DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to communications received on 06/05/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-10 were amended via the communications. No new claims were added and no claims were deleted. Claims 1-10 are pending and are examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5 and 7 are sufficient to overcome the objections raised in the Non-Final Rejection, issued 3/12/2026. Therefore, the objections from the Non-Final Rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding the interpretation of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(f) have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is nothing in claim 4 that is a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder. This is incorrect. The claim language “encryption unit configured for” is a substitute for means. It is recited alongside the functionality of “to perform” without any explicit hardware for performing the function “to perform”. An interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applies because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder [unit configured to] that is coupled with functional language [to perform] without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The fact that structure is identified in the Specification that is interpreted as being the “encryption unit” does not mean that the claim is no longer interpreted under 112(f) – it simply means that a rejection under 112(b) is not required because there is structural support in the Specification for the generic placeholder and its function. If Applicant does not intend for claim 4 to be interpreted under 112(f), then Applicant must explicitly provide the hardware that is doing the functional language (in this case, specify what hardware the encryption unit is using to perform) or remove the “unit configured to” language. As such, claim 4 is still interpreted under 35 USC 112(6).
Applicant’s amendment of claims 8 and 9 changing their claim dependencies is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the aforementioned claims under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as raised in the Non-Final Rejection, issued 3/12/2026. Accordingly, the rejection under 112, second paragraph, from the Non-Final Rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “a power source configured to supply power needed for a function operation of the communication port;” “when a condition for the network link of the external device is not satisfied, removes data received from the external device, based on the link setting information” and “as an attempt to establish a network link of an external device is sensed, determining whether to allow [[a]] the network link of the external device, based on the link setting information” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Examiner Note
The Examiner warns that the two independent claims should not comprise different substantive subject matter from one another. Right now independent claims 1 and 7 of the instant application are different, therefore the examiner warns against amending the claims too differently because this could cause them to become restrictable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to for the following informalities: both independent claims appear to be missing claim steps. The steps in claims 1 and 7 should naturally flow from one another rather than being separate statements that do not relate to one another. For example, the first two lines in claim 1 relate to the communication port, but do not explain how they relate to the preamble (is the communication port one of “the intermittent communication ports” introduced in the preamble, is the power supplied in step 2 from a power grid and does supplying power having something to do with why the port is intermittent?) In addition, the result of supplying power for the communication port is never used – this claim steps ends and appears to have no relation to the next half of the claim (i.e. how does supplying power from step 2 relate to determining whether a network link is established in step 4). How does monitoring a communication link (in step 1) relate to determining whether a network link is established (in step 4)? How does the communication port relate to the external device and the network link? The final step talks about determining whether conditions for network links with an external device are satisfied, but it is not clear to the reviewer how this determination flows from the power source and communication port or the multi-interface. The final step of determining when a network link of an external device is established does not appear to relate to the previous step about the interface for a network link since they both disclose “a network link” (i.e. 2 different network links rather than both referring to the same network link). Similarly in claim 7, none of these claim steps appear related. Part of the problem is that the steps of claim 7 do not disclose an entity or device or system that is performing the steps. The first step has maintaining a network link disconnection state, then the next step talks about operating in an interface statement state. Does this mean that the disconnection state is replaced or switched out into the interface standby state? How do these two steps relate to one another???? The third step talks about determining whether to allow a network link – but it is again unclear how this relates to the preceding two steps as this step appears to refer to a new “network link of an external device”? Is the claim attempting to say that “link setting information” for one network link is used to determine whether to allow a separate new network link with an external device? Does the system need to be in a certain state in order for the network link to be established with the external device? If so, then the examine recommends adding language such as “when an attempt to establish a network link with an external device is sensed when operating in the interface standby state,”. Basically these two claims comprise a series of steps that do not appear to relate to one another, therefore it is hard to determine how the individual components of this invention/system would work together to generate the final step.
Claim 7 is further objected to because the claim phrase “the network link” in the claim phrase “the network link is completed” lacks antecedent basis because no prior instance of “a network link” is introduced. If the preceding statement is meant to provide that, the statement should be reworded to state “maintaining a disconnection state of a network link;”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: each limitation using the language “unit” (e.g., “encryption unit”) in claim 4. The corresponding structure can be found in Para. [0053], “The encryption unit 440 may be applied by implementing a specially designed encryption algorithm or a block encryption-based encryption algorithm known to those skilled in the art”. Para. [0071], “machine language readable by a processor (CPU) of a computer through a device interface of the computer, so that the computer reads the program and executes the methods implemented as the program. Such a code may include a functional code associated with a function defining functions needed for executing the methods, and moreover, may include an execution procedure-related control code needed for executing the functions by using the processor of the computer on the basis of a predetermined procedure. Also, the code may further include additional information, needed for executing the functions by using the processor of the computer, or a memory reference-related code corresponding to a location (an address) of an internal or external memory of the computer, which is to be referred to by a media. Also, when the processor needs communication with a remote computer or server so as to execute the functions, the code may further include a communication-related code corresponding to a communication scheme needed for communication with the remote computer or server and information or a media to be transmitted or received in performing communication, by using a communication module of the computer”. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mestha (US 2018/0260561) in view of Stokes (US 2024/0386147).
Regarding claim 1, Mestha teaches the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A power grid access security system for intermittent communication ports, the power grid access security system comprising (Mestha, paras. [0021], [0027], [0048], [0056], [0058]: electric power grid system for data source nodes/sensors/equipment receiving streams of data over time collected at a set frequency in batches):
a link manager configured to manage and monitor a communication link of a communication port (Mestha, paras. [0022], [0025], [0067]: electric power grid protection platform comprising abnormal state detection computers and unit controllers, plant Human-Machine Interfaces and interactive graphical display interfaces (i.e. link managers) for managing and monitoring a communication device of a communication network for communicating with data source nodes.);
a power source configured to supply power needed for a function operation of the communication port; (Mestha, para. [0021], [0027], [0067], Figs. 3, 6: power grid provides power to nodes);
wherein the link manager is configured to determine (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0031], [0043], [0048]: abnormal state detection computers and unit controllers, plant Human-Machine Interfaces and interactive graphical display interfaces (i.e. link managers) determine whether to allow communication with the data source node/sensor/auxiliary equipment (i.e. external device) based on whether the features of the data source node/sensor/equipment cross the decision boundary into abnormal values representing an attack);
when a condition for the network link of the external device is not satisfied, removes data received from the external device, based on the link setting information. (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0054], [0064], Fig. 1 elements 110, 120: when the values streamed from the data source node/sensor/equipment do not fit into the normal data set indicating that normal communication/linking with the node/sensor/equipment cannot be carried out safely, isolating the node/sensor when the data source node/sensor/equipment is determined to be a possible cause of the attack and removing the data received from the data source node/sensor/equipment and placing it in the abnormal data set (see normal data space 110 vs. abnormal data space 120)).
Mestha teaches monitoring a device connection and access control, but does not explicitly disclose:
a multi-interface configured to integrate and provide an interface for a network link and a security service,
However, Stokes in the Same field of endeavor discloses:
a multi-interface configured to integrate and provide an interface for a network link and a security service, (Stokes, Paras. [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0024], as shown in Fig. 1, system 100 includes a device 102 and a host device 110 which utilizes authentication mechanism 114 to determine whether to allow or block the device 102 from communication through bus 118 to the port 120 (physical hardware interface). Multiple interfaces that work together to provide a host-device network communication (i.e., an interface for a network link), and an authentication mechanism using certificate verification (i.e., a security service)).
Stokes is combinable with Mestha, because both are from the same field of encrypting communications and protecting a system from attack by malicious entities. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize an authentication mechanism, as taught by Stokes with Mestha’s method in order to enhance security of communication ports used for connecting external devices.
Regarding claim 2, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claim 1. Stokes teaches the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The power grid access security system of claim 1, wherein the multi-interface obtains information of the external device including at least one of identification information, an access allowance time, a communication link method, whether encryption is used or not, and an encryption key for the external device, and wherein the link manager changes the link setting information, based on the information of the external device. (Stokes, Paras. [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0024], [0026], [0030]-[0032], [0040]-[0044], the host device obtains authentication information associated with the device. Authentication information includes keys such as private keys, public keys, or symmetric keys (i.e., at least one of ……. identification information). Bus authentication operation utilizes transport layer security (TLS), and the host device receives a TLS hello message and verifies the TLS certificate (i.e., whether encryption is used). Keys are received from the device or retrieved from remote source over a network (i.e., an encryption key for the external device)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claims 1-2. Mestha teaches the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The power grid access security system of claim 2, wherein, when the link setting information is satisfied, the link manager allows the network link of the external device (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0031], [0043], [0048]: abnormal state detection computers and unit controllers, plant Human-Machine Interfaces and interactive graphical display interfaces (i.e. link managers) determine whether to allow communication with the data source node/sensor/auxiliary equipment (i.e. external device) based on whether the features of the data source node/sensor/equipment cross the decision boundary into abnormal values representing an attack (i.e. link features are satisfied or not))
and when an event including at least one of a disallowed communication protocol sensing event, a link release event, and a link time elapse event of the network-linked external device is sensed, (Mestha, paras. [0031], [0055], [0075]: detecting an event based upon comparing time values, ranges of time, and time series of values (i.e. link time elapse event))
the link manager reports the event to the management device. (Mestha, paras. [0022], [0077], [0081], Figs. 1, 13-14: abnormal state detection computer transmits alerts to monitoring devices 170 and interfaces display the information to the users of the monitoring devices)
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claims 1-3. Mestha teaches the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The power grid access security system of claim 3, further comprising an encryption unit configured to perform packet encryption and decryption on data transmitted or received to or from the network-linked external device. (Mestha, paras. [0021], [0068]-[0069]: data paths for communicating with nodes/devices are encrypted and data which is extracted and run is stored in an encrypted format (i.e. must be decrypted in order to be read after being sent to device).
Regarding claim 5, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claim 1. Mestha teaches the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The power grid access security system of claim 1,
wherein the communication port is a communication port of network relay equipment (Mestha, paras. [0021]: communication node of auxiliary equipment)
wherein the power grid access security system is implemented as a module type which is inserted into a communication port of network relay equipment. (Mestha, paras. [0039], [0055], [0057], [0070]: power grid security system implemented by software modules for data source nodes/sensors/equipment).
Regarding claim 6, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claim 1. Stokes teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The power grid access security system of claim 1, wherein the power grid access security system is implemented by printed circuit board (PCB) units of network relay equipment, or is implemented to be embedded in a network relay chipset as a system on chip (SoC) or system on package (SoP) type. (Stokes, Paras. [0024]-[0028], “The host device 310 may comprise a router (e.g., a CRSP router), a computing device, network equipment, cellular equipment, an IoT device, a system on chip (SoC), or any other type of electronic device that has a port and/or a bus over which devices can communicate” (i.e., by printed circuit board …… or ….)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Mestha teaches the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
A power grid access security method for intermittent communication ports, performed by a power grid access security system for intermittent communication ports, the power grid access security method comprising (Mestha, paras. [0021], [0027], [0048], [0056], [0058]: electric power grid system for data source nodes/sensors/equipment receiving streams of data over time collected at a set frequency in batches):
as power is applied, maintaining a network link disconnection state (Mestha, para. [0030]: power may be applied to shut down a portion of the electric power grid upon detecting a potential cyber-attack);
as a configuration of link setting information for the network link is completed, operating in an interface standby state (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0035], [0037], [0039]: after determining features of a decision boundary (i.e. link setting information) 1for a data source node (i.e. completing configuration settings for managing links/connections with nodes, sensor and equipment in the power grid system), isolating the node/sensor when the data source node/sensor/equipment is determined to be a possible cause of the attack (i.e. putting any interface for communication with the node in an idle or standby status));
as an attempt to establish a network link of an external device is sensed, determining whether to allow [[a]] the network link of the external device, based on the link setting information (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0031], [0043], [0048]: determining whether to allow communication with the data source node/sensor/auxiliary equipment (i.e. external device) based on whether the features of the data source node/sensor/equipment cross the decision boundary into abnormal values representing an attack);
when the link setting information is not satisfied, removing data received from the external device (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0054], [0064], Fig. 1 elements 110, 120: when the values streamed from the data source node/sensor/equipment do not fit into the normal data set indicating that normal communication/linking with the node/sensor/equipment cannot be carried out safely, isolating the node/sensor when the data source node/sensor/equipment is determined to be a possible cause of the attack and removing the data received from the data source node/sensor/equipment and placing it in the abnormal data set (see normal data space 110 vs. abnormal data space 120)).
Mestha teaches monitoring a device connection and access control to a port, but does not explicitly disclose:
an access security system for intermittent communication ports,
However, Stokes in the Same field of endeavor discloses:
an access security system for intermittent communication ports, (Stokes, Paras. [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0024], as shown in Fig. 1, system 100 includes a device 102 and a host device 110 which utilizes authentication mechanism 114 to determine whether to allow or block the device 102 from communication through bus 118 to the port 120 (physical hardware interface)).
Stokes is combinable with Mestha, because both are from the same field of communication port access control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize an authentication mechanism, as taught by Stokes with Mestha’s method in order to enhance security of communication ports used for connecting external devices.
Regarding claim 8, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claim 7. Stokes teaches the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The power grid access security method of claim 7 [[5]], wherein the operating in the interface standby state comprises: obtaining information of the external device including at least one of identification information, an access allowance time, a link method, whether encryption is used or not, and an encryption key for the external device; and changing the link setting information, based on the information of the external device. (Stokes, Paras. [0019]-[0021], [0023]-[0024], [0026], [0030]-[0032], [0040]-[0044], the host device obtains authentication information associated with the device. Authentication information includes keys such as private keys, public keys, or symmetric keys (i.e., at least one of ……. identification information). Bus authentication operation utilizes transport layer security (TLS), and the host device receives a TLS hello message and verifies the TLS certificate (i.e., whether encryption is used). Keys are received from the device or retrieved from remote source over a network (i.e., an encryption key for the external device)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 7 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claim 7. Mestha teaches the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The power grid access security method of claim [[6]] 7, further comprising: when the link setting information is satisfied, allowing the network link of the external device; (Mestha, paras. [0029]-[0031], [0043], [0048]: abnormal state detection computers and unit controllers, plant Human-Machine Interfaces and interactive graphical display interfaces (i.e. link managers) determine whether to allow communication with the data source node/sensor/auxiliary equipment (i.e. external device) based on whether the features of the data source node/sensor/equipment cross the decision boundary into abnormal values representing an attack (i.e. link features are satisfied or not))
when an event including at least one of a disallowed communication protocol sensing event, a link release event, and a link time elapse event of the network-linked external device is sensed, (Mestha, paras. [0031], [0055], [0075]: detecting an event based upon comparing time values, ranges of time, and time series of values (i.e. link time elapse event))
reporting the event to a management device. ((Mestha, paras. [0022], [0077], [0081], Figs. 1, 13-14: abnormal state detection computer transmits alerts to monitoring devices 170 and interfaces display the information to the users of the monitoring devices)
Regarding claim 10, Mestha and Stokes teach the limitations of claims 6-7 and 9. Stokes teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The power grid access security method of claim 9, further comprising performing packet encryption and packet decryption on data transmitted or received to or from the network-linked external device. (Stokes, Paras. [0026], [0030]-[0034], [0039]-[0040], discloses encryption during device authentication operation using TLS protocol (i.e., encryption unit). The TLS certificate is verified, then a TLS handshake is complete (i.e., packet). The encrypted communication occurs for data transmitted between the host device and a connected external device connected through the port (i.e., network-linked external device)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 7 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Al-Yousef (US 2018/0308302) discloses securing SCADA network access from a remote terminal unit.
Cook (US 8,176,532) discloses a secure access point for SCADA devices.
McColgan (US 2010/0262809) discloses smartphones wirelessly communicate with a base station to transfer data such as images/videos.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON LYNCH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4583.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the Application/Control Number: 17/470,067 Page 17 Art Unit: 2438 organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300. Application/Control Number: 17/386,076 Page 25 Art Unit: 2438 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/patentcenter 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.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights