DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant's Amendments filed July 6, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-21 have been examined and are pending.
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 arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9129168 to Diorio et al. (hereinafter “Diorio”) and further in view of US Pat. No. 7515901 to Kaundinya (hereinafter “Kaundinya”) and further in view of US Pat. No. 9936441 to Ganu et al. (hereinafter “Ganu”).
As to Claim 1, Diorio discloses an access point comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, a combination of the one or more processors configured to:
encrypt a bit sequence using a key to produce an encrypted bit sequence (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the challenge may include the reader encrypting a random number (RN) using the TPK);
generate a discovery frame to discover backscatter devices, wherein the discovery frame comprises the encrypted bit sequence (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the challenge may include the reader encrypting a random number (RN) using the TPK);
transmit the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose sending the encrypted RN to the tag);
receive, from a first backscatter device, a first response to the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose receive a decrypted RN from tag. Column 20 lines 35-45 of Diorio disclose the reader receives a tag response to the challenge. In some embodiments the tag backscatters a combination of its tag response and one or more other codes. Column 19 lines 40-50 of Diorio disclose one reason a reader may choose to send the challenge with select 1902 is for multiple tags to hear the challenge and compute their cryptographic responses in parallel. Because cryptographic computations can be time intensive, enabling multiple tags to compute their responses in parallel allows more rapid authentication of a population of tags); and
receive, from a second backscatter device, a second response to the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose receive a decrypted RN from tag. Column 20 lines 35-45 of Diorio disclose the reader receives a tag response to the challenge. In some embodiments the tag backscatters a combination of its tag response and one or more other codes. Column 19 lines 40-50 of Diorio disclose one reason a reader may choose to send the challenge with select 1902 is for multiple tags to hear the challenge and compute their cryptographic responses in parallel. Because cryptographic computations can be time intensive, enabling multiple tags to compute their responses in parallel allows more rapid authentication of a population of tags)
in response to determining that the first response lacks a portion based on the bit sequence, initiate a containment procedure for the first backscatter device (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed)
[wherein the containment procedure comprises (i) receiving a message from the first backscatter device after the first response, (ii) ignoring the message from the first backscatter device,] (iii) [adding an identifier for the first backscatter device to a log shared amongst access points in a network to track unauthorized backscatter devices, and (iv) communicating an alert to another access point indicating that the first backscatter device is unauthorized such that the another access point ignores the message];
in response to determining that the second response comprises a portion based on the bit sequence, classify the second backscatter device as authorized (Column 20 lines 40-45 of Diorio disclose the reader verifies the tag response using the TPK. If the verification is successful then the tag is presumed genuine).
Diorio does not explicitly disclose wherein the containment procedure comprises (i) receiving a message from the first backscatter device after the first response, (ii) ignoring the message from the first backscatter device, further discloses challenge response in an RFID network.
However, Kaundinya discloses this. Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose the central control computer system or base station in an RFID network to perform a challenge/response protocol as defined herein to properly authenticate and authorize operation of transceiver tag readers within the network. Communications provided from transceivers within the network that cannot be authenticated according to the challenge/response protocol are ignored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the RFID system as disclosed by Diorio, with ignoring unauthenticated devices as disclosed by Kaundinya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Diorio and Kaundinya are directed toward RFID systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose a robust and dynamically changeable mechanism for communications devices used in networks such as RFID networks to avoid problems such as the placement of a compromised or unauthorized transceiver within the network for disruption of proper network operation.
Diorio does not explicitly disclose adding an identifier for the first backscatter device to a log shared amongst access points in a network to track unauthorized backscatter devices and communicating an alert to another access point indicating that the first backscatter device is unauthorized such that the another access point ignores the message.
However, Ganu discloses this. Column 4 lines 25-35 of Ganu discloses the AP receives a blacklist report from the report process, the AP adds clients and timestamps to its blacklist table. Column 4 lines 35-40 of Ganu disclose when the AP receives a probe request from a client that is on the blacklist and has not aged out, the AP does not send a probe response.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the wireless connection system as disclosed by Diorio, with synchronizing access points as disclosed by Ganu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Diorio and Ganu are directed toward wireless connection systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Implementing the techniques of Ganu in Diorio would improve security..
As to Claim 2, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to determine and report a location of the first backscatter device (Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed).
As to Claim 4, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to decrypt the second response (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the reader decrypting the received RN using the TPK).
As to Claim 5, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the first response comprises a reflection of energy of the discovery frame (Column 1 lines 55-65 of Diorio disclose the tag generates the transmitted back RF wave either originally, or by reflecting back a portion of the interrogating RF wave in a process known as backscatter).
As to Claim 6, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to disregard messages from the first backscatter device in response to determining that the first response lacks the portion based on the bit sequence (Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose the central control computer system or base station in an RFID network to perform a challenge/response protocol as defined herein to properly authenticate and authorize operation of transceiver tag readers within the network. Communications provided from transceivers within the network that cannot be authenticated according to the challenge/response protocol are ignored).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 8, Diorio discloses a method comprising:
encrypting a bit sequence using a key to produce an encrypted bit sequence (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the challenge may include the reader encrypting a random number (RN) using the TPK);
generating a discovery frame to discover backscatter devices, wherein the discovery frame comprises the encrypted bit sequence (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the challenge may include the reader encrypting a random number (RN) using the TPK);
transmitting the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose sending the encrypted RN to the tag);
receiving, at a first access point and from a first backscatter device, a first response to the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose receive a decrypted RN from tag. Column 20 lines 35-45 of Diorio disclose the reader receives a tag response to the challenge. In some embodiments the tag backscatters a combination of its tag response and one or more other codes. Column 19 lines 40-50 of Diorio disclose one reason a reader may choose to send the challenge with select 1902 is for multiple tags to hear the challenge and compute their cryptographic responses in parallel. Because cryptographic computations can be time intensive, enabling multiple tags to compute their responses in parallel allows more rapid authentication of a population of tags); and
receiving, at the first access point and from a second backscatter device, a second response to the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose receive a decrypted RN from tag. Column 20 lines 35-45 of Diorio disclose the reader receives a tag response to the challenge. In some embodiments the tag backscatters a combination of its tag response and one or more other codes. Column 19 lines 40-50 of Diorio disclose one reason a reader may choose to send the challenge with select 1902 is for multiple tags to hear the challenge and compute their cryptographic responses in parallel. Because cryptographic computations can be time intensive, enabling multiple tags to compute their responses in parallel allows more rapid authentication of a population of tags)
in response to determining that the first response lacks a portion based on the bit sequence, initiating, by the first access point, a containment procedure for the first backscatter device (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed)
[wherein the containment procedure comprises (i) receiving, by the first access point, a message from the first backscatter device after the first response, (ii) ignoring, by the first access point, the message from the first backscatter device], (iii)[ adding an identifier for the first backscatter device to a log shared amongst access points in a network to track unauthorized backscatter devices, and (iv) communicating, by the first access point, an alert to a second access point indicating that the first backscatter device is unauthorized such that the second access point ignores the message];
in response to determining that the second response comprises a portion based on the bit sequence, classifying the second backscatter device as authorized (Column 20 lines 40-45 of Diorio disclose the reader verifies the tag response using the TPK. If the verification is successful then the tag is presumed genuine).
Diorio does not explicitly disclose wherein the containment procedure comprises (i) receiving, by the first access point, a message from the first backscatter device after the first response, (ii) ignoring, by the first access point, the message from the first backscatter device.
However, Kaundinya discloses this. Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose the central control computer system or base station in an RFID network to perform a challenge/response protocol as defined herein to properly authenticate and authorize operation of transceiver tag readers within the network. Communications provided from transceivers within the network that cannot be authenticated according to the challenge/response protocol are ignored.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
Diorio does not explicitly disclose adding an identifier for the first backscatter device to a log shared amongst access points in a network to track unauthorized backscatter devices and communicating an alert to another access point indicating that the first backscatter device is unauthorized such that the another access point ignores the message.
However, Ganu discloses this. Column 4 lines 25-35 of Ganu discloses the AP receives a blacklist report from the report process, the AP adds clients and timestamps to its blacklist table. Column 4 lines 35-40 of Ganu disclose when the AP receives a probe request from a client that is on the blacklist and has not aged out, the AP does not send a probe response.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 9, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising determining and reporting a location of the first backscatter device (Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed).
As to Claim 11, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising decrypting the second response (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the reader decrypting the received RN using the TPK).
As to Claim 12, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first response comprises a reflection of energy of the discovery frame (Column 1 lines 55-65 of Diorio disclose the tag generates the transmitted back RF wave either originally, or by reflecting back a portion of the interrogating RF wave in a process known as backscatter).
As to Claim 13, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising disregarding messages from the first backscatter device in response to determining that the first response lacks the portion based on the bit sequence (Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose the central control computer system or base station in an RFID network to perform a challenge/response protocol as defined herein to properly authenticate and authorize operation of transceiver tag readers within the network. Communications provided from transceivers within the network that cannot be authenticated according to the challenge/response protocol are ignored).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 15, Diorio discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a combination of one or more processors, cause the combination of one or more processors to:
encrypt a bit sequence using a key to produce an encrypted bit sequence (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the challenge may include the reader encrypting a random number (RN) using the TPK);
transmit a discovery frame to discover backscatter devices, wherein the discovery frame comprises the encrypted bit sequence (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the challenge may include the reader encrypting a random number (RN) using the TPK and sending the encrypted RN to the tag);
receive, from a first backscatter device, a first response to the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose receive a decrypted RN from tag. Column 20 lines 35-45 of Diorio disclose the reader receives a tag response to the challenge. In some embodiments the tag backscatters a combination of its tag response and one or more other codes. Column 19 lines 40-50 of Diorio disclose one reason a reader may choose to send the challenge with select 1902 is for multiple tags to hear the challenge and compute their cryptographic responses in parallel. Because cryptographic computations can be time intensive, enabling multiple tags to compute their responses in parallel allows more rapid authentication of a population of tags);
receive, from a second backscatter device, a second response to the discovery frame (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose receive a decrypted RN from tag. Column 20 lines 35-45 of Diorio disclose the reader receives a tag response to the challenge. In some embodiments the tag backscatters a combination of its tag response and one or more other codes. Column 19 lines 40-50 of Diorio disclose one reason a reader may choose to send the challenge with select 1902 is for multiple tags to hear the challenge and compute their cryptographic responses in parallel. Because cryptographic computations can be time intensive, enabling multiple tags to compute their responses in parallel allows more rapid authentication of a population of tags);
in response to determining that the first response lacks the bit sequence, initiate a containment procedure for the first backscatter device (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed);
[wherein the containment procedure comprises (i) receiving, by the first access point, a message from the first backscatter device after the first response, (ii) ignoring, by the first access point, the message from the first backscatter device], (iii) [adding an identifier for the first backscatter device to a log shared amongst access points in a network to track unauthorized backscatter devices, and (iv) communicating, by the first access point, an alert to a second access point indicating that the first backscatter device is unauthorized such that the second access point ignores the message]; and
in response to determining that the second response comprises the bit sequence, classify the second backscatter device as authorized (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 20 lines 40-45 of Diorio disclose the reader verifies the tag response using the TPK. If the verification is successful then the tag is presumed genuine).
Diorio does not explicitly disclose wherein the containment procedure comprises (i) receiving, by the first access point, a message from the first backscatter device after the first response, (ii) ignoring, by the first access point, the message from the first backscatter device.
However, Kaundinya discloses this. Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose the central control computer system or base station in an RFID network to perform a challenge/response protocol as defined herein to properly authenticate and authorize operation of transceiver tag readers within the network. Communications provided from transceivers within the network that cannot be authenticated according to the challenge/response protocol are ignored.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
Diorio does not explicitly disclose adding an identifier for the first backscatter device to a log shared amongst access points in a network to track unauthorized backscatter devices and communicating an alert to another access point indicating that the first backscatter device is unauthorized such that the another access point ignores the message.
However, Ganu discloses this. Column 4 lines 25-35 of Ganu discloses the AP receives a blacklist report from the report process, the AP adds clients and timestamps to its blacklist table. Column 4 lines 35-40 of Ganu disclose when the AP receives a probe request from a client that is on the blacklist and has not aged out, the AP does not send a probe response.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 16, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the combination of one or more processors to determine and report a location of the first backscatter device (Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed).
As to Claim 17, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the combination of one or more processors to decrypt the second response (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose the reader decrypting the received RN using the TPK).
As to Claim 18, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the medium of claim 15, wherein the first response comprises a reflection of energy of the discovery frame (Column 1 lines 55-65 of Diorio disclose the tag generates the transmitted back RF wave either originally, or by reflecting back a portion of the interrogating RF wave in a process known as backscatter).
As to Claim 19, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the combination of one or more processors to disregard messages from the first backscatter device in response to determining that the first response lacks the bit sequence (Column 3 lines 10-25 of Kaundinya disclose the central control computer system or base station in an RFID network to perform a challenge/response protocol as defined herein to properly authenticate and authorize operation of transceiver tag readers within the network. Communications provided from transceivers within the network that cannot be authenticated according to the challenge/response protocol are ignored).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 21, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein the combination of the one or more processors is further configured to: in response to a third backscatter device appearing in the network, determine from the log that the third backscatter device is unauthorized (Column 4 lines 35-40 of Ganu disclose when the AP receives a probe request from a client that is on the blacklist and has not aged out, the AP does not send a probe response).
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu and further in view of US Pat. No. 11182794 to Aument (hereinafter “Aument”).
As to Claim 7, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the access point of claim 1, wherein initiating the containment procedure is in response to determining that the first response [exceeded a time threshold] (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed).
Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu does not explicitly disclose exceeded a time threshold.
However, Aument discloses this. Column 28 lines 35-65 of Aument disclose the device measures whether other devices (the authorized and the unauthorized devices) substantially correspond to the device, for example in terms of behavior, performance or response time. If the operation (step 406) yields a “Yes,” the flow transitions to step 408 where the device determines remedial actions to prevent the fraudulent actor from controlling or otherwise accessing the authorized device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the verification system as disclosed by Diorio, with using response time as a metric as disclosed by Aument. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Diorio and Aument are directed toward verification systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Aument discloses that response time is a known metric to determine unauthorized devices in a network.
As to Claim 14, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses the method of claim 8, wherein initiating the containment procedure is in response to determining that the first response [exceeded a time threshold] (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed).
Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu does not explicitly disclose exceeded a time threshold.
However, Aument discloses this. Column 28 lines 35-65 of Aument disclose the device measures whether other devices (the authorized and the unauthorized devices) substantially correspond to the device, for example in terms of behavior, performance or response time. If the operation (step 406) yields a “Yes,” the flow transitions to step 408 where the device determines remedial actions to prevent the fraudulent actor from controlling or otherwise accessing the authorized device.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 7.
As to Claim 20, Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu discloses medium of claim 15, wherein initiating the containment procedure is in response to determining that the first response [exceeded a time threshold] (Column 20 lines 1-15 of Diorio disclose verifying by comparing the RN before encryption with the received, decrypted RN. Column 18 lines 50-60 of Diorio disclose items do not have authentic tags and can be discovered, traced, and removed).
Diorio-Kaundinya-Ganu does not explicitly disclose exceeded a time threshold.
However, Aument discloses this. Column 28 lines 35-65 of Aument disclose the device measures whether other devices (the authorized and the unauthorized devices) substantially correspond to the device, for example in terms of behavior, performance or response time. If the operation (step 406) yields a “Yes,” the flow transitions to step 408 where the device determines remedial actions to prevent the fraudulent actor from controlling or otherwise accessing the authorized device.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Kevin S Mai whose telephone number is (571)270-5001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/KEVIN S MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights