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 .
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (or pre-AIA §112, second paragraph) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 improperly depends from itself, reciting:
"15. The computing device according to claim 15, wherein determining the direction of travel of the computing device comprises determining a rate at which the computing device approaches one or more authenticatable devices."
A claim that depends from itself is indefinite because it creates a circular dependency, resulting in an endless loop and rendering the scope of the claim unclear. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(h) and MPEP 608.01(n), such a claim is improper and must be rejected under §112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 8-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aylward et al., U.S. Publication Number 2020/0029214 A1 (hereinafter Aylward) and further in view Al-kadi et al., U.S. Publication Number 2019/0394748 A1 (hereinafter Al-kadi).
Regarding claim 1, Aylward discloses a computer-implemented authentication method comprising:
broadcasting, by a first device (Wearable 2 100b), an ultrawideband (UWB) message (i.e., Wearable 2 100b sends a synchronization signal to each of wearable 1 to wearable N. The wearable devices communicate with one another using an Ultra-Wide Band wireless connection….) (see fig. 4 and paragraphs [0044 & 0050]);
receiving, by the first device, one or more UWB responses to the UWB message from one or more UWB equipped devices (i.e., reads on the teaching that “In response to the synchronization signal, each wearable device returns its column in the distance matrix and the movement information to the requesting device (i.e., Wearable 2 100b, which sent the synchronization signal”) (see fig. 4 and paragraph [0050]);
determining one or more of the UWB equipped devices having respective distances to the first device that are within a threshold radius of the first device to be authenticatable devices (i.e., “the requesting device (in this case Wearable 2) may then either compare the returned results with the table 300…where authentication can occur. In order to authenticate the user the measured distance and/or movements must be within a predetermined threshold of the stored distance and/or movement”) (see paragraph [0052]); and
communicating, by the first device, authentication information to one or more of the authenticatable devices to authenticate a user of the first device on the one or more authenticatable devices (i.e., “After authentication, Wearable 2 100b sends an authentication response to resource 205 in fig. 4; step 430”) (see paragraph [0054]).
Aylward fails to explicitly teach determining, based on timing information associated with the UWB message and the one or more UWB responses, respective distances to the one or more UWB equipped devices.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Al-kadi teaches a corresponding system for determining the position of a node in a communication network, for example in a UWB communication network, wherein said network comprises said node and a plurality of anchors, the method comprising: the node transmits a poll message to the plurality of anchors; a first anchor of said plurality transmits a response message to the node and to one or more other anchors of said plurality of anchors; a processing unit calculates the position of the node using timing information of the poll message transmission by the node, of the poll message reception by the plurality of anchors, of the response message transmission by the first anchor, and of the response message reception by the node and the other anchor or anchors (see fig. 5A; steps 502-506, fig. 5B and paragraphs [0042 & 0043]). In addition, Al-kadi teaches the anchors perform regular time-of-flight measurements between each other to determine the distance between each and these measured distances may be taken into account when the node’s position is determined (see paragraph [0043]). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize that, in wireless communications, determining a device’s position typically relies on calculating distances to known reference points. Accordingly, systems that determine position, disclose, teach or suggest the ability to determine such distances.
Therefore 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 Aylward with the teaching of Al-kadi to determine, based on timing information associated with the UWB message and the one or more UWB responses, respective distances to the one or more UWB equipped devices, in order to determine a node’s position or distance between each other with a higher degree of accuracy as taught by Al-kadi (see paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination further teaches the method, wherein communicating, by the first device, authentication information to the one or more of the authenticatable devices comprises communicating, by a wearable device, authentication information to one or more personal computers to authenticate a user of the wearable device on the one or more personal computers (i.e., Aylward teaches “After authentication, Wearable 2 100b sends an authentication response to resource 205 in fig. 4; step 430”) (see paragraphs [0054-0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Aylward discloses a computing device that comprises:
one or more processors (e.g., controller105) (see fig. 1 and paragraph [0017 & 0073]); and
a memory (e.g., storage 130) in communication with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instruction code that, when executed by the one or more processors (see fig. 1 and paragraph [0017 & 0071), causes the computing device to perform operations comprising:
broadcasting, by the computing device (Wearable 2 100b), an ultrawideband (UWB) message (i.e., Wearable 2 100b sends a synchronization signal to each of wearable 1 to wearable N. The wearable devices communicate with one another using an Ultra-Wide Band wireless connection….) (see fig. 4 and paragraphs [0044 & 0050]);
receiving, by the computing device, one or more UWB responses to the UWB message from one or more UWB equipped devices (i.e., reads on the teaching that “In response to the synchronization signal, each wearable device returns its column in the distance matrix and the movement information to the requesting device (i.e., Wearable 2 100b, which sent the synchronization signal”) (see fig. 4 and paragraph [0050]);
determining one or more of the UWB equipped devices having respective distances to the computing device that are within a threshold radius of the computing device to be authenticatable devices (i.e., “the requesting device (in this case Wearable 2) may then either compare the returned results with the table 300…where authentication can occur. In order to authenticate the user the measured distance and/or movements must be within a predetermined threshold of the stored distance and/or movement”) (see paragraph [0052]); and
communicating, by the computing device, authentication information to one or more of the authenticatable devices to authenticate a user of the first device on the one or more authenticatable devices (i.e., “After authentication, Wearable 2 100b sends an authentication response to resource 205 in fig. 4; step 430”) (see paragraph [0054]).
Aylward fails to explicitly teach determining, based on timing information associated with the UWB message and the one or more UWB responses, respective distances to the one or more UWB equipped devices.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Al-kadi teaches a corresponding system for determining the position of a node in a communication network, for example in a UWB communication network, wherein said network comprises said node and a plurality of anchors, the method comprising: the node transmits a poll message to the plurality of anchors; a first anchor of said plurality transmits a response message to the node and to one or more other anchors of said plurality of anchors; a processing unit calculates the position of the node using timing information of the poll message transmission by the node, of the poll message reception by the plurality of anchors, of the response message transmission by the first anchor, and of the response message reception by the node and the other anchor or anchors (see fig. 5A; steps 502-506, fig. 5B and paragraphs [0042 & 0043]). In addition, Al-kadi teaches the anchors perform regular time-of-flight measurements between each other to determine the distance between each and these measured distances may be taken into account when the node’s position is determined (see paragraph [0043]). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize that, in wireless communications, determining a device’s position typically relies on calculating distances to known reference points. Accordingly, systems that determine position, disclose, teach or suggest the ability to determine such distances.
Therefore 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 Aylward with the teaching of Al-kadi to determine, based on timing information associated with the UWB message and the one or more UWB responses, respective distances to the one or more UWB equipped devices, in order to determine a node’s position or distance between each other with a higher degree of accuracy as taught by Al-kadi (see paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. The combination further teaches the computing device, wherein the authentication information specifies a username and a password associated with the user of the one or more authenticatable devices (i.e., reads on the teaching of Aylward that each user for which authentication will be required is given a unique identifier…. and the wearable identifier is a unique identifier identifying each wearable device that is associated with the particular user (see Aylward, paragraphs [0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above. The combination further teaches the computing device, wherein the computing device corresponds to a wearable device, and the one or more authenticatable devices correspond to a personal computer. Specifically, Aylward describes resource 205 as a controlling device located in a network to which the wearable device 100 is connected, and resource 205 may perform the function of authenticating wearable devices 101, 102, 103, and 104 (see Aylward, Fig. 2; paragraphs [0027], [0028], and [0037]). Thus, the wearable device serves as the computing device, and the personal computer (resource 205) serves as the authenticatable device, consistent with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Aylward discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instruction code, wherein when executed by one or more processors (e.g., controller105) of a computing device (see fig. 1 and paragraph [0017 & 0071), the instruction code causes the computing device to perform operations comprising:
broadcasting, by the computing device (Wearable 2 100b), an ultrawideband (UWB) message (i.e., Wearable 2 100b sends a synchronization signal to each of wearable 1 to wearable N. The wearable devices communicate with one another using an Ultra-Wide Band wireless connection….) (see fig. 4 and paragraphs [0044 & 0050]);
receiving, by the computing device, one or more UWB responses to the UWB message from one or more UWB equipped devices (i.e., reads on the teaching that “In response to the synchronization signal, each wearable device returns its column in the distance matrix and the movement information to the requesting device (i.e., Wearable 2 100b, which sent the synchronization signal”) (see fig. 4 and paragraph [0050]);
determining one or more of the UWB equipped devices having respective distances to the computing device that are within a threshold radius of the computing device to be authenticatable devices (i.e., “the requesting device (in this case Wearable 2) may then either compare the returned results with the table 300…where authentication can occur. In order to authenticate the user the measured distance and/or movements must be within a predetermined threshold of the stored distance and/or movement”) (see paragraph [0052]); and
communicating, by the computing device, authentication information to one or more of the authenticatable devices to authenticate a user of the first device on the one or more authenticatable devices (i.e., “After authentication, Wearable 2 100b sends an authentication response to resource 205 in fig. 4; step 430”) (see paragraph [0054]).
Aylward fails to explicitly teach determining, based on timing information associated with the UWB message and the one or more UWB responses, respective distances to the one or more UWB equipped devices.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Al-kadi teaches a corresponding system for determining the position of a node in a communication network, for example in a UWB communication network, wherein said network comprises said node and a plurality of anchors, the method comprising: the node transmits a poll message to the plurality of anchors; a first anchor of said plurality transmits a response message to the node and to one or more other anchors of said plurality of anchors; a processing unit calculates the position of the node using timing information of the poll message transmission by the node, of the poll message reception by the plurality of anchors, of the response message transmission by the first anchor, and of the response message reception by the node and the other anchor or anchors (see fig. 5A; steps 502-506, fig. 5B and paragraphs [0042 & 0043]). In addition, Al-kadi teaches the anchors perform regular time-of-flight measurements between each other to determine the distance between each and these measured distances may be taken into account when the node’s position is determined (see paragraph [0043]). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize that, in wireless communications, determining a device’s position typically relies on calculating distances to known reference points. Accordingly, systems that determine position, disclose, teach or suggest the ability to determine such distances.
Therefore 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 Aylward with the teaching of Al-kadi to determine, based on timing information associated with the UWB message and the one or more UWB responses, respective distances to the one or more UWB equipped devices, in order to determine a node’s position or distance between each other with a higher degree of accuracy as taught by Al-kadi (see paragraph [0043]).
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aylward et al., U.S. Publication Number 2020/0029214 A1 (hereinafter Aylward) and in view Al-kadi et al., U.S. Publication Number 2019/0394748 A1 (hereinafter Al-kadi) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 19 above, and further in view of Ponnuswamy et al., U.S. Publication Number 2016/0037458 A1 (hereinafter Ponnuswamy).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19 above. The combination fails to teach the method and the computer device, wherein the operations further comprise: after authenticating the user on the one or more authenticatable devices, determining, by the first device, that respective distances from the one or more authenticatable devices exceed a second threshold distance; and responsive to determining that the respective distances exceed the second threshold distance, communicating, by the first device, a de-authentication instruction to the one or more authenticatable devices to de-authenticate the user on the one or more authenticatable devices.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ponnuswamy teaches after authenticating the user on the one or more authenticatable devices, determining, by the first device, that respective distances from the one or more authenticatable devices exceed a second threshold distance; and responsive to determining that the respective distances exceed the second threshold distance, communicating, by the first device, a de-authentication instruction to the one or more authenticatable devices to de-authenticate the user on the one or more authenticatable devices (i.e., interpreted as when Clientc 280 is within the de-authentication zone, AP 200 can send a DE-RUTH message to Clientc 280 to de-authenticate the client device Cleintc 280 after detecting that Clientc 280 has moved outside boundary 250) (see paragraph [0026] and fig. 2B).
Therefore 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 combination of Aylward and Al-kadi with the teaching of Ponnuswamy to communicate a de-authentication instruction to the one or more authenticatable devices to de-authenticate the user on the one or more authenticatable devices when the respective distances from the one or more authenticatable devices exceed a particular threshold distance, in order to enhance security by ensuring that de-authentication is automatically triggered when a device moves beyond a trusted proximity, thereby preventing unauthorized access if a device is removed from the secure area, as taught by Ponnuswamy (see paragraphs [0026 & 0033]).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aylward et al., U.S. Publication Number 2020/0029214 A1 (hereinafter Aylward) and in view Al-kadi et al., U.S. Publication Number 2019/0394748 A1 (hereinafter Al-kadi) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ledvina et al., U.S. Publication Number 2019/0135229 A1 (hereinafter Ledvina).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively. However, the combination fails to teach wherein communicating the authentication information to the one or more authenticatable devices comprises communicating the authentication information via a communication protocol that is different from a UWB communication protocol.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ledvina teaches that two different wireless protocols can be used for ranging and authentication between a mobile device and an access control system, such as a vehicle. Ledvina discloses that a narrower pulse width, such as that provided by UWB, can yield greater accuracy for ranging measurements (see Abstract). Embodiments described in Ledvina provide for a mobile device (e.g., phone, watch, or other accessory) that securely communicates with a vehicle for both authentication and ranging, enabling timely unlocking of the vehicle when the user is nearby. Secure communication can involve key exchanges and negotiations in a first wireless protocol, with those keys subsequently used in a second wireless protocol for ranging, such as UWB. Furthermore, cryptographic keys can be used in challenge-response messages for mutual authentication between the mobile device and the vehicle (see [0018]).
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 combination of Aylward and Al-kadi with the authentication procedures of Ledvina. Specifically, this would include communicating authentication information to one or more authenticatable devices via a communication protocol different from UWB, as taught by Ledvina, in order to provide more accurate ranging measurements and enhance the security and reliability of device authentication (see Abstract). Utilizing multiple wireless protocols for authentication and ranging, as described by Ledvina, would have been recognized as yielding technical benefits such as improved measurement accuracy and robust security.
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aylward et al., U.S. Publication Number 2020/0029214 A1 (hereinafter Aylward) and in view Al-kadi et al., U.S. Publication Number 2019/0394748 A1 (hereinafter Al-kadi) as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Karmoose et al., U.S. Publication Number 2020/0403804 A1 (hereinafter Karmoose).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. The combination fails to teach the method and the computer device, wherein communicating the authentication information to the one or more authenticatable devices comprises communicating the authentication information to a particular authenticatable device of the one or more authenticatable devices that is closest in distance to the first device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Karmoose teaches protocols and procedures for vehicle-to-vehicle communications in platooning, wherein vehicles that are not the leader function as follower vehicles. For security purposes, the platooning logic circuitry of each follower vehicle may exchange a pairwise, symmetric key with at least one other vehicle during platoon initiation or through communications related to management layer tasks, such as when a vehicle is added to, removed from, or changes position within the platoon. Karmoose further discloses that each vehicle in the platoon communicates with the leader vehicle and with the vehicle immediately behind it, except for the last vehicle in the platoon (see Abstract, [0024], and Fig. 1B). From Fig. 1B, follower vehicle 1030 corresponds to the “first device,” while the leader vehicle 1010 or one of the other follower vehicles corresponds to the “one or more authenticatable devices” as recited in the claims. Fig. 1B clearly illustrates that follower vehicle 1030 (i.e., the first device) is closest in distance to leader vehicle 1010 or another follower vehicle, and that they exchange a pairwise symmetric key (i.e., authentication information) (see Fig. 1B and [0025], [0027]).
Therefore 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 combination of Aylward and Al-kadi with the authentication procedures of Karmoose, wherein communicating the authentication information to the one or more authenticatable devices comprises communicating the authentication information to a particular authenticatable device of the one or more authenticatable devices that is closest in distance to the first device, in order to facilitate security for communication of time-critical data packets between devices. As described in Karmoose (paragraphs [0038 & 0091]), after adding the vehicle ID, a security operation may be performed so a recipient device can verify that the content of the data packet is valid and is from a valid source. Implementing such authentication ensures that sensitive or time-critical information is only accepted from verified devices, thereby improving the reliability and security of inter-device communications in dynamic wireless communication networks or environments.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 14 and 15, the combination of Aylward, Al-kadi, and Karmoose teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 13. Additionally, Karmoose discloses determining a direction of travel of the first device, wherein determining the direction of travel of the first device (claim 5) comprises determining, by the first device, a rate at which first device approaches one or more authenticatable devices (claim 6) (i.e., broadly interpreted as determining the longitudinal or heading speed of the vehicles) (see Fig. 1B; [0043], [0056], [0068]). As previously discussed, Karmoose further teaches or suggests that each vehicle in the platoon communicates with the leader vehicle and with the vehicle immediately behind it, except for the last vehicle in the platoon (see Abstract, [0024], and Fig. 1B). In Fig. 1B, follower vehicle 1030 corresponds to the "first device," while the leader vehicle 1010 or another follower vehicle corresponds to the "one or more authenticatable devices" as recited in the claims. Fig. 1B clearly illustrates that follower vehicle 1030 (i.e., the first device) is closest in distance to leader vehicle 1010 or another follower vehicle, and that they exchange a pairwise symmetric key (i.e., authentication information) (see Fig. 1B; [0025], [0027]).
Therefore, 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 combination of Aylward and Al-kadi with the authentication procedures of Karmoose to include determining a direction of travel of the first device. In this modification, communicating the authentication information to the particular authenticatable device that is closest in distance to the first device would further comprise communicating the authentication information to a particular authenticatable device that is both closest in distance and in the direction of travel. This would facilitate security for communication of time-critical data packets between devices. As described in Karmoose ([0038], [0091]), after adding the vehicle ID, a security operation may be performed so a recipient device can verify that the content of the data packet is valid and from a valid source. Implementing such authentication ensures that sensitive or time-critical information is only accepted from verified devices, thereby improving the reliability and security of inter-device communications in dynamic wireless communication networks or environments.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination of Aylward and Al-kadi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. The combination fails to teach the method and the computer device, wherein communicating, by the computing device, the authentication information to the one or more authenticatable devices comprises communicating authentication information configured to cause the one or more authenticatable devices to authenticate the user without generating an indication that the user is authenticated. Karmoose, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches protocols and procedures for vehicle-to-vehicle communications in platooning, wherein follower vehicles exchange pairwise, symmetric keys with other vehicles during platoon initiation or through management layer communications (see Abstract, [0024], Fig. 1B). Each vehicle in the platoon communicates with the leader vehicle and the vehicle immediately behind it, except for the last vehicle in the platoon (see Abstract, [0024], Fig. 1B). Follower vehicle 1030 corresponds to the "first device," while the leader vehicle 1010 or one of the other follower vehicles corresponds to the "one or more authenticatable devices" as recited in the claims. Fig. 1B illustrates that follower vehicle 1030 is closest in distance to leader vehicle 1010 or another follower vehicle, and that they exchange a pairwise symmetric key (i.e., authentication information) (see Fig. 1B; [0025], [0027]).
While Karmoose describes the exchange of authentication information, it does not explicitly state whether an indication of authentication is generated for the user. However, it is common in the art particularly in automated, machine-to-machine, or background authentication scenarios such as those in vehicular networks—to perform authentication operations without generating a user-facing indication. In such environments, the authentication process is typically transparent to the user to avoid unnecessary distractions, streamline operation, and enhance security by reducing the risk of exposing authentication events to potential attackers.
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 combination of Aylward and Al-kadi with the authentication procedures of Karmoose such that the computing device communicates authentication information to one or more authenticatable devices in a manner configured to cause those devices to authenticate the user without generating an indication that the user is authenticated. This modification would be motivated by a desire to facilitate seamless and secure communication of time-critical data packets between devices, particularly in automated environments where user intervention or notification is unnecessary or undesirable. As described in Karmoose ([0038], [0091]), after adding the vehicle ID, a security operation may be performed so a recipient device can verify the validity and source of the data packet. Implementing such authentication in the background, without generating a user-facing indication, is a logical and routine optimization to improve the reliability, security, and user experience of inter-device communications in dynamic wireless communication networks or environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645