka by suing localized facial muscle skin movement vectors. This medication improves Nduka by using localized facial muscle skin movement features as discriminating biometric features, thereby improving user authentication accuracy.
Regarding claim 575, Nduka doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, NKUKA2 (Pub. No. US 2020/0034608) teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to use a trained machine learning model to analyze the particular facial skin micromovements relative to the reference facial skin micromovements to authenticate the individual [Para. 155].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka’s optical sensor authentication processing by incorporating Nduka2’s teaching of particular facial skin micromovement compared with preference facial skin micromovements (stored magnitude and direction of movement) so that Nduka stored biometric comparison uses localized optical skin movement vectors. This modification improves Nduka by suing localized facial muscle skin movement vectors. This medication improves Nduka by using localized facial muscle skin movement features as discriminating biometric features, thereby improving user authentication accuracy.
Regarding claim 576, Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the computing device is located in proximity to the head mountable system [Para. 96].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 577, Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches wherein upon authenticating the individual and determining that the computing device is located in proximity to the head mountable system the at least one processor is configured to automatically establish a communication channel (control signals may be exchanged) between the computing device and the head mountable system [Para. 106 and 195].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 578, Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches a pairing interface (Bluetooth) for establishing a wireless communication channel (wireless connectivity module) with the computing device to which access is restricted, wherein the wireless communication channel enables data transfer (transmitting and receiving function) between the head mountable system and the computing device [Para. 132 and 94].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 579 Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches wherein the pairing interface is configured to search and detect (sense) compatible and nearby computing devices (access points) with which a connection is establishable [Para. 195].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 582, Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches wherein when the individual is not authenticated, the at least one processor is configured to generate a notification indicating that access to the computing device is denied (access to the encountered access point may be denied) [Para. 198 and 187].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Regarding claim 583, Regarding claim 582, Nduka in view of Nduka2 doesn’t explicitly teach initiating a secured pairing with a computing device based on authentication.
However, Agrafioti teaches wherein the computing device includes at least one of a laptop, a PC, a tablet, a smartphone, a wearable device, an electronic door lock, an entry gate, a vehicle, a communications device, an earphone, a smart home device, or an loT (Internet of Things) device [Para. 164].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2’s authentication signal transmission by incorporating Agrafioti’s access control implementation so that Nduka’s authenticated facial signal result is used to unlock or access pared computing devices. This medication improves Nduka by making the generated authentication signal usable for restricted paired device access, thereby extending biometric authentication from user verification to controlled device access.
Claims 564 and 570-572 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0065569) in view of NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0034608 hereinafter Nduka2) further in view of Agrafioti et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0267732) and further in view of Mutlu et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0370879)..
Regarding claim 564, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Mutlu teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the individual based on a voice print (voice patterns) [Para. 68].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Mutlu’s stored voice patterns to identify the wearer using voice derived biometric information. This modification improves Nduka by adding a second user specific biometric modality, thereby increasing authentication reliability.
Regarding claim 570, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Mutlu teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the reference facial skin micromovements (skin deformation information) by correlating audio signals (output signal) with specific facial skin micromovements associated with vocalized words (voiced command) [Para. 13, and 71].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Mutlu’s stored voice patterns to identify the wearer using voice derived biometric information. This modification improves Nduka by adding a second user specific biometric modality, thereby increasing authentication reliability.
Regarding claim 571, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Mutlu wherein the reference facial skin micromovements (skin deformation) correspond to muscle recruitment during pronunciation of a predefined expression (passcode) in an absence of a subsequent vocalization (inaudibly form words) [Para. 73].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Mutlu’s stored voice patterns to identify the wearer using voice derived biometric information. This modification improves Nduka by adding a second user specific biometric modality, thereby increasing authentication reliability.
Regarding claim 572, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Mutlu teaches wherein the reference facial skin micromovements correspond to muscle recruitment during pronunciation of one or more vocalized syllables (speech) [Para. 86].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Mutlu’s stored voice patterns to identify the wearer using voice derived biometric information. This modification improves Nduka by adding a second user specific biometric modality, thereby increasing authentication reliability.
Claims 565, 580 and 581 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0065569) in view of NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0034608 hereinafter Nduka2) further in view of Agrafioti et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0267732) and further in view of Du et al. (Pub. No. 20150242605).
Regarding claim 565, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Du teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive reference GPS signals for verifying the individual [Para. 67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Du’s reference FPS signals additional verification input, which reduces the likelihood of successful authentication form an unexpected location.
Regarding claim 580, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Du teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to continuously compare new facial skin micromovements with the reference facial skin micromovements to determine an instantaneous level of certainty [Para. 36 and 51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Du’s reference FPS signals additional verification input, which reduces the likelihood of successful authentication form an unexpected location.
Regarding claim 581, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Du teaches wherein, after authenticating access to the computing device and when the instantaneous certainty level (trust coefficient value) drops below a threshold, the at least one processor is configured to transmit a subsequent signal restricting access to the computing device [Para. 74 and 87].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Du’s reference FPS signals additional verification input, which reduces the likelihood of successful authentication form an unexpected location.
Claim 569 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0065569) in view of NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0034608 hereinafter Nduka2) further in view of Agrafioti et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0267732) and further in view of Kane et al. (Pub. No. US 20050010780).
Regarding claim 569, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Kane teaches wherein enabling the authenticated access to the computing device includes granting the individual an ability to read, write, modify, or use of information stored in the computing device [Para. 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Kane’s token-controlled access priviliges to permit the authenticated individual to read, write, or modify stored personal information. This modification improves Nduka by tying biometric authentication to granular information access permissions, thereby limiting access according to the authenticated user’s authorization level.
Claim 573 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0065569) in view of NDUKA et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0034608 hereinafter Nduka2) further in view of Agrafioti et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0267732) and further in view of Manabe et al. (Pub. No. US 20050102134).
Regarding claim 573, Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Manabe teaches wherein the particular facial skin micromovements correspond to prevocalization muscle recruitment (EMG) that occur between 0.1 seconds to 0.5 seconds prior to vocalization (voice signal) [Para. 136 and 137].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nduka in view of Nduka2 further in view of Agrafioti by incorporating Manabe’s teaching that EMG-based muscle activity is generated before voice generation, so that the detected particular facial skin micromovements are treated as prevocalization muscle recruitment occurring in the pre-vocal timing window. This medication improves Nduka by enabling authentication from earlier speech-preparatory facial muscle activity, thereby allowing the system to detect and process the biometric pattern before acoustic vocalization begins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights