DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 05/30/2024. Claims 1-18, of which claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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
Regarding claims 1 and 9, claims recites the limitation “a service” (line 5 of claim 1; line 6 of claim 9), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “a service” (line 1 of claims 1 and 6). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the service--.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, claims recites the limitation “UPSA security” (line 11 of claim 1; line 10 of claim 14), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “UPSA security” (line 9 of claim 1; line 5 of claim 14). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the UPSA security--.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-18, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1, 9, and 14, correspondingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the … claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01. ("(A) Prove a primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.").
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0084631 Al to Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose an apparatus for accessing a service of a wireless network, comprising:
a memory system comprising instructions (Fig. 20: “Memory (ROAM) 220”); and
a processor system (Fig. 20: “Processor CPU) 210”) coupled to the memory system, wherein the processor system (¶[0830]: “The policy function network element includes a processor 210, a memory 220, a transmitter 230, and a receiver 240, and the processor 210, the memory 220, the transmitter 230, and the receiver 240 are connected”; ¶[0012]: “The policy function network element includes one of a policy control function (PCF), the AUSF, the AMF, the SMF, and the CN device.”) is configured to:
receive(¶[0621]: “The UE sends a session request to an SMF using the AMF, and correspondingly, the SMF receives the session request”), from a wireless device (Fig. 15: “UE”), a service session request (Fig. 15: “4. Session Request”) to access a service of the wireless network (¶[0007]: ("the method includes receiving, by a policy function network element, a request for communication between user equipment and a network device, where the request includes a session identifier (ID), a user equipment identifier, and security requirement indication information, and the security requirement indication information is used to indicate a user equipment security requirement and/or a service security requirement"; ¶[0009]: “the request further includes at least one of a service identifier, a user equipment service identifier, a data network name (DNN), and a user equipment security capability.”);
determine a user plane security anchor (UPSA) {that is the termination point for user plane security} for the service and the wireless device (¶[0007]: “determining, by the policy function network element, a user plane protection mechanism based on the request and at least one of UE registration information fed back by a unified data manager (UDM), subscription service data fed back by the UDM, and a service security requirement fed back by an application function (AF), where the user plane protection mechanism is used to indicate whether encryption and/or integrity protection are/is required for user plane data transmitted between the user equipment and the network device” {user plane protection mechanism is defining the user plane termination point, where the network device, i.e. the UPSA or user plane termination point may be an access network device (see e.g. Fig. 11) or core network device (see e.g. Fig. 15)}; ¶[0017]: “the user plane data is carried on a quality of service (QoS) flow transport channel, before determining a user plane protection mechanism, the method includes determining a QoS flow identifier (QoS flow ID) corresponding to the QoS flow transport channel … there is a mapping relationship between the QoS flow ID and the user plane protection mechanism.” {that is there is a mapping between the requested service and the user plane protection mechanism, and the user plane protection keys}; (¶[0179]: “The air interface user plane encryption key and the air interface user plane integrity protection key may be collectively referred to as a first air interface user plane protection key") {maybe derived per Qos flow} ¶[0030]: “First user plane protection key=KDF(K_algorithm network element, UP algorithm ID, flow ID”)
transmit, to a security service of the wireless network, a request for UPSA security for the service (Fig.15: “5. Policy Request"; ¶[0007]: "sending, by the policy function network element, the user plane protection mechanism to an algorithm network element, where the algorithm network element is configured to determine a security protection algorithm based on the user plane protection mechanism"; ¶[0013]: "The CN device is a user plane function (UPF), and the algorithm network element includes at least one of the PCF, the AUSF, the AMF, the SMF, and the AN device");
receive, from the security service, a response to the request for UPSA security including information (Fig. 8: "Security Protection Algorithm") for deriving a service key (¶[0016]: “generating a first user plane protection key based on the security protection algorithm includes first user plane protection key=KDF (K_algorithm network element, UP algorithm ID), where K_algorithm network element is a base station key derived, after authentication succeeds, by the AMF or the AUSF based on a base key obtained after the authentication or a key derived again after the authentication, and the algorithm network element obtains K_algorithm network element from the AMF or the AUSF, where UP algorithm ID is an identifier of an encryption algorithm or an identifier of an integrity protection algorithm, and KDF is a key derivation function.”) {The user plane termination point is in this case the SMF and the user plane security key is anchored k_SMF, i.e. the UPSA or termination point is the SMF}; and
transmit, to the wireless device, a response to the service session request including an identifier for the UPSA and the information for deriving the service key (¶[0633]: "Step 11 {of Fig. 15}. The SMF sends a session ID, a QoS flow ID {identifying the service}, the security protection algorithm {identifying the security anchor, i.e. the UPSA's key, e.g. k_SMF and the algorithm to derive the UP protection key}, and the session protection mechanism to the AN using the AMF."; ¶ [0634]: "Step 12 11 {of Fig. 15}. The AN sends the session ID, the QoS flow ID, the security protection algorithm, and the session protection mechanism to the UE.") for establishing user plane security between the UPSA and the wireless device (¶[0007]: "the algorithm network element is configured to ... generate a first user plane protection key based on the security protection algorithm, and send the first user plane protection key to the CN device {see e.g. Figs. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15} and the algorithm network element is further configured to send the security protection algorithm to the user equipment {via AMF and AN, see e.g. Figs. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15} such that the user equipment generates a second user plane protection key based on the security protection algorithm."; ¶[0008]: "When the first user plane protection key is used to perform security protection on the user plane data, the second user plane protection key is used to restore the user plane data, or when the second user plane protection key is used to perform security protection on the user plane data, the first user plane protection key is used to restore the user plane data").
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the request for UPSA security for the service includes the identifier for the UPSA, an identifier for the service, and an identifier for the wireless device (¶[0009]: “the request further includes at least one of a service identifier, a user equipment service identifier, a data network name (DNN), and a user equipment security capability.”; ¶[0016]: “generating a first user plane protection key based on the security protection algorithm includes first user plane protection key=KDF (K_algorithm network element, UP algorithm ID), where K_algorithm network element is a base station key derived, after authentication succeeds, by the AMF or the AUSF based on a base key obtained after the authentication or a key derived again after the authentication, and the algorithm network element obtains K_algorithm network element from the AMF or the AUSF, where UP algorithm ID is an identifier of an encryption algorithm or an identifier of an integrity protection algorithm, and KDF is a key derivation function.”)
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the response to the request for UPSA security indicates that the UPSA was provisioned by the security service (Fig. 8) {It provides the security protection algorithm to the transport function or UE indicates that the UPSA has been provisioned, i.e. the UP protection key has been derived by the SMF (the UPSA)}.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the response to the request for UPSA security includes a service key for establishing the user plane security between the UPSA and the wireless device (Fig. 15) {as disclosed, the response may comprise the user plane protection mechanism, i.e. whether to integrity protect and/or encrypt the UP data, and the security protection algorithm, and the necessary identifiers to derive the UP protection key(s). The actual key may be i.e., transmitted to the UPF}.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor system to transmit the service key to the UPSA to provision the UPSA for the wireless device (Fig. 15) {as disclosed, the response may comprise the user plane protection mechanism, i.e. whether to integrity protect and/or encrypt the UP data, and the security protection algorithm, and the necessary identifiers to derive the UP protection key(s). The actual key may be i.e., transmitted to the UPF}.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the service session request includes a service identifier and wherein the instructions further cause the processor system to transmit the service identifier to the UPSA (¶[0007]; [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor system to establish a security context with a wireless device (Fig. 8) {It shows that both SMF (the UPSA in this case) and UE derive the UP protection keys after secondary authentication}.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the response to the service session request further includes a security configuration, wherein the security configuration includes at least one of a ciphering algorithm or integrity protection algorithm (¶[0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. disclose as stated in rejection of claim 1, above {that is the UE, after having established user plane security with a termination point, i.e. the SMF, transmitting a service access request to the service, i.e. the UPF, using the user plane security, as disclosed. The request to access the service is indicated in the session request via the service ID (see above) and user plane security is established between UE and core network device (UPF)}. Zhang et al. further disclose:
derive the service key based on the information for deriving the service key (¶[0007]: "the algorithm network element is configured to ... generate a first user plane protection key based on the security protection algorithm, and send the first user
plane protection key to the CN device"; Figs. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15);
establish user plane security with the UPSA (¶[0612]: "the UE performs security protection on the user plane data based on the encryption algorithm and the integrity protection algorithm using a corresponding protection key."); and
transmit a service access request to the service using the user plane security (¶[0615]: "the UPF performs security protection on the user plane data based on the encryption algorithm and the integrity protection algorithm using a corresponding key.") {that is the service access request is sent to the UPF using the respective UP protection keys}.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor system to establish a security context with a transport service of the wireless network (Fig. 8) {It shows that both SMF (the UPSA in this case) and UE derive the UP protection keys after secondary authentication}.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the response to the service session request includes security configuration information (Fig 15: “11. Session ID, QoS flow ID, security protection algorithm, and session protection mechanism” and “12. Session ID, QoS flow ID, security protection algorithm, and session protection mechanism”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the user plane security with the UPSA is established based on the service key and identifier for the UPSA (¶[0030]) {the k_algorithm network element from which the UP protection key(s) are derived identifies the UPSA (the algorithm network element being the UPSA)}.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. disclose an apparatus for accessing a service of a wireless network, comprising:
a memory system (Fig. 20: “Memory (ROAM) 220”) comprising instructions; and
a processor system (Fig. 20: “Processor CPU) 210”) coupled to the memory system, wherein the processor system (¶[0830]: “The policy function network element includes a processor 210, a memory 220, a transmitter 230, and a receiver 240, and the processor 210, the memory 220, the transmitter 230, and the receiver 240 are connected”; ¶[0012]: “The policy function network element includes one of a policy control function (PCF), the AUSF, the AMF, the SMF, and the CN device.”) is configured to:
receive from a transport service of the wireless network (Fig. 8: “AMF”), a request for UPSA security for a service (Fig. 8: "5. Session Request and user plane protection mechanism") including an identifier for the service, an identifier for a wireless device (¶[0009]: "the request further includes at least one of a service identifier, a user equipment service identifier, a data network name (DNN), and a user equipment security capability."), and an identifier for a user plane security anchor (UPSA) (¶[0016]: "the algorithm network element obtains K_algorithm network element {e.g., k_SMF} from the AMF") for the service and the wireless device (¶[0017]: "before determining a user plane protection mechanism, the method includes determining a QoS flow identifier (QoS flow ID) corresponding to the QoS flow transport channel ... there is a mapping relationship between the QoS flow ID and the user plane protection mechanism" {i.e. there is a mapping between the requested service and the user plane protection mechanism, and the user plane protection keys for integrity protection and encryption}; ¶[0179]: "The air interface user plane encryption key and the air interface user plane integrity protection key may be collectively referred to as a first air interface user plane protection key" {may be derived per QoS flow}; ¶[0030]: "First user plane protection key=KDF (K_algorithm network element, UP algorithm ID, flow ID)");
generate a service key for the UPSA (Fig. 8: "7. Determine a security protection algorithm and a user plane protection key"); and
transmit, to the transport service (Fig. 8: "AMF"), a response to the request for UPSA security including information for deriving a service key (Fig. 8: "9. Security protection algorithm").
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor system to: obtain a security policy from the service; and transmit, to the UPSA, a user plane security policy based on the obtained security policy (Fig. 16: “6. Obtain a subscription security mechanism” and “9. Dynamic user plane protection mechanism”).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the response to the request for UPSA security further includes the service key {as disclosed, the response may comprise the user plane protection mechanism, i.e. whether to integrity protect and/or encrypt the UP data, and the security protection algorithm, and the necessary identifiers to derive the UP protection key(s). The actual key may be i.e., transmitted to the UPF}.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above. Zhang et al. also disclose wherein the response to the request for UPSA security further includes the identifier for the UPSA (¶¶[0015]-[0016]) { the security protection algorithm in the response defines the derivation function, which in turn identifies the k_algorithm network element, i.e. the key of the UPSA, and therefore the UPSA itself}.
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 of this title, 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.
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(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The foregoing obviousness inquiry requires an expansive and flexible approach, not a rigid approach demanding express teachings, suggestions and motivations to combine prior art teachings. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 97 (US 2007). The rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness should be made explicit for review, but the rationale does not require precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim. Id. at 1396. A rejection can rely on inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. Obviousness rejections are not limited to showing the obviousness of solutions to the problems Applicant was trying to solve. Id. at 1397. Rather, one can show obviousness of a claim by establishing the obviousness of any solution to any known problem in the field of endeavor and addressed by a patent application's subject matter. Id. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is possessed of ordinary creativity. Id. One of ordinary skill could find alternative uses for prior art elements beyond the elements' primary purposes and fit prior art teachings together like a puzzle. Id. A combination of prior art teachings does not require absolute predictability. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0084631 Al to Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above except for expressly teaching wherein the service access request includes an access token for the service. However, usage of access tokens to access services is well-known to the person skilled in the art, e.g., it may be established during "6. secondary authentication" with the DN, as it is shown in Fig. 8 by Zhang et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use such known technique to modify the system of Zhang et al. and to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang et al. disclose as stated above except for expressly teaching wherein the instructions further cause the processor system to transmit, to the UPSA, the service key, the identifier for the service, and the identifier for the wireless device to provision the UPSA. However, Zhang et al. disclose the transmission of Service ID and the UE ID as part of the session request to the SMF {i.e. the UPSA} (¶[0007]; ¶[0009]; Fig.15), as well as the transmission, to the SMF {i.e. the UPSA} of user plane protection mechanism and session protection mechanism (Fig. 15; ¶[0639]). The SMF derives the UP protection key(s) based on this information. However, the skilled person understands that “transmitting information and identifiers to derive a key” is equivalent to “transmitting the actual key”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use such known technique to modify the system of Zhang et al. and to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that the application may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application, the applicant is respectfully requested to clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2025/0056216 A1) disclose an apparatus for securely accessing a service, comprising: a memory system comprising instructions; and a processor system coupled to the memory system, wherein the processor system is configured to: receive, by a security service from a service, a request for a service key for accessing the service, the request for the service key including an indication to use a user plane security anchor (UPSA) (claim 1).
Written opinion of the international searching authority, PCT/US25/29879, December 4, 2025, which provide similar rejection of all claims in the instant application, in which examiner concur.
Qualcomm Incorporated, "3GPP SA3 6G Study Conference Call", SA3 Email discussion, August 2025, online", <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Email_Discussions/SA3/FS_6G_SEC/old/CC_Aug2025/DP-Qualcomm-v1.pdf>, disclose "User-plane security anchor to support of different UP {user plane} termination points per application/service needs" (page 4).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights