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 .
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 19/205,093 filed on May 12, 2025, title “Systems And Method For Authentication With Transaction Cards”.
Priority
This application was filed on 05/12/2025 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/128,582 filed on 03/30/2023 (Patented No. 12,299,672) and claims no priority of any other foreign applications. For the purpose of examination, the 03/30/2023 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were pending. By the 10/01/2025 Amendment, claims 1-20 have been cancelled, and new claims 21-40 have been added. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are pending in this application and have been examined.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent No. 12,299,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims are broader than the reference claims in the patent and anticipated by the reference claims. The examined claims recite substantially the same limitations as the reference claims in the patent with minor variations that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The application and the patent are directed to the same invention of a method for synchronizing a counter value associated with a contactless card, have the same inventors, and are commonly owned. Therefore, this rejection is deemed necessary.
Application 19/205,093
Patent No. 12,299,672
Claim 32, A method for synchronizing a counter value, comprising:
Claim 1, A method for synchronizing a counter value, comprising:
receiving, from a contactless card by a client application comprising instructions for execution on a client device comprising a processor and a memory storing a random number and a public key, a cryptogram, wherein the cryptogram includes a counter value;
receiving, by a contactless card having a processor and a memory, a random number, wherein the memory comprises a counter value, a public key, and a private key;
generating, by the contactless card, a cryptogram based on the random number, the private key, and the counter value, the cryptogram including an encrypted version of the counter value;
transmitting, by the contactless card to a client application of a client device, the cryptogram, including the encrypted version of the counter value, when the client application is not connected to an external network;
transmitting, by the contactless card to the client application of the client device, an issuer public key certificate, the issuer public key certificate including an issuer public key, a certificate authority private key, and static data;
verifying, by the client application of the client device, the issuer public key certificate with a certificate authority public key which was previously provisioned to the client device when the client device was connected to the external network;
verifying, by the client application of the client device, the static data;
decrypting, by the client application, the cryptogram using the public key and the random number;
determining, by the client application, the counter value based on the decrypted cryptogram;
decrypting, by the client application, the cryptogram using the public key and the random number that was generated by the client application, wherein decrypting the cryptogram includes decrypting the encrypted version of the counter value, thereby providing the counter value, as decrypted, to the client application;
storing, by the client application, the counter value in the memory; and
storing the counter value into memory on the client device; and
transmitting, by the client application to a server, the counter value.
calling, by the client application, an application programming interface to update the counter value within a first server to thereby synchronize the counter value between the contactless card, the client device, and the first server;
wherein, in response to the client device determining that the counter value of the client device later becomes unsynchronized with at least the first server, the method further includes the client application communicating with the first server to synchronize the counter value with the first server without waiting for a new interaction with the contactless card.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “The computer readable non-transitory medium of claim 39 ...”, they should be claim 38. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method for synchronizing a counter value associated with a contactless card, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the categories of certain methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and/or business relations). This judicial exception is also not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as analyzed below.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 21-31 recite a system for synchronizing a counter value associated with a contactless card comprising computer components, claims 32-37 recite a method for synchronizing a counter value associated with a contactless card, and claims 38-40 recite a computer program for synchronizing a counter value associated with a contactless card. Therefore, the claims recite a machine, process, and manufacture which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Analysis:
Claim 32, A method for synchronizing a counter value, comprising:
receiving, from a contactless card by a client application comprising instructions for execution on a client device comprising a processor and a memory storing a random number and a public key, a cryptogram, wherein the cryptogram includes a counter value;
decrypting, by the client application, the cryptogram using the public key and the random number;
determining, by the client application, the counter value based on the decrypted cryptogram;
storing, by the client application, the counter value in the memory; and
transmitting, by the client application to a server, the counter value.
The above limitations (underlined), as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and/or business relations) such as a method of synchronizing a counter value associated with contactless card by receiving a cryptogram from a contactless card by a client application comprising processor and memory storing random number and public key wherein the cryptogram includes a counter value, decrypting the cryptogram using the public key and random number, determining the counter value based on the decrypted cryptogram, storing and transmitting the counter value. That is, other than a contactless card having a processor and memory, a client device having a client application comprising random number and public key, a server having a memory, and an external network, nothing in the claim precludes the steps recited in claim 32 from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. The mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components do not take the claim out of the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)92)III.C.2.
If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 32 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites a computer system and claim 38 recites a computer program with the comparable elements and limitations as discussed in claim 32. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Analysis:
The claims (21, 32, and 38) recite the additional elements of the system comprising the contactless card having its processor and memory, the client device having its client application, the server with its memory, and the external network, all are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked to perform the generic steps. All the additional elements are the general computer elements as described in Applicant’s Specification in paragraphs [0028]-[0046], [0115]-[0127], and Figure 1 (see Publication No. 2025/0371522).
The judicial exception is also not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of the contactless card having its processor and memory, the client device having its client application, the server with its memory, and the external network. A plain reading of FIG. 1 and its associated Specification paragraphs [0028]-[0046] & [0115]-[0127] reveals that the above listed component(s) can be general-purpose, generic or commercially available computing elements or devices programmed to perform the claimed steps. See, e.g., Apps.’ Spec., para. [0123] (“These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions specified herein. These computer-readable program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or other devices to function in a manner, such that the computer readable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises an article of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects of the functions specified herein.”). Hence, the additional element(s) in the claims are all generic computing component(s) suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The contactless card having its processor and memory, the client device with its client application, the server with its memory and the external network are also recited at a high-level of generality, e.g., as generic technical architectures, processors, memories, devices, applications, servers and networks performing (or having program instructions stored thereon performing) generic computer functions such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2-No, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Analysis:
The independent claims (21, 32, and 38) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the receiving, decrypting, determining, storing, and transmitting functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-31, 33-37, and 39-40 depend on claims 21, 32, and 38 respectively, and therefore include all the limitations of claims 21, 32, and 38. Thus, the dependent claims also recite the same abstract idea as discussed in claims 21, 32, and 38 (a method of synchronizing a counter value associated with a contactless card).
Claims 22 and 23 recite additional elements “wherein the client application receives, from the contactless card, the cryptogram when the client application is not connected to an external network." and “wherein the client application transmits, to the server, the counter value to the when the client application is connected to the external network.” (Additional detailed instructions for the client application to receive the cryptogram when the client application is not connected to an external network and to transmit the counter value to when the client application is connected to the external network). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims further describe the client application in a method for synchronizing a counter value. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 24 recites additional elements “wherein: the counter value included in the cryptogram is an encrypted version of the counter value, and decrypting the cryptogram using the public key and the random number comprises decrypting the encrypted version of the counter value using the public key and the random number.” (Additional detailed instructions for the counter value which is encrypted and decrypted using the public key and random number). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim further describe the counter value in a method for synchronizing a counter value. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 25, 26, and 27 recite additional elements “wherein, prior to decrypting the cryptogram, the client application: receives, from the contactless card, an issuer public key certificate, the issuer public key certificate including the issuer public key, a certificate authority private key, and static data, and verifies the issuer public key certificate with a certificate authority public key.", “wherein the certificate authority public key was previously provisioned to the client device when the client device was connected to an external network.”, and “wherein: the issuer public key certificate further includes static data, and prior to decrypting the cryptogram, the client application verifies the static data.” (Additional detailed instructions for the client application to receive the issuer public key certificate, verify the issuer public key certificate, the certificate authority public key for verification is previously provisioned to the client device, and the data included in the issuer public key certificate). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims further describe the issuer public key certificate, verifying the issuer public key certificate, the certificate authority public key, and the data included in the issuer public key certificate in a method for synchronizing a counter value. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 28, 29, and 30 recite additional elements “wherein the client application generates the random number.", “wherein the client application transmits, to the contactless card, the random number before the cryptogram is generated.”, and “wherein: the memory further stores a unique identifier associated with the contactless card, and the cryptogram is generated based on the random number, the counter value, the unique identifier, and a private key.” (Additional detailed instructions for the client application to generate the random number, transmit the random number before the cryptogram is generated, and the contactless card is stored with a unique identifier and the cryptogram is generated based on the random number, the counter value, the unique identifier, private key, and the stored location of the contactless card). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims further describe the interactions between client application and contactless card in a method for synchronizing a counter value. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claim 31 recites additional elements “wherein the client application verifies, using the counter value, a transaction involving the contactless card.” (Additional detailed instructions for the client application to verify the transaction). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim further describe the client application in a method for synchronizing a counter value. This claim individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 33 and 34 recite additional elements “further comprising authenticating, by the client application, a signature of the public key with a signature authority list." and “wherein the signature authority list is stored in the memory of the client device.” (Additional detailed instructions for the client application to authenticate a signature of the public key with a signature authority list, and the stored location of the signature authority list). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims further describe the authentication process in a method for synchronizing a counter value. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
Claims 35, 36, and 37 recite additional elements “wherein authenticating of the signature of the public key is a dynamic data authentication process.”, “wherein the dynamic data authentication process is performed locally.", and “wherein: authenticating of the signature of the public key is a combined dynamic authentication process, and wherein the client application transmits an indication of a transaction amount associated with the cryptogram to the server.” (Additional detailed instructions for the authentication process which is a dynamic data authentication process, is performed locally, additional detailed instructions for the authentication process). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims further describe the authentication process in a method for synchronizing a counter value. These claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea).
The dependent claims do no more than providing additional instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claims. Every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found. The dependent claims further describe the business relations of the certain method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and do not include additional elements other than those of claims 21, 32, and 38 to provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
The focus of the claims is on a method for synchronizing a counter value associated with contactless card. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, a secure chip, a mobile device, a computer network, a form factor, or a system memory, nor do they provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independent abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborn et al. (US Publication No. 2022/0012974, dated January 13, 2022) (hereinafter “Osborn”).
As per claim 21, Osborn teaches a system for synchronizing a counter value, comprising:
a client application comprising instructions for execution on a client device comprising a processor and a memory storing a random number and a public key (see Osborn, para. 76; Figure 5A),
wherein the client application:
receives, from a contactless card, a cryptogram, wherein the cryptogram includes a counter value (see Osborn, paras. 77; Figure 5B),
decrypts the cryptogram using the public key and the random number (see Osborn, paras. 72-73; Figure 4A/4B),
determines the counter value based on the decrypted cryptogram (see Osborn, paras. 77; Figure 5B),
stores the counter value in the memory (see Osborn, paras. 77; Figure 5B), and
transmits, to a server, the counter value (see Osborn, paras. 77; Figure 5B).
As per claim 22, Osborn further teaches wherein the client application receives, from the contactless card, the cryptogram when the client application is not connected to an external network (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 23, Osborn further teaches wherein the client application transmits, to the server, the counter value to the when the client application is connected to the external network (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 24, Osborn further teaches wherein:
the counter value included in the cryptogram is an encrypted version of the counter value, and
decrypting the cryptogram using the public key and the random number comprises decrypting the encrypted version of the counter value using the public key and the random number (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 25, Osborn further teaches wherein, prior to decrypting the cryptogram, the client application:
receives, from the contactless card, an issuer public key certificate, the issuer public key certificate including the issuer public key, a certificate authority private key, and static data, and
verifies the issuer public key certificate with a certificate authority public key (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 26, Osborn further teaches wherein the certificate authority public key was previously provisioned to the client device when the client device was connected to an external network (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 27, Osborn further teaches wherein:
the issuer public key certificate further includes static data, and
prior to decrypting the cryptogram, the client application verifies the static data (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 28, Osborn further teaches wherein the client application generates the random number (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 29, Osborn further teaches wherein the client application transmits, to the contactless card, the random number before the cryptogram is generated (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 30, Osborn further teaches wherein:
the memory further stores a unique identifier associated with the contactless card, and
the cryptogram is generated based on the random number, the counter value, the unique identifier, and a private key (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 31, Osborn further teaches wherein the client application verifies, using the counter value, a transaction involving the contactless card (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 32, this claim written in method form corresponds to claim 21 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 21.
As per claim 33, Osborn further teaches further comprising authenticating, by the client application, a signature of the public key with a signature authority list (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 34, Osborn further teaches wherein the signature authority list is stored in the memory of the client device (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 35, Osborn further teaches wherein authenticating of the signature of the public key is a dynamic data authentication process (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 36, Osborn further teaches wherein the dynamic data authentication process is performed locally (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 37, Osborn further teaches wherein:
authenticating of the signature of the public key is a combined dynamic authentication process, and
wherein the client application transmits an indication of a transaction amount associated with the cryptogram to the server (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 38, this claim written in computer program form corresponds to claim 21 and has the same elements and limitations. Hence, it is rejected under the rationale provided in claim 21.
As per claim 39, Osborn further teaches the procedures further comprising transmitting, to the server, an offline zero dollar authorization request based on the cryptogram (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
As per claim 40, Osborn further teaches the procedures further comprising verifying, using the counter value, a transaction involving the contactless card (see Osborn, paras. 72-78; Figures 4A/4B-5A/5B).
Conclusion
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights