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 .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is issued in response to the claims filed on 10/11/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s foreign priority claim of JP2021-086049 filed on 05/21/2021 and PCT/JP2022/004215 filed on 02/03/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/11/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Title
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Abstract
6. The Abstract is objected to because it has two paragraphs. An abstract should be limited to one paragraph (MPEP 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
7. Figs. 10 and 12 are objected to because they have typos “Chipper” which should be “Cipher”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is “communication unit” communicates/performs/requests/generates/determines/acquires/receives (claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
12. Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matters which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims that are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, claim 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
13. 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.
14. Claim limitations “communication unit” communicates/performs/requests/generates/determines/acquires/receives in claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
15. Claims 8, 9, 15, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a. Claim 8 depends on claim 1 which cites three options: the communication unit controls execution of an encryption key generation process of generating an encryption key based on a basis of at least one of i) direct communication with the wireless device is possible, ii) direct communication with the wireless device is not possible, or iii) an encryption scheme that can be supported by the relay device. It is unclear claim 8 further clarify which option recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes claim 8 further elaborates the communication unit controls execution of an encryption key generation process of generating an encryption key in a case direct communication with the wireless device is not possible.
b. Claim 9 recites: “A communication method in which a communication apparatus that communicates with a wireless terminal via a relay device is configured to…”. Claim 15 recites: “A communication method in which a communication apparatus that relays communication between a radio base station and a wireless terminal is configured to…”. Claim 20 recites: “A communication method in which a communication apparatus that communicates with a radio base station via a relay device is configured to…” It is unclear whether the claims are directed to method or communication apparatus. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For purpose of examination, the Examiner claim 9 has similar subject matters with claim 1, claim 15 has similar subject matter with claim 10, and claim 20 has similar subject matter with claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
16. 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.
17. Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung et al. (US 20160212682 A1), hereinafter “Chung”.
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a communication apparatus comprising a communication unit that communicates with a wireless terminal via a relay device (Figs.1 and 21 with associated text: eNB-communication apparatus and control unit-communication unit), wherein the communication unit controls execution of an encryption key generation process of generating an encryption key used for communication with the wireless terminal on a basis of at least one of whether or not direct communication with the wireless terminal is possible or an encryption scheme that can be supported by the relay device (paragraphs [0093]-[0094], [0110]-[0112]: direct communication between eNB and IUE is not possible, communication and cipher key generating for communication between eNB and IUE via relay device IUE).
Regarding claim 6, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit determines whether or not direct communication with the wireless terminal is possible on a basis of at least one of radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal or a transmission source of a signal received (paragraphs [0110]-[0112] and [0130]-[0132]: determining direct communication based on received signal strength).
Claim 9 claims similar subject matters to claim 1; therefore, claim 9 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1.
18. Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20080219230 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a communication apparatus comprising a communication unit that relays communication between a radio base station and a wireless terminal (Fig.1 with associated text: wireless AP 30), wherein in a case of being requested by the radio base station to perform an encryption key generation process of generating an encryption key used by the radio base station for communication with the wireless terminal, the communication unit performs the encryption key generation process with the wireless terminal and transmits the encryption key generated by the encryption key generation process to the radio base station (paragraph [0074] and [0081]-[0086]).
Claim 15 claims similar subject matters to claim 10; therefore, claim 15 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. Claims 2, 5, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160212682 A1), hereinafter “Chung”
Regarding claim 2, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit performs the encryption key generation process directly with the wireless terminal in a case where direct communicate with the wireless terminal is possible (a. paragraphs [0085] and [0130]-[0131]: searching for direct communication between a user equipment and an eNB. b.[0093]: cipher key generating for communication between eNB and IUE via relay device IUE. Chung does not explicitly disclose direct communication between eNB and IUE for generating cipher key, but the combination of a) and b) would make it obvious that direct communication between eNB and IUE for generating cipher key and the motivation to do so would be to use the generated cipher key for secure communication between eNB and IUE).
Regarding claim 5, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the communication unit directly transmits a connection request signal for relay communication to the wireless terminal before directly performing the encryption key generation process with the wireless terminal (paragraphs 0085], [0091]-[0093], [0110]-[0112], and [0130]-[0131]: cipher key generation is performed after direct or indirect communication between eNB and IUE is determined).
Regarding claim 16, Chung discloses a communication apparatus comprising a communication unit that communicates with a radio base station via a relay device (Figs.1 and 20 with associated text: IUE/UE- communication apparatus and control unit-communication unit), wherein the communication unit performs an [encryption key generation process of generating an encryption key] used for communication with the radio base station directly with the radio base station in a case where direct communication with the radio base station is possible, and performs the [encryption key generation] process with the relay device in a case where direct communication with the radio base station is not possible (paragraphs [0110]-[0112]-first embodiment and paragraphs [0130]-[0132]-second embodiment-determining direct communication between eNB and IUE or communication between eNB and IUE using a RUE). Chung discloses in first and second embodiment that direct/indirect communication between eNB and IUE is established, but the first and second embodiment do not explicitly disclose the established communication is to generate an encryption key. However, in a third embodiment, Chung discloses generating cipher key for IUE and SeNB based on RUE (paragraph [0093]-third embodiment. Note: first/second/third embodiment is just used to distinguish different places in Chung’s teachings). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine first embodiment and second embodiment’s teaching of establishing direct/indirect communication between eNB and IUE with the third embodiment’s teaching of generating cipher key for IUE and SeNB and the motivation to do so would be to use the generated key to encrypt and protect communication data between eNB and IUE.
Regarding claim 17, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the communication unit performs the encryption key generation process directly with the radio base station in a case of directly receiving a connection request signal for relay communication or a message of the encryption key generation process from the radio base station, and performs the encryption key generation process with the relay device in a case of receiving the message of the encryption key generation process from the relay device (paragraphs [0093], [0110]-[0112], and [0130]-[0132]).
Regarding claim 19, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the communication unit directly transmits the connection request signal for relay communication to the radio base station in a case where direct communication with the radio base station is possible, and transmits the connection request signal to the relay device in a case where direct communication with the radio base station is not possible (paragraphs [0110]-[0112] and [0130]-[0131]).
Claim 20 claims similar subject matters to claim 16; therefore, claim 20 is rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 16.
21. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160212682 A1), hereinafter “Chung” in view of Reddy et al. (US 20180234388 A1), hereinafter “Reddy”.
Regarding claim 7, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the communication unit acquires, from the relay device, the radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal (paragraphs [0110]-[0112] and [0130]-[0131]: signal strength-radio wave environment information). Chung does not explicitly disclose the communication unit acquires, from the relay device, information regarding the encryption scheme that can be supported by the wireless terminal before determining a method of the encryption key generation process. However, a proxy device provides encryption information of a device to another device is known in the art and Reddy’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chung’s teaching of utilizing a relay device in mobile communication system based on radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal with Reddy’s teaching of a proxy device provides encryption information of a device to another device to have a predictable result of the communication unit acquires, from the relay device, the radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal and information regarding the encryption scheme that can be supported by the wireless terminal before determining a method of the encryption key generation process.
22. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20080219230 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 11, Lee disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the communication unit receives, from the radio base station, a request signal that is a signal requesting execution of the encryption key generation process with the wireless terminal, the request signal including address information of the radio base station and a random number generated by the radio base station, and transmits, to the radio base station, a response signal including the encryption key generated by the encryption key generation process using the address information and the random number (paragraph [0074]: shared key between terminal and base station; paragraphs [0081]-[0086]: generating key from random numbers generated by a terminal and an authentication server and address of the terminal and the address of the authentication server. Lee does not explicitly disclose the key is generated with/from a random number and the address of the radio base station, but from Lee’s teachings in paragraphs [0081]-[0083], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate key from random numbers generated by involved parties and addressed of involved parties and generate key that include random number generated by the base station and address of the base station to have a predictable result of the communication unit receives, from the radio base station, a request signal that is a signal requesting execution of the encryption key generation process with the wireless terminal, the request signal including address information of the radio base station and a random number generated by the radio base station, and transmits, to the radio base station, a response signal including the encryption key generated by the encryption key generation process using the address information and the random number.)
23. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20080219230 A1), hereinafter “Lee”, in view of Chung et al. (US 20160212682 A1), hereinafter “Chung”, and in view of Reddy et al. (US 20180234388 A1), hereinafter “Reddy”.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 10. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication unit transmits, to the radio base station, radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal and information regarding an encryption scheme that can be supported by the wireless terminal. However, using signal strength in determining possible communication with a base station is known in the art and Chung’s teaching is an example (Chung, paragraphs [0110]-[0112] and [0130]-[0131]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee’s teaching of relaying communication between a base station and a wireless terminal with Chung’s teaching of using signal strength in determining possible communication with a base station to have a predictable result of the communication unit transmits, to the radio base station, radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal.
Lee and Chung do not explicitly disclose the communication unit transmits, to the radio base station, information regarding an encryption scheme that can be supported by the wireless terminal. However, a proxy device provides encryption information of a device to another device is known in the art and Reddy’s teaching is an example (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lee and Chung’s teachings utilizing a relay device in mobile communication system based on radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal with Reddy’s teaching of a proxy device provides encryption information of a device to another device to have a predictable result of the communication unit transmits, to the radio base station, radio wave environment information of the wireless terminal and information regarding an encryption scheme that can be supported by the wireless terminal. .
24. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160212682 A1), hereinafter “Chung” in view of Lee et al. (US 20080219230 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 18, Chung discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 17. Chung does not explicitly disclose wherein in a case where the message of the encryption key generation process includes address information of the radio base station, the communication unit generates the encryption key using the address information. However, generating an encryption key using address information of an involved party is known in the art and Lee’s teaching is an example (paragraphs [0082]-[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chung’s teaching generating key for communication between a base station and a wireless terminal with Lee’s teaching of generating an encryption key using address information of an involved party to have a predictable result of where the message of the encryption key generation process includes address information of the radio base station, the communication unit generates the encryption key using the address information.
Allowable Subject Matter
25. Claims 3, 4, 8 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, clarify 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation and overcome 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8, and 12-13:
a. Chung et al. (US 20160212682 A1) discloses a method for providing a device-to-device (D2D) communication-based service for an isolated user equipment (IUE) by a relay user equipment (RUE) in a mobile communication system. The method includes establishing a D2D link with an IUE; and supporting establishment of a relay cellular link for the IUE based on the established D2D link, wherein the RUE is within a service coverage of an enhanced node B (eNB) (Fig.1 and paragraph [0093], [0110]-[0112], and [0130]-[0132]).
b. Lee et al. (US 20080219230 A1) a relay station may generate keys that could be shared between an access control router and a wireless terminal. The key could be derived from a random number of an authentication server, a random number of the wireless terminal, a Media Access Control (MAC) address of the authentication server and a MAC address of the wireless terminal (paragraphs [0074]-[0075] and [0081]-[0085]).
c. Reddy et al. (US 20180234388 A1) discloses a proxy device communicate information for a client device and a server device. The information includes supported cipher suites supported by the client device (paragraph [0054]).
The prior arts of record fail to either disclose or sufficiently suggest the combination features as claimed and arranged by applicant. Although the above references teach similar aspects of the claims 3, 4, 8, and 12-13, none of these references individually or in reasonable combination discloses all the limitations as claimed in the claims and each of these claims as a whole is not obvious over these prior arts. Therefore, claims 3, 4, 8, and 12-13 are allowable over the prior arts of record.
Prior Art of Record
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T. LE whose telephone number is (571)270-0279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THANH T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights