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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025, 08/22/2025, 09/04/2025, 10/09/2025, 10/27/2025, 12/11/2025 and 03/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-6, 8-16, 19-20, 23-24 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407 because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407 because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407 teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407 because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12556407 teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagener; Tom et al. US 20210146694 (hereinafter Wagener) in view of Angus; lan G. US 20160294829 (herein after Angus) in view of Rahn; Ethan Barnett et al. US 11743047 (hereinafter Rahn).
As per claim 1, Wagener teaches: A logic circuitry package comprising an interface to communicate with a controller, and a logic circuit comprising:
a memory arrangement storing: indicated data over which a manufacturing digital signature is computed ("the rewriteable memory storage 222, before remote programming, includes a unique tag identifier 224, one or more fields or data 226 containing printer supply information, and a first digital signature 227. In some embodiments, this first digital signature 227 can be factory digital signature, provided by the manufacture at the manufacturing location, that secures the printer supply information at 226 to the unique tag identifier 224." Wagener: para. 38);
Wagener does not teach; however, Angus discloses: a certificate for the controller to verify the manufacturing digital signature ;
("The computer readable storage media 608, in some embodiments, stores additional identification data, such as a unique identifier for the sensor device 602 (e.g., a MAC address, an IP address, a globally unique identifier, or the like), the public key that corresponds to the private key stored in the secure key storage 606, or the like. Moreover, the computer readable storage media 608 may also store one or more digital certificates and/or digital signatures, such as the digital certificates/signatures for a manufacturer 101 or a supplier 103. Further, in various embodiments, the computer readable storage media 608 stores one or more predetermined, trusted digital certificates that correspond to authorized entities within the supply chain. For example, the manufacturer 101 of the sensor device 602 may store digital certificates for different suppliers 103 that the sensor device 602 is authorized to communicate." Angus: Para: 95);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wagener with the teachings of
Angus to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of
the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to manage
authentication process.
The combination of Wagener and Angus does not explicitly teach; however, Rahn discloses: manufacturing attribute data, the manufacturing attribute data comprising:
at least one indication indicating the indicated data; and
the manufacturing digital signature ("Key identifier 250- 1 may specify a public key which may be used to authenticate a token signature. Key identifier 250-1 [attribute data] may specify key identification 112. For example, the token signature may be generated with private key 114 (corresponding to key identification 112) and the token verified with public key 116 (also corresponding to key identification 112)." Rahn: col. 3, lines 20-26);.
wherein the logic circuit is configured to: transmit, to the controller, the manufacturing attribute data in response to at least one first request from the controller transmit, to the controller, the certificate and the indicated data in response to at least one second request from the controller (in process of cryptographic identifying and enrolling a device key, the device transmits key identification, token, signature. Rahn; fig. 5)
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener and
Angus with the teaching of Rahn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques
were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to
secure system communication and data.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wagner and Agus does not teach; however, Rahn discloses: the manufacturing attribute data comprises a key identifier corresponding to the certificate for the controller to verify the manufacturing digital signature ("Key identifier 250-1 may specify a public key which may be used to authenticate a token signature. Key identifier 250-1 may specify key identification 112. For example, the token signature may be generated with private key 114 (corresponding to key identification 112) and the token verified with public key 116 (also corresponding to key identification 112)." Rahn: col. 3, lines 20-27).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus with the teaching of Rahn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques
were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to
enhance management of key information.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wagener and Angus des not teach; however, Rahn discloses: the manufacturing attribute data comprises a key identifier and the key identifier identifies a private key used to compute the manufacturing digital signature (Rahn: com. 6, lines 12-22), and wherein the certificate comprises a public key corresponding to the private key (Rahn: com. 6, lines 12-22).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus with the teaching of Rahn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques
were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied for cryptographic verification of data.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wagener, Angus des not teach; however, Rahn discloses: the certificate is signed with a certificate authority private key to be verified by the controller with a certificate authority public key (“The credentials may include a client certificate, such as a public key certificate. A public key certificate is an electronic document used to prove the ownership of a public (encryption) key. The certificate includes information about the key, information about the identity of its owner (called the subject), and the digital signature of an entity that has verified the certificate's contents (called the issuer)” Rahn: col. 6, lines 53-60).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus with the teaching of Rahn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques
were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied for cryptographic verification of data.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Wagener teaches: the memory arrangement further stores a private key used to compute the manufacturing digital signature (“The private key is then used to create a digital signature of the hashed data. It will be appreciated that in some embodiments the digital signature can be created without having a hash performed on the data stored or to be stored in the supply tag. In these embodiments, the private key can be used to create a digital signature of the data stored or to be stored in the supply tag.” Wagener: para. 43).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wagener in view of Angus in view of Rahn and further in view McCABE; Timothy
J. et al. US 20160306757 (hereinafter McCabe).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wagener, Angus and Rahn does not teach; however, McCabe discloses: the at least one indication comprises:
a plurality of data block addresses of the indicated data stored in the memory arrangement (McCabe: para. 35); and
a plurality of data block length fields indicating the length of each corresponding data block (McCabe: para. 35).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus and Rahn with the teaching of McCabe to meet the preceding limitations. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since
such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been
applied in order to manage signature authentication.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagener in view of Angus in view of Rahn and further in view of Dropps; Frank US 9767318 (hereinafter Dropps).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein The combination of Wagener, Angus and Rahn does not teach; however, Dropps discloses: the at least one first request and the at least one second request have differently encoded command type fields and/or include different opcodes, indicating different command types (Dropps: col. 22, line 50 through col. 23, line 4).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus and Rahn with the teaching of Dropps to meet the preceding limitations. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since
such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been
applied in order to manage different communications.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein The combination of Wagener and Angus does not teach; however, Rahn discloses: the at least one first request is configured to query attribute memory and the at least one second request is configured to read general use memory (Rahn: col. 5, lines 3-12).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus with the teaching of Rahn to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques
were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to
manage system resources.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagener in view of Angus in view of Rahn and further in view of Ho; Alexander Channing et al. US 10256980 (hereinafter Ho).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wagener, Angus and Rahn does not teach; however, Ho discloses: the indicated data over which the manufacturing digital signature is computed comprises at least one other digital signature (HO. COL. 16, lines 57-60) .
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus and Rahn with the teaching of HO to meet the preceding limitations. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since
such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been
applied in order to further secure a digital signature.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagener in view of Angus in view of Rahn and further in view of Reed; Russel et al. US 9614683 (hereinafter Reed).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. The combination of Wagener, Angus and Rahn does not teach; however, Reed discloses: the memory arrangement stores a plurality of key identifiers and associated signing keys (Reed: col. 10, lines 1-18).
Therefore, 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 combination of Wagener,
Angus and Rahn with the teaching of Reed to meet the preceding limitations. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since
such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been
applied in order to manage verification of plurality of signatures.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIJIRI TOMOAKI et al. JP 2009037417 (hereinafter MORIJIRI) in view of JOHN RHIDIAN et al. EP 4254860 (hereinafter RHIDIAN).
As per claim 13, MORIJIRI teaches: A logic circuitry package comprising an interface to communicate with a host, and a logic circuit comprising: a memory arrangement storing:
a signing key for computing a manufacturing digital signature (“the first manufacturer storage unit 1a is a storage device that can be read / written from the first device manufacturer 2a, and the first device signature key ID and the first device signature key associated with each other, and the first device signature verification. Information (first device signature key ID, first device public key (signature verification information), first device manufacturer signature key ID, first device manufacturer signature), and first device manufacturer signature key ID, first device associated with each other A manufacturer signature key and first device manufacturer signature verification information (first device manufacturer public key) are stored” MORIJIRI: page. 13, para. 2); and
a key identifier to identify the signing key for computing the manufacturing digital signature and for the host to use the correct key for verifying associated signed data (MORIJIRI: page. 13, para. 2);
MORIJIRI does not explicitly teach; however, RHIDIAN discloses: wherein the logic circuit is configured to: transmit, to the host, the key identifier in response to a request from the host (“The method further comprises transmitting the public key and the key identifier to the client device. The client device encrypts a message using the public key and transmits the message and the key identifier to the verification server.” RHIDIAN: para. 8, lines 28- 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine RHIDIAN with the teachings of
MORIJIRI to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to use key identifier in order to further secure key information.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated herein. MORIJIRI teaches: the logic circuit is configured to: compute the manufacturing digital signature (MORIJIRI : page 13); and
store the manufacturing digital signature in the memory arrangement (MORIJIRI : page 13,para. 2).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. MORIJIRI teaches: the memory arrangement stores attribute data for computing the manufacturing digital signature and to facilitate verification of associated signed data, the attribute data comprising the key identifier (MORIJIRI : page 13, para. 2 through page 14, para. 1);
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. MORIJIRI teaches: wherein the attribute data further comprises at least one indication indicating indicated data over which the manufacturing digital signature is computed; and wherein the logic circuit is configured to: transmit, to the host, the at least one indication in response to a request from the host(MORIJIRI : page 13, para. 2 through page 14, para. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIJIRI in view of RHIDIAN and further in view of SUDIA, FRANK WELLS US 20010050990 (hereinafter SUDIA).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein. The combination of MORIJIRI and RHIDAN does not teach; however, SUDIA discloses:
the indicated data over which the manufacturing digital signature is computed comprises:
a part-specific digital signature signed over data comprising at least one of: a device type identifier corresponding to the logic circuitry package (“The trusted device does the upgrading or supplementing by accepting as input a body of data containing new or additional firmware code that is suitable for that type of device and is digitally signed with the manufacturer's signature, which signature assures the device that the new firmware code has been developed, tested and approved by the manufacturer and that the device should therefore either (a) overlay one or more currently embedded firmware routines with the new firmware code or (b) add the new firmware code as one or more new routines in a currently unused area of protected memory.” SUDIA: para. 248) ;
a logic circuit identifier for the host to differentiate the logic circuitry package from other logic circuitry packages;
a partition map to define partitions of a general use memory portion of the memory arrangement; and
specified data stored in the general use memory portion of the memory arrangement.
Therefore, 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 combination of MORIJIRI and RHIDIAN with the teaching of SUDIA to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have verifiable record of the various information a of a manufactured item embedded in the item.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIJIRI in view of RHIDIAN and further in view of JACQUIN, L E P N et al. CN 112560004 (hereinafter JACQUIN).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated herein. The combination of MORIJIRI and RHIDAN does not teach; however, JACQUIN discloses: the indicated data over which the manufacturing digital signature is computed comprises:
a part number digital signature signed over common manufacturing data comprising at least one of:
a color; a fill level; and a region (“In some examples, the client information may be included in the digital certificate of the manufacturer signature. In some examples, the manufacturer's signature of the digital certificate may also be based on device identification information of the related device, such as, type, serial number, external color, hash of firmware, manufacturing date and so on. The digital certificate signed by the manufacturer can be used as the device identification of the device or platform.” JACQUIN: page 7, para. 3).
Therefore, 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 combination of MORIJIRI and RHIDIAN with the teaching of SUDIA to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have verifiable record of the various information a of a manufactured item embedded in the item.
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIJIRI in view of JACQUIN.
As per claim 23, MORIJIRI teaches: A method for provisioning a logic circuitry package comprising a memory arrangement, the method comprising:
receiving, by a logic circuit of the logic circuitry package, a command to generate a manufacturing digital signature (“Upon receiving the authentication context generation request and the template BT, the authentication context generation unit 15 receives the first device evaluation certificate Cert1 and the template certificate CertBT in the certificate information storage unit 12, and the first device signature in the key storage unit 11. A digital signature generation process based on the first device signature key K1 in the key storage unit 11 is executed for the key ID to generate a first entity device signature.” MORIJIRI : page 34, para. 3);
reading, by the logic circuit in response to the command, a signing key identifier and at least one [indication of indicated data] stored in a memory arrangement of the logic circuitry package (“A digital signature generation process based on the first device signature key K1 in the key storage unit 11 is executed for the key ID to generate a first entity device signature.” MORIJIRI : page 34, para. 3);
reading, by the logic circuit, a signing key corresponding to the signing key identifier (MORIJIRI : page 34, para. 3);
writing, by the logic circuit, the manufacturing digital signature to the memory arrangement (“ the first manufacturer storage unit 1a is a storage device that can be read / written from the first device manufacturer 2a, and the first device signature key ID and the first device signature key associated with each other, and the first device signature verification. Information (first device signature key ID, first device public key (signature verification information), first device manufacturer signature key ID, first device manufacturer signature),.” MORIJIRI : page. 13, para. 2).
MORIJIRI does not teach; however, JACQUIN discloses: reading, by the logic circuit, the indicated data based on the at least one indication (“In some examples, the client information may be included in the digital certificate of the manufacturer signature. In some examples, the manufacturer's signature of the digital certificate may also be based on device identification information of the related device, such as, type, serial number, external color, hash of firmware, manufacturing date and so on. The digital certificate signed by the manufacturer can be used as the device identification of the device or platform.” JACQUIN: page 7, para. 3);
computing, by the logic circuit, a manufacturing digital signature based on the indicated data using the signing key (JACQUIN: page 7, para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORIJIRI with the teaching of JACQUIN to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have verifiable record of the various information a of a manufactured item embedded in the item.
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated herein. MORIJIRI does not teach; however, JACQUIN discloses: computing the manufacturing digital signature comprises computing the manufacturing digital signature over a hash of the at least one indication of indicated data and the indicated data (JACQUIN: page 7, para. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORIJIRI with the teaching of JACQUIN to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have verifiable record of the various information a of a manufactured item embedded in the item.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORIJIRI in view of JACQUIN and further in view of WHITCOMB DAVID et al. AU 2022211872 (hereinafter WHITCOMB).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated herein. The combination of MORIJIRI and JACQUIN does not teach; however, WHITCOMB discloses: the indicated data is stored in a general use memory portion of the memory arrangement configured for general purpose read/write access, and
wherein writing the manufacturing digital signature comprises writing the manufacturing digital signature to an attribute memory portion of the memory arrangement (WHITCOMB: page26, para.2 through page 27,apra. 1).
Therefore, 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 combination of MORIJIRI and JACQUIN with the teaching of WHITCOMB to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to have secure sensitive data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 and if the claims overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights