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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the original filing of 06/12/2025 and preliminary amendments for 10/07/2025. Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14-15 18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
19236490 filed 06/12/2025 is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/138522, filed 12/13/2022.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/12/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/12/2025 is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7-12, recite the limitations of “in response to that” which is grammatically not correct. The examiner suggests mending the claims to recite “in reponse to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3: the claim recites the following limitations
“the first execution flow information indicates process information for invoking the first service”; and
” the first execution flow information indicates process information for invoking the first service” and then requires
“in response to that the first execution flow information is the same as the second execution flow information, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command succeeds”.
If the first execution flow information describes invoking the first service and the second describes invoking a second service, the two cannot be “the same” unless the first and second services are the same service, which the claim does not state and the “second service” label affirmatively contradicts. The metes and bounds of the comparison step are therefore unascertainable.
Claim 13: claim 13 depend on claim 3, a method “for service invoking” whose every affirmative step is performed by the service provider. Claim 13 recites that “the first execution flow information is obtaining by a trusted module in the service invoker.” It is unclear whether claim 13 (i) adds an affirmative method step performed by a second entity, thereby raising divided-infringement ambiguity as to who performs the claimed, or (ii) merely recites the provenance of received data without adding a step. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14: claim 14 is an apparatus claim, the preamble is directed to “ a communication apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one storage… to perform operations comprising,” but each recited operation is performed “by a service invoker”. It is unclear whether:
(1) the claimed communication apparatus is the service invoker (in which case “by a service invoker” lacks antecedent basis and is redundant of the claimed apparatus), or
(2) the apparatus stores instructions that cause a separate service invoker to act(in which case the apparatus itself performs none of the recited operations and the claim’s scope is indeterminate).
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 18-20: the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations: claims 1-13 recite a series of steps and fall within process; claims 14-20 recite a processor and storage and fall within machine. “performing …..verification on the first control command based on the verification information of the first control command.” This is an evaluation that, but for the recitation of generic “service provider” can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. A person given a command and a description of the user’s behavior can judge whether the command is consistent with that behavior. Claim 2 make the mental process explicit “determining based on the first behavior information and a first mapping rule, a second control command”( a table look up) and “in response to that the first control command is the same as the second control command, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command succeeds”(a comparison). Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 further look-ups and comparison of the same character. Claims 14 and 18 recite obtaining information and generating a command (observation and judgment).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element - using a processor, apparatus to perform the perform the operations. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of (authenticating and determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Amending the claims to incorporate limitations of 15-17 will overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1029(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boss et al U.S. 2020/0092322 A1 herein after Boss.
Claims 1 and 20: Boss teaches method for service invoking (Boss at ¶[0001] “validating commands for hacking and spoofing prevention in an Internet of Things (IoT) computing environment using a computing processor” at claim 1 “method , by a processor for validating commands….”), comprising:
a communication apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one storage coupled to at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform operations (Boss at ¶[0030]-¶[0040], (computer system server 12, processing unit 16, system memory 28, program module 42) comprising
receiving, by a service provider, a first control command and verification information of the first control command from a service invoker (Boss at ¶[0070]” the user 480 may communicate voice commands to the IoT device 470. The cloud computing environment 402, in association with the IoT device 470, may identify the user 480 as the speaker or voice of the issued command” Boss at ¶[0071], “The command nullification and authorization component 418 may nullify and/or authorize a command issued to the IoT device 460 and/or to the IoT device 470 from a user”), wherein the first control command is used to invoke a first service (Boss at ¶[0070], the issued command is processed and the “wake word” accepted, invoking the requested IoT function, Boss at ¶[0090] “the user may be allowed to access or reference the content, services, and/or resources for the command”), the verification information of the first control command is used to perform verification on the first control command (Boss at ¶[0072] ”the command nullification and authorization component 418 may validate the command issued to the IoT device according to the location of the user and the user intent”), the verification information of the first control command comprises first behavior information, and the first behavior information indicates behavior of a user in triggering generation of the first control command (Boss at ¶[0071] ”when user 480 issues a command to the IoT device 460 and/or to the IoT device 470 a look up operation may be performed using database 430 to determine one or more user actions that lead to that event or events associated with the issued command.” Boss at ¶ [0085] “the user actions that are associated with and/or lead to that event.” Boss at ¶ [0020], “user intent ….. directs the user's actions toward a specific object” digital footprint monitoring of the user’s interaction);
performing, by the service provider, verification on the first control command based on the verification information of the first control command (¶[0072], ¶[0085], “If expected activities relating to the issued command have not occurred prior to and within a specific time frame, then the intent of user 480 is not established” Boss at ¶[0084] ”the issued AI command may be verified (e.g., passes the eligibility test).“); and
in response to that the verification on the first control command succeeds, sending, by the service provider, the first control command to an execution device, wherein the execution device is configured to execute the first control command (Boss at ¶[0086] “Upon the issued command being verified and accepted, the command may be processed ” further at ¶[0071]-¶[0072] authorization component authorizes the command issued to the IoT device 460, i.e., the executing device).
Claim 2: Boss teaches wherein performing, by the service provider, verification on the first control command based on the verification information of the first control command comprises (¶[0072], ¶[0085]):
determining, by the service provider based on the first behavior information and a first mapping rule, a second control command corresponding to the first behavior information (Boss at ¶[0071], ¶[0085], database 430 stores the correspondence between a command and ”the user actions that are associated with and/or lead to that event”; the lookup traverses that correspondence), wherein the first mapping rule comprises at least one type of behavior information and a control command corresponding to each type of behavior information (Boss at ¶[0065], ¶[0085], ¶[0071],database 430 is the stored command user ͢͢͢͢ action ͢͢͢͢ correspondence); and
in response to that the first control command is the same as the second control command, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command succeeds(Boss ¶[0085]-¶[0086], intent established only where the actions match those associated with the issued command; upon verification “the commend may be processed”).
Claim 6: Boss teaches
wherein the first behavior information comprises first semantic information, the first semantic information is semantics generated based on a voice instruction input by the user (Boss at [0082] “voice recognition may be performed and/or a previously performed voice recognition operation may be used to recognize the requested command”), and each of the at least one type of behavior information in the first mapping rule comprises one piece of semantic information (Boss at ¶[0079], “The issued command and collected data may be analyzed using a natural language processing (“NLP”), lexical analysis, parsing, extraction of concepts, semantic analysis, or a combination thereof.”); and
determining, by the service provider based on the first behavior information and the first mapping rule, the second control command corresponding to the first behavior information comprises: determining, by the service provider according to the first mapping rule, that a control command corresponding to the first semantic information is the second control command (Boss at [0079][0082],mapping semantic information to the corresponding command is the NPL intent resolution ).
Claim 7: Boss teaches wherein the first behavior information comprises
first time information, and the first time information is time at which the service invoker detects the behavior of the user in triggering the generation of the first control command; and the method further comprises: if the service provider determines that a difference between a moment indicated by the first time information and a current moment exceeds the first threshold, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command fails (Boss ¶[0085]” if expected activities relating to the issued command have not occurred prior to and within a specific time frame, then the intent of user 480 is not established.” Boss further at “The user intent may be established upon the one or more user actions that lead to and/or are associated with the command occurring during a selected time period prior to issuing the command,”). The “specific time frame” “selected time period” is the claimed first threshold; behavior older than that window fails verification).
Claim 10: Boss teaches wherein the method further comprises:
In response to the first control command is different from the second control command, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command fails (Boss ¶[0085], intent not established when expected activities have not occurred Boss at ¶[0086] “ Upon the issued command being unverified and unaccepted/nullified, the command may be ignored, questioned and/or challenged”).
Claim 12: Boss teaches wherein the method further comprises:
in response to that the service provider determines that the verification on the first control command fails, prompting, by the service provider, the user with alarm information, wherein the alarm information indicates that the verification on the first control command fails (Boss ¶[0084], (the AI command validation service issues to the IoT devices ” using a graphical user interface and/or an audible communication of “Alert. Authorized command issued by User A”) Boss at ¶[0086] (unverified command ” ignored, questioned and/or challenged” (e.g., a challenge presented to the user. This meets either alternative); or
in response to that the service provider determines that the verification on the first control command fails, sending, by the service provider, alarm information to the service invoker, wherein the service invoker is used to prompt the user with the alarm information (Boss ¶[0084], (the AI command validation service issues to the IoT devices ” using a graphical user interface and/or an audible communication of “Alert. Authorized command issued by User A”) Boss at ¶[0086] (unverified command ” ignored, questioned and/or challenged” (e.g., a challenge presented to the user. This meets either alternative) .
Claim 14: Boss teaches a communication apparatus, comprising at least one storage coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform operations (Boss at ¶[0030]-¶[0040], (computer system server 12, processing unit 16, system memory 28, program module 42) comprising:
obtaining, by a service invoker, first behavior information, wherein the first behavior information indicates behavior of a user in triggering generation of a first control command (Boss at ¶[0068], (IoT device 470 receives the user’s voice command and the environment identifies the speaker); Boss at ¶[0071], ¶[0085] User action leading to the command);
generating, by the service invoker, the first control command based on the first behavior information, wherein the first control command is used to invoke a first service voice (Boss at ¶[0080] voice recognition “to recognize the requested command” Boss at ¶[0079] NPL/Semantic analysis of the issued command); and
sending, by the service invoker, the first control command and verification information of the first control command, wherein the verification information of the first control command comprises the first behavior information (Boss at ¶[0068] communication, and the verification information of the first control command is used to perform verification on the first control command(Boss at ¶[0067], “to recognize the requested command. Boss at ¶[0071]-¶[0072], validation performed at the cloud on the issued command and associated user action data)”.
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 3, 4, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al 2020/0092322 A1 herein after Boss in view of Ghose U.S. 2016/0119148 A1.
Claim 3: Boss fails to teach, however Ghose in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the verification information of the first control command further comprises first execution flow information, the first execution flow information indicates process information for invoking the first service, and the first mapping rule further comprises execution flow information for invoking each service (Ghose at ¶[0157] instructions “are simultaneously fed into a signature generator (SG) that generates a signature for each basic block of instructions “ Boss at ¶[0137] a representation of the executed process flow. Ghose further at ¶{0123]-¶[0128] ”The information for the reference module can be stored in an (encrypted) table, called the validation table” the stored per module expected execution flow); and
the method further comprises: in response to that the first control command is the same as the second control command, determining, by the service provider based on the second control command and the first mapping rule, second execution flow information corresponding to the second control command, wherein the second execution flow information indicates process information for invoking a second service (Ghose at ¶[0131] he next step in the validation process compares the computed MD-5 digest for the block against what is stored in the retrieved VT entry. A match in this case validates that the execution is validated thus far); and
determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command succeeds comprises: in response to that the first execution flow information is the same as the second execution flow information, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command succeeds (Ghose at ¶[0155] “when a control instruction at the end of a basic block commits, the computed instruction is compared against an expected signature” Ghose at ¶[0078]-¶[0079] “a reference signature corresponding to a hash of a verified corresponding sequence of instructions;” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Boss with the additional features of Ghose in order to provide secure computing method for validating program execution at run-time using control flow signatures, as suggested by Ghose abstract.
Claim 4: the combination teaches
wherein the first execution flow information is an execution flow for invoking the first service or a hash value of an execution flow for invoking the first service (Ghose at ¶[0129] ,Ghose at ¶[0133]-¶[0137] signature computed “ As “a reference signature corresponding to a hash of a verified corresponding sequence of instructions;” Ghose at ¶[0133]-¶[0137] “ signature computed “ As a hash function that hashes all or parts of the bit patterns representing individual instructions” such as an MD-5 function).
The same motivation to modify Boss in view of Ghose applied to claim 2 above applies here.
Claim 11: the combination teaches
wherein the method further comprises: if the first execution flow information is different from the second execution flow information, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command fails (Ghose at ¶[0155] “a computed signature does not match the expected signature, normal instruction processing steps are suspended and appropriate actions are taken” including “Generation of an interrupt to invoke an appropriate handler that suspends further execution” Ghose further at ¶[0069] “a typical response will be a flushing of the processor instruction decode and execution pipeline, along with a flag which is handled by trusted code”).
The same motivation to modify Boss in view of Ghose applied to claim 2 above applies here.
Claim 18: Boss teaches wherein before sending, by the service invoker, the first control command and the verification information of the first control command to the service provider (Boss at ¶[0068] communication, and the verification information of the first control command is used to perform verification on the first control command(Boss at ¶[0067], “to recognize the requested command. Boss at ¶[0071]-¶[0072], validation performed at the cloud on the issued command and associated user action data), Boss fails to teach, however Ghose in the same field of endeavor teaches
the communication apparatus is further enabled to perform: obtaining, by the service invoker, first execution flow information, wherein the first execution flow information indicates process information for invoking the first service (Ghose at [0157] signature generated during execution at the executing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Boss with the additional features of Ghose in order to provide secure computing method for validating program execution at run-time using control flow signatures, as suggested by Ghose abstract.
Claim 19: the combination teaches
wherein the first execution flow information is an execution flow for invoking the first service or a hash value of an execution flow for invoking the first service (Ghose at ¶[0129] ,Ghose at ¶[0133]-¶[0137] signature computed “ As “a reference signature corresponding to a hash of a verified corresponding sequence of instructions;” Ghose at ¶[0133]-¶[0137] “ signature computed “ As a hash function that hashes all or parts of the bit patterns representing individual instructions” such as an MD-5 function).
The same motivation to modify Boss in view of Ghose applied to claim 14 above applies here.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al 2020/0092322 A1 herein after Boss in view Andre et al U.S. 2006/0085757 A1 herein after Andre.
Claim 5: Boss fails to teach, however Andre in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the first behavior information comprises first coordinates, the first coordinates are coordinates corresponding to an operation of the user (Andre at ¶[0019]” a user interacts with the touch screen and, in response, the touch screen (and or hardware/software associated with the touch screen) provides location data pertaining to touch input on the touch screen.”. Andre at ¶[0025] “At step 202, the touch location is determined, based on location data pertaining to touch input on the touch screen. The location data may be provided, for example, by low level program code being executed by a processor associated with the touch screen.”), and each of the at least one type of behavior information in the first mapping rule comprises at least one coordinate area (Andrea at ¶[0031].” At step 202, the touch location is determined, based on location data pertaining to touch input on the touch screen. The location data may be provided, for example, by low level program code being executed by a processor associated with the touch screen. Andre at ¶[0027] “The hexagonal shapes 302q, 302w, 302e, etc. illustrate an example of the shapes of the virtual keys, …….., the particular configuration of each virtual key 302 is based on the number and configuration of the key locations “) ; and
determining, by the service provider based on the first behavior information and the first mapping rule, the second control command corresponding to the first behavior information comprises: determining, by the service provider, a coordinate area in which the first coordinates are located (Andre at ¶[0026],” At step 208, it is determined to which of the virtual keys the shortest distance determined in step 204 corresponds” Andre at ¶[0034] “the activated virtual key is the one virtual key for which there is the shortest physical distance between the key locations, associated with that virtual key, and the touch location”); and
determining, by the service provider according to the first mapping rule, that a control command corresponding to the coordinate area in which the first coordinates are located is the second control command (Andre at ¶[0026] “At step 210, a signal is generated to indicate activation of the virtual key determined in step 208” the command or character associated with identified key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Boss with the additional features of Andre in order to provide method of operating a touch screen to activate one of a plurality of virtual keys, as suggested by Andre abstract.
Claims 8, 9, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al U.S. 2020/0092322 A1 herein after Boss in view of Hjelm et al U.S. 2016/0254904 A1 herein after Hjelm.
Claim 8: Boss fails to teach, however Hjelm in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the verification information of the first control command is signed by the service invoker (Hjelm at ¶[0043] “Secure signature applet 800 may receive challenge 805 via secure direct hardware (HW) access (e.g., via communication interface(s) 180 and bus 185) or via a secure API call(s) into TEE 130.”) signing performed within the invoking device’s TEE); and
before determining, by the service provider based on the first behavior information and the first mapping rule, the second control command corresponding to the first behavior information, the method further comprises: performing, by the service provider, verification on a signature of the verification information of the first control command; and determining, by the service provider based on the first behavior information and the first mapping rule, the second control command corresponding to the first behavior information comprises: in response to that the verification performed by the service provider on the signature of the verification information of the first control command succeeds, determining, by the service provider based on the first behavior information and the first mapping rule, the second control command corresponding to the first behavior information (Helm at ¶[0043]” The receiving device may use its own private key to extract the credential information from the signed challenge message, and may verify the authenticity of the user based on the credential information” remote verification of the signature gating acceptance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Boss with the additional features of Hjelm order to provide Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) that is secure from the device processing unit and the device memory. The TEE obtains a public encryption key and a private encryption key pair, stores the private encryption key in a secure memory in the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), and executes a first trusted application, within the TEE, to perform a PKI function using the private encryption key, as suggested by Hjelm abstract.
Claim 9: the combination teaches
wherein the method further comprises: if the verification performed by the service provider on the signature of the verification information of the first control command fails, determining, by the service provider, that the verification on the first control command fails( Hjelm at ¶[0043] authenticity is establish upon successful verification; failure of signature verification yields no authentication and therefore no acceptance).
The same motivation to modify Boss in view of Hjelm applied to claim 8 above applies here.
Claim 15: Boss fails to teach, however Hjelm in the same field of endeavor teaches
obtaining, by a trusted module in the service invoker, the first behavior information, wherein permission of the trusted module is higher than permission of a kernel in the service invoker (Hjelm at ¶[0013], “as specified by Trusted Computing Group™ standards and/or GlobalPlatform™ standards” Hjelm at ¶[0019] “TEE 130 may, in an implementation depicted in FIG. 1A, include an isolated software or hardware-based environment that further includes memory and processing resources that are secure from device processing unit 105, device memory 110, and smart card 115 of device 100” and Hjelm at ¶[0040] “dedicated hardware path 185 shown in FIG. 1B as being connected between the input device(s) (e.g., touch screen display or keyboard) and secure processing unit 140 of TEE 130.” User input captured directly by the trusted module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Boss with the additional features of Hjelm order to provide Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) that is secure from the device processing unit and the device memory. The TEE obtains a public encryption key and a private encryption key pair, stores the private encryption key in a secure memory in the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), and executes a first trusted application, within the TEE, to perform a PKI function using the private encryption key, as suggested by Hjelm abstract.
Claim 16: the combination teaches
wherein a running environment of the trusted module and a running environment of the kernel are independent of each other (Hjelm at ¶[0019], isolated environment with its own memory and processing resources, secure from the device processing unit and device memory accessible only through restricted secure APIs).
The same motivation to modify Boss in view of Hjelm applied to claim 15 above applies here.
Claim 17: the combination teaches
wherein the trusted module has read permission and write permission on a storage module, the kernel has no access permission on the storage module, and the storage module is configured to store the first behavior information (Hjelm at ¶[0020]. “Secure memory 135 (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium) may store a public/private key pair, where the private key of the public/private key pair cannot be accessed or retrieved by device processing unit 105. ” [0019] “the isolated environment that secures TEE 130 from device processing unit 105 and the “rich” operating system (rich OS 107) of device 100.” [0038]-[0041] .input data reaches secure processing unit 140 without exposure to the rich OS).
The same motivation to modify Boss in view of Hjelm applied to claim 15 above applies here.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al U.S. 2020/0092322 A1 herein after Boss in view of in view of Ghose U.S. 2016/0119148 A1in further view of Hjelm et al U.S. 2016/0254904 A1 herein after Hjelm.
Claim 13: the combination fails to teach, however Hjelm in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the first execution flow information is obtained by a trusted module in the service invoker (Hjelm at ¶[0019] (isolated TEE 130 with its own processing and memory resources ¶[0020] secure memory 135 inaccessible to device processing unit 140)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Boss with the additional features of Hjelm order to provide Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) that is secure from the device processing unit and the device memory. The TEE obtains a public encryption key and a private encryption key pair, stores the private encryption key in a secure memory in the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), and executes a first trusted application, within the TEE, to perform a PKI function using the private encryption key, as suggested by Hjelm abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2014/0067673 A1 trusted hardware isolation from the operating system for confirming that a user’s approval corresponds to the transaction actually presented.
U.S. 10,929,526 B2 trusted user interface executed within a TEE providing a higher level of security than the rich OS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATOUMATA TRAORE whose telephone number is (571)270-1685. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 5712724219. 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.
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
/FATOUMATA TRAORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights