Patent Application 18219677 - System Device and Method of User Authentication - Rejection

Patent Application 18219677 - System Device and Method of User Authentication

Title: System, Device, and Method of User Authentication and Transaction Verification

Application Information

• Invention Title: System, Device, and Method of User Authentication and Transaction Verification
• Application Number: 18219677
• Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-07-09T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-07-09T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 705
• National Sub-Class: 075000
• Examiner Employee Number: 94588
• Art Unit: 3697
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0186011🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on 03/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-13 and 19 are cancelled per applicant’s filing of 03/26/2025.
Claims 1-2, 15, 17-18, 20 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 15-18, 20 are pending. 1-2, 15-18, 20 have been examined. 
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments received on 03/26/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). However, some of the amendments introduce new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) with details provided below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant submits that that the amended claims are not anticipated by the prior art and are not rendered obvious by the prior art and that the amended claims are at least "significantly more than an abstract idea" and states “[t]he amended claims provide to a computerized system technical capabilities and technological functionalities that were not provided by the prior art; such as, the capability to utilize specific hardware components, an illumination unit and a vibration unit, to generate innovative interference events that are captured on video and are then automatically analyzed using video processing, to enable such computerized system to protect itself against cyber-attacks. Examiner notes, however, that step 2B of the eligibility analysis is termed a search for an "inventive concept," and the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an inventive concept and is not non-obviousness determination. (MPEP §2106.05 I). Moreover, the amended claims continue to recite an abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. The elements, “an illumination unit” and “a vibration unit,” are recited at a high level generality such that the claims amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception to generic components and the claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in technology or technical field.
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 1-2, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1-2, 15-18 are directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 20 is directed to a system (i.e. manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent Claims: Claims 1 and 20
Step 2A Prong One
The claims recite (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A method for authenticating identity of a user of an electronic device and for verifying authenticity of a transaction that the user submits via the electronic device, the method comprising:
(a) while the user interacts with one or more input units of the electronic device to enter transaction data into a computerized system, capturing video of said user via a front-side camera of said electronic device;
(b) while the user interacts with said one or more input units of the electronic device to enter said transaction data into said computerized system, 
generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based vibration event, that causes said electronic device to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibration sequence,
(c) performing, at a remote server, a particular analysis of video content, that was captured while the user interacted with one or more input units of said electronic device to enter transaction data,
wherein said particular analysis checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based vibration event;
(d) if said particular analysis indicates that the captured video content does not correctly reflect said interfering device-based vibration event, then: determining, by the said remote server  that transaction data that was submitted from said electronic device is fraudulent or was compromised;
wherein the method is performed by at least a hardware processor of said electronic device and by a hardware processor of said remote server.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims recite a commercial interaction and therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the claims recite “performing…a particular analysis of video content, that was captured while the user interacted…to enter transaction data,” “wherein said particular analysis checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based vibration event;” and “if said particular analysis indicates that the captured video content does not correctly reflect said interfering device-based vibration event, then: determining…that transaction data that was submitted…is fraudulent or was comprised,” which is also an abstract idea, grouped within the “mental process” because the steps of collecting and analyzing data and making a determination, which can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or by a human with pen and paper. The claims are abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.  
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “an electronic device,” “one or more input units of the electronic device,” “a computerized system,” “a front-side camera of said electronic device,” “a screen of said electronic device” and “a hardware processor of said electronic device,” “a remote server,” “a hardware processor of said remote server,” recited in claims 1 and 20, as well as “a server” recited in claim 20, merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the additional limitations, “…causes said electronic device to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibrations sequence…” recited in claims 1 and 20, and “wherein the system is configured to perform a process …” do not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. 
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claims, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-13, 15-19
Claim 2 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). 
wherein generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based vibration event, comprises at least:
causing said electronic device to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibration sequence,
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). 
generating a recorded video segment, that includes in it: (i) continuous video that was captured by the front-side camera of the electronic device while the user was entering transaction data, and (ii) a modulation of video content or audio content due to said interfering device-based vibration event, that was generated by said electronic device in accordance with a particular timing sequence and pattern while the user was entering transaction data.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). 
generating a recorded video segment, that includes in it continuous video that was captured by the front-side camera of the electronic device while the user was entering transaction data;
encoding transaction data, into at least one frame of said recorded video segment.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). 
streaming the captured video content from said electronic device over a communication link to a remote server, which performs said particular analysis of step (c) that checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based vibration event.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. The non-underlined additional elements of “streaming the captured video content from said electronic device over a communication link to a remote server,” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). 
streaming only every Nth video frame of the captured video content, from said electronic device over a communication link to a remote server, which performs said particular analysis of step (c) that checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based vibration event; wherein N is a pre-defined integer.
As above, the claim further recites the abstract idea of transaction processing with authentication, verification and fraud detection. The non-underlined additional elements of “streamlining only every Nth video frame of the captured video content, from said electronic device over a communication link, to a remote server,” merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):

(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA  the applicant regards as the invention. 
Unclear Scope
Claim 1 recites the positively recited steps of “capturing,” “generating at said electronic device,” “performing at a remote server,” “determining by said remote server” and “wherein the method is performed by at least a hardware processor of said electronic device and by a hardware processor of said remote server.” Even though the claim describes the steps of “generating” being performed at said electronic device, and the steps of “performing” being performed at a remote server and “determining” being performed by said remote server, the claim is silent about what entity (“electronic device” or “remote server”) performs the steps of “capturing”. Therefore, the claim is unclear and indefinite because it is unclear what entity performs the step of capturing. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)). Claims 2, 15-18 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 1. 
Claim 20 recites “A system comprising: a server comprising one or more hardware processors that are configured to execute code wherein the system is configured to perform a process for authenticating identity of a user of an electronic device and for verifying a authenticity of a transaction that the user submits via the electronic device, the process comprising: at said electronic device,…capturing …generating …to vibrate…;” and “at said server, performing…determining…” The claim is directed to a system comprising a server comprising one or more hardware processors. However, the claim is silent on the electronic device comprised in the claimed structures of the system. Therefore, the claim is unclear whether the claimed system comprises the electronic device or not. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)).
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 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.

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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman et al. (US 2017/0186011 A1 (“Lieberman”)) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2012/0246079A1 (“Wilson”)) further in view of Zellner, S. (US 7,801,569B1 (“Zellner”)).
Per Claims 1  and 20, Lieberman discloses a method  for authenticating identity of a user of an electronic device and for verifying a authenticity of a transaction that the user submits via the electronic device (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶¶36-37), the method comprising:
(a) while the user interacts with one or more input units of the electronic device to enter transaction data into a computerized system (Lieberman: Fig. 1, Fig. 6; ¶¶44-46, 61, 99, 104, 118-120, 122), capturing video of said user via a front-side camera of said electronic device (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 160; ¶¶104, 122);
(b) while the user interacts with said one or more input units of the electronic device to enter said transaction data into said computerized system (Lieberman: Fig. 1, Fig. 6; ¶¶44-46, 61, 99, 104, 118-120, 122), generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based [] event (Lieberman: Fig. 6, Fig. 7; ¶¶99, 101-102, 119)…
(c) performing at a remote server a particular analysis of video content, that was captured while the user interacted with one or more input units of said electronic device to enter transaction data (Lieberman: Fig. 4, items 425-430, Fig. 6, item 640; ¶¶77, 105, 108, 124, 127), wherein said particular analysis checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based [] event (Lieberman: Fig. 6, item 645; ¶¶77);
(d) if said particular analysis indicates that the captured video content does not correctly reflect said interfering device-based [] event (Lieberman: ¶¶77-78), then: [further processing, by said remote server…]; (Lieberman: ¶¶77-78)
wherein the method is performed by at least a hardware processor of said electronic device and by a hardware processor of said remote server. (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶¶44-46)
Additionally, for claim 20, Lieberman discloses a system (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶44) comprising:
a server comprising one or more hardware processors that are configured to execute code; (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶162)
wherein the system is configured to perform a process…( Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶¶44, 162)
Lieberman does not explicitly disclose:
…
Wilson discloses:
…determining…that transaction data that was submitted from said electronic device is fraudulent or was compromised (Wilson: ¶¶119, 160, 178)
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 method of Lieberman to incorporate the teachings of authentication of user and transaction, as disclosed in Wilson, for increased security and fraud reduction (Wilson: ¶186).
Lieberman discloses generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based event (Fig. 6, Fig. 7; ¶¶99, 101-102, 119). However, Lieberman does not explicitly teach vibration event and the vibration event causes the electronic device to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibrations sequence.
Zellner discloses an interfering device-based vibration event that causes the electronic device to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibrations sequence. (Zellner: Fig. 1, item 126; 2:14-15, 2:61-67, 4:55-5:6, 8:4-18, 8:39-45)
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 method of Lieberman in view of Wilson to incorporate the teachings of support of producing mechanical vibration for device-based vibration event, as disclosed in Zellner, to improve device security (Zellner: 3:33).
Additionally, the language, “…to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibration sequence,” and “wherein said particular analysis checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based vibration event,” recites intended use language. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Per Claim 2, Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner discloses all the limitations of claim 1. 
Zellner discloses:
causing said electronic device to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibration sequence, (Zellner: Fig. 1, item 126; 2:14-15, 2:61-67, 4:55-5:6, 8:4-18, 8:39-45)
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 method of Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner to incorporate the teachings of support of producing mechanical vibration for device-based vibration event, as disclosed in Zellner, to improve device security (Zellner: 3:33).
Additionally, the language, “…to vibrate at a particular vibration pattern having a particular vibration timing and a particular vibration sequence,” recites intended use language. The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not serve to differentiate the claim from the prior art. MPEP § 2103 I C states that language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. An example of such language includes statements of intended use or field of use (MPEP §2103 I C).
Per Claim 15, Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner discloses all the limitations of claim 1. 
Lieberman discloses:
generating a recorded video segment, that includes in it: (i) continuous video that was captured by the front-side camera of the electronic device while the user was entering transaction data, and (ii) a modulation of video content or audio content due to said interfering device-based [] event, that was generated by said electronic device…while the user was entering transaction data. (Lieberman: ¶67) 
Zellner discloses the interfering device-based vibration event that was generated by said electronic device in accordance with a particular timing sequence and pattern. (Zellner: Fig. 1, item 126; 2:14-15, 2:61-67, 4:55-5:6, 8:4-18, 8:39-45)
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 method of Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner to incorporate the teachings of support of producing mechanical vibration for device-based vibration event, as disclosed in Zellner, to improve device security (Zellner: 3:33).
Per Claim 17, Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner discloses all the limitations of claim 1. 
Lieberman discloses:
streaming the captured video content from said electronic device over a communication link (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 120) to a remote server (Liberman: Fig. 1, item 130), which performs said particular analysis of step (c) that checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based [] event. (¶¶106, 108)
Zellner discloses interfering device-based vibration event. (Zellner: Fig. 1, item 126; 2:14-15, 2:61-67, 4:55-5:6, 8:4-18, 8:39-45)
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 method of Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner to incorporate the teachings of support of producing mechanical vibration for device-based vibration event, as disclosed in Zellner, to improve device security (Zellner: 3:33).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner as applied to claim 1 further in view of Blessing, W. (US 2009/0138405A1 (“Blessing”)).
Per Claim 16, Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner discloses all the limitations of claim 1. 
Lieberman discloses:
generating a recorded video segment, that includes in it continuous video that was captured by the front-side camera of the electronic device while the user was entering transaction data; (Lieberman: ¶67)
Lieberman in view of Wilson, Zellner does not explicitly disclose:
encoding transaction data, into at least one frame of said recorded video segment. 
Blessing discloses:
encoding transaction data, into at least one frame of said recorded video segment. (Blessing: Fig. 6; ¶¶37, 75)
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 method of Lieberman in view of Wilson, Zellner to incorporate the teachings of secure online transaction, as disclosed in Blessing, to maintain high degrees of security (Blessing: ¶4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner as applied to claim 1 further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2020/0280750A1 (“Nakamura”)).
Per Claim 18, Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner discloses all the limitations of claim 1. 
Lieberman discloses:
streaming…the captured video content, from said electronic device over a communication link to a remote server, which performs said particular analysis of step (c) that checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based event; (¶¶106, 108) 
Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner does not explicitly disclose:
streaming only every Nth video frame of the captured video content…wherein N is a pre-defined integer.
Nakamura discloses:
streaming only every Nth video frame of the captured video content… wherein N is a pre-defined integer. (Nakamura: Fig. 5; ¶¶43-48; claim 6)
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 method of Lieberman in view of Wilson and Zellner to incorporate the teachings of frame-based video transmission, as disclosed in Nakamura, for a time delivering method with high accuracy (Nakamura: ¶22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tussy (US 2019/0303551A1) discloses authenticating a user in an authentication system using a computing device configured to capture authentication biometric identity information.
Parupati (US 2020/0311449A1) discloses using an illumination sequence pattern for biometric authentication.
Kim (US 10,372,894B2) discloses iris authentication method and device using display information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
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, JOHN W HAYES can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.





/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697