DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 09/01/24 and 02/23/26 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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, 3, 5-6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 20140365775 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20190320463 A1).
Consider claim 1, Yavuz et al. disclose a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving, from the reader device, a puzzle message indicative of a plurality of cryptographic puzzles (see Figure 2, “In one configuration, the puzzles are broadcast over the broadcast network 236, and the clients 240A-240N receive puzzles” (see paragraph 0018)) and one or more puzzle parameters (see Figure 2, “At a predetermined time, the server 204 transmits the corresponding private keys 220 for the public keys that are used to encrypt the puzzles” (see paragraph 0026). Refer to Figure 4, element 414 of the disclosure, the puzzles and associated parameters may be received via a plurality of messages), wherein each cryptographic puzzle of the plurality of cryptographic puzzles is associated
with an ephemeral key and a corresponding ephemeral key index (see Figure 2, “the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036), where the solution may be interpreted as a key and the identifier as its respective index. “If none of the clients 240A-240N solve the puzzle and transmit the results to the server 204 prior to expiration of the timestamp 210, then the server 204 deletes the corresponding puzzle 208” (see paragraph 0018), thusly the encoded keys are similarly ephemeral);
selecting a cryptographic puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles (see Figure 3, in block 308 “one of the clients 240A-240N solves one of the valid puzzles that is either received from the server 204 or retrieved from the puzzle proxy server 224” (see paragraph 0031). Operatively, the clients 240A-240N must select one of the plurality of broadcast puzzles to solve);
solving the selected cryptographic puzzle using at least one puzzle parameter of the one or more puzzle parameters associated with the selected cryptographic puzzle for recovering the ephemeral key associated with the selected cryptographic puzzle and its corresponding ephemeral key index (after receiving the private key/s 220, “The clients 240A-240N or the puzzle proxy server 224 then decrypt the puzzles using the private keys 220” (see paragraph 0026). (see Figure 2, subsequently “the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036), where the solution may be interpreted as a key and the identifier as its respective index. “If none of the clients 240A-240N solve the puzzle and transmit the results to the server 204 prior to expiration of the timestamp 210, then the server 204 deletes the corresponding puzzle 208” (see paragraph 0018), thusly the encoded keys are similarly
ephemeral)); and
transmitting, to the reader device, a first message comprising the ephemeral key index (“the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036)).
However, Yavuz et al. fail to disclose a method comprising receiving, from a reader device, a paging message; and transmitting, to the reader device, a first message comprising a random device identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada et al. disclose a method comprising:
receiving, from a reader device, a paging message (see Figure 2, in step 1 “the base station apparatus periodically transmits a signal with which a cell ID can be identified, system information, and the like (step 1). Note that, the signal with which a cell ID can be identified, the system information, and the like periodically transmitted from the base station apparatus are also collectively referred to as a beacon signal.” (see paragraph 0094). In one embodiment, this beacon signal is equivalent to a WUS or paging message (see paragraph 0096)); and
transmitting, to the reader device, a first message comprising a random device identifier (see Figure 2, in step 5 “The terminal apparatus, in a case of requesting connection, includes a random ID of the terminal apparatus, information required for user authentication, or the like in the request” (see paragraph 0094)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. to include an initial paging message and a random device identifier in the first message as taught by Yamada et al. in order to optimize resource usage and provide information on the WTRU in a random access context, respectively.
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. further disclose a method comprising:
establishing an ephemeral security context between the WTRU and the reader device using the ephemeral key (in addition to the solved puzzle, “the client 240A sends a request to the server 204 Request={Service, (y, x')} along with the signature sig of Request. This request may include proper key exchange mechanisms to establish a secure channel for future communication with the server” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0034). “If none of the clients 240A-240N solve the puzzle and transmit the results to the server 204 prior to expiration of the timestamp 210, then the server 204 deletes the corresponding puzzle 208” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0018), thusly the corresponding security context is similarly ephemeral)).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. further disclose wherein the plurality of cryptographic puzzles include at least one of:
a cyphertext or a cryptographic hash function (“In a hash-based reversal puzzle, the server constructs cryptographic puzzles using a hash function” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0005)), and wherein the one or more puzzle parameters include at least one of:
a partial encryption key or a partial input hash function argument (“the server is able to adjust the difficulty level of the cryptographic puzzle by increasing or decreasing the number of hidden bits of the pre-image sent to clients in the puzzle. The pre-image bits are bits of the original data that the server hashes to generate the puzzle. The full pre-image is the solution to the puzzle, and the server reduces or increases the computational complexity of the puzzle by increasing or reducing, respectively, the number of bits in the pre-image that the client receives with the puzzle” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0005)).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. further disclose wherein solving the selected cryptographic puzzle comprises brute-forcing at least one of:
the cyphertext or the cryptographic hash function (“The client performs a brute-force search to find missing bits of pre-image whose output is given by hashing each pattern until matching the answer” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0005)) using at least one of:
the partial encryption key or the partial input hash function argument respectively (“the server is able to adjust the difficulty level of the cryptographic puzzle by increasing or decreasing the number of hidden bits of the pre-image sent to clients in the puzzle. The pre-image bits are bits of the original data that the server hashes to generate the puzzle. The full pre-image is the solution to the puzzle, and the server reduces or increases the computational complexity of the puzzle by increasing or reducing, respectively, the number of bits in the pre-image that the client receives with the puzzle” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0005)).
Consider claim 11, Yavuz et al. disclose a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising:
a memory (see Figure 2, “clients 240A-240N each include one or more… digital memory storage devices” (see paragraph 0016));
a transceiver (see Figure 2, “clients 240A-240N includes one or more network devices that enable each of the respective computing devices to transmit and receive data through the data network 236” (see paragraph 0016)); and
a processor, wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to (see Figure 2, “clients 240A-240N each include one or more digital processing devices… to implement
communication protocols using the data network 236” (see paragraph 0016)):
receive, from a reader device, a puzzle message indicative of a plurality of cryptographic puzzles and one or more puzzle parameters (see Figure 2, “In one configuration, the puzzles are broadcast over the broadcast network 236, and the clients 240A-240N receive puzzles” (see paragraph 0018)) and one or more puzzle parameters (see Figure 2, “At a predetermined time, the server 204 transmits the corresponding private keys 220 for the public keys that are used to encrypt the puzzles” (see paragraph 0026). Refer to Figure 4, element 414 of the disclosure, the puzzles and associated parameters may be received via a plurality of messages),wherein each cryptographic puzzle of the plurality of cryptographic puzzles is associated with an ephemeral key and a corresponding ephemeral key index (see Figure 2, “the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036), where the solution may be interpreted as a key and the identifier as its respective index. “If none of the clients 240A-240N solve the puzzle and transmit the results to the server 204 prior to expiration of the timestamp 210, then the server 204 deletes the corresponding puzzle 208” (see paragraph 0018), thusly the encoded keys are similarly ephemeral);
select a cryptographic puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles (see Figure 3, in block 308 “one of the clients 240A-240N solves one of the valid puzzles that is either received from the server 204 or retrieved from the puzzle proxy server 224” (see paragraph 0031). Operatively, the clients 240A-240N must select one of the plurality of broadcast puzzles to solve),
solve the selected cryptographic puzzle using at least one puzzle parameter of the one or more puzzle parameters associated with the selected cryptographic puzzle to recover the ephemeral key associated with the selected cryptographic puzzle and its corresponding ephemeral key index (after receiving the private key/s 220, “The clients 240A-240N or the puzzle proxy server 224 then decrypt the puzzles using the private keys 220” (see paragraph 0026). (see Figure 2, subsequently “the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036), where the solution may be interpreted as a key and the identifier as its respective index. “If none of the clients 240A-240N solve the puzzle and transmit the results to the server 204 prior to expiration of the timestamp 210, then the server 204 deletes the corresponding puzzle 208” (see paragraph 0018), thusly the encoded keys are similarly ephemeral)), and
transmit, to the reader device, a first message comprising an ephemeral key index (“the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036)).
However, Yavuz et al. fail to disclose a WTRU configured to transmit, to the reader device, a first message comprising a random device identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada et al. disclose a WTRU configured to transmit, to the reader device, a first message comprising a random device identifier (see Figure 2, in step 4 “The terminal apparatus, in a case of requesting connection, includes a random ID of the terminal apparatus, information required for user authentication, or the like in the request” (see paragraph 0094)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the WTRU disclosed by Yavuz et al. to transmit a random device identifier in the first message as taught by Yamada et al. in order to provide information on the WTRU in a random
access context.
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 11 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. further disclose a WTRU configured to:
establish an ephemeral security context between the WTRU and the reader device using the ephemeral key (“the client 240A sends a request to the server 204 Request={Service, (y, x')} along with the signature sig of Request. This request may include proper key exchange mechanisms to establish a secure channel for future communication with the server” (see Yavuz et al. paragraph 0034)).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 20140365775 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20190320463 A1), and further in view of Islam et al. (US 20240129957 A1).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. fail to disclose a method wherein the WTRU is an ambient internet of things (AIOT) device.
In the same field of endeavor, Islam et al. disclose a method wherein the WTRU is an ambient internet of things (AIOT) device (see Figure 4, showing a process flow 400 that supports random access response schemes for eRedCap UEs (see paragraph 0117). The user equipment 415 may be an AIOT device (see paragraph 0048)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. and modified by Yamada et al. such that the WTRU is an ambient internet of things (AIOT) device as taught by Islam et al. in order to provide AIOT
devices with means for securing communications with a network device.
Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 11 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. fail to disclose a WTRU wherein the WTRU is an ambient internet of things (AIOT) device.
In the same field of endeavor, Islam et al. disclose wherein the WTRU is an ambient internet of things (AIOT) device (see Figure 4, showing a process flow 400 that supports random access response schemes for eRedCap UEs (see paragraph 0117). The user equipment 415 may be an AIOT device (see paragraph 0048)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the WTRU disclosed by Yavuz et al. and modified by Yamada et al. such that the WTRU is an ambient internet of things (AIOT) device as taught by Islam et al. in order to provide AIOT devices with means for securing communications with a network device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 20140365775 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20190320463 A1), and further in view of Miyake et al. (EP 1635530 B1).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. fail to disclose wherein selecting the cryptographic puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles comprises: selecting the cryptographic puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles if a corresponding puzzle strength meets one or more security requirements.
In the same field of endeavor, Miyake et al. discloses wherein selecting the cryptographic
puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles comprises:
selecting the cryptographic puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles if a corresponding puzzle strength meets one or more security requirements (see Figure 5, a control unit 300 “reads from message 109 the plurality of client puzzles and selects a client puzzle to be solved (i.e., a computation to be executed) based on an amount of computation for each client puzzle” (see paragraph 0071). Said amount of computation may be tuned according to security needs and the client resources (see paragraph 0013)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. and modified by Yamada et al. to select the cryptographic puzzle from the plurality of cryptographic puzzles if a corresponding puzzle strength meets one or more security requirements as taught by Miyake et al. in order to prevent the WTRU from selecting low-difficulty puzzles which may make the network vulnerable to attack.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 20140365775 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20190320463 A1), and further in view of Malladi et al. (WO 2008024788 A2).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. fail to disclose wherein transmitting the first message to the reader device is for initiating a random access procedure.
In the same field of endeavor, Malladi et al. disclose a method wherein transmitting the first message to the reader device is for initiating a random access procedure (see Figure 3, random access procedure 300. The UE transmits to the eNB a random access preamble including a random ID to initiate the procedure in step A1 (see paragraph 0029)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. and modified by Yamada et al. such that the first message to the reader device is for initiating a random access procedure as taught by Malladi et al. in order to more efficiently establish a random access channel with the reader.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 20140365775 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20190320463 A1), and further in view of Sutton et al. (US 20060013402 A1).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. fail to disclose a method comprising receiving a second message from the reader device in response to the first message.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada et al. disclose a method comprising receiving a second message from the reader device in response to the first message (see Figure 2, in step 7 the terminal apparatus receives an ACK message from the base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. to include receiving a second message from the reader device in response to the first message as disclosed by Yamada et al. in order to establish communications following the security procedure.
However, Yavuz et al., as modified by Yamada et al., fail to disclose a method including wherein on a condition that the second message comprises a device identifier encrypted using the ephemeral key, decrypting the second message using the ephemeral key.
In the same field of endeavor, Sutton et al. disclose a method including wherein on a condition that the second message comprises a device identifier encrypted using the ephemeral key, decrypting the second message using the ephemeral key (“the protected server searches the keyblob database for the record containing the matching Device ID value, and extracts the device's encrypted keyblob from the record. At block 1110, the protected server builds a second response message containing the Family public key and the encrypted keyblob and encrypts the second response message using the transient symmetric key Tkey supplied by the device. Thus, Key Response=(Family public key, Encryption of (Encrypted Keyblob) using Tkey)… the device extracts the Family public key from the second response message, decrypts the wrapped keyblob using the transient symmetric key Tkey, and stores the encrypted keyblob in volatile memory of the device” (see paragraphs 0059-0060). In this context, the keyblob is effectively an identifier for the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. and modified by Yamada et al. so that on a condition that the second message comprises a device identifier, which is a random device identifier as disclosed by Yamada et al., encrypted using the ephemeral key, decrypting the second message using the ephemeral key as disclosed by Sutton et al. in order to verify the shared key and employ it for security purposes.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 20140365775 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20190320463 A1), and further in view of Jokimies et al. (EP 0655872 A2).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yavuz et al. as modified by Yamada et al. fail to disclose wherein the first message is transmitted on a condition that the paging message includes an identifier associated with the WTRU.
In the same field of endeavor, Jokimies et al. disclose wherein the first message is transmitted on a condition that the paging message includes an identifier associated with the WTRU (see Figure 2, a cellular telephone does not activate a communications microprocessing unit in response to a received paging message unless the identifier in the paging message matches one stored internally (see Col. 3, lines 34-53)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. and modified by Yamada et al. such that the first message is transmitted on a condition that the paging message includes an identifier associated with the WTRU as taught by Jokimies et al. in order to prevent the WTRU from transmitting in response to paging message when unnecessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Consider claim 4, the best prior art found during the examination of the present application, Yavuz et al. and Yamada et al., fail to disclose specifically the limitation of “receiving, from the reader device, a synchronization message indicative of a plurality of transmission occasions; and selecting a transmission occasion from the plurality of transmission occasions using a slotted additive links on-line Hawaii area (ALOHA) protocol, wherein the first message is transmitted using the selected transmission occasion”.
Consider claim 14, the best prior art found during the examination of the present application, Yavuz et al. and Yamada et al., fail to disclose specifically the limitation of “receiving, from the reader device, a synchronization message indicative of a plurality of transmission occasions; and selecting a transmission occasion from the plurality of transmission occasions using a slotted additive links on-line Hawaii area (ALOHA) protocol, wherein the first message is transmitted using the selected transmission occasion”.
Consider claim 15, the best prior art reference found during the examination of the present application, Yavuz et al., discloses a method comprising:
generating a plurality of tuples, wherein each tuple of the plurality of tuples comprises an ephemeral key (“The server generates a puzzle using a function x.rarw.PuzzleGen(ts, validity_time, difficulty, k, ID)”, where k is an ephemeral private key (see paragraph 0006). The server generates a plurality of such puzzles(see paragraph 0009));
generating a plurality of cryptographic puzzles based on the plurality of tuples (“The server generates a puzzle using a function x.rarw.PuzzleGen(ts, validity_time, difficulty, k, ID)”, where k is an ephemeral private key (see paragraph 0006). The server generates a plurality of such puzzles(see paragraph 0009));
transmitting, to the AIOT device, a puzzle message indicative of the plurality of cryptographic puzzles and one or more puzzle parameters (see Figure 2, “In one configuration, the puzzles are broadcast over the broadcast network 236, and the clients 240A-240N receive puzzles” (see paragraph 0018)) and one or more puzzle parameters (see Figure 2, “At a predetermined time, the server 204 transmits the corresponding private keys 220 for the public keys that are used to encrypt the puzzles” (see paragraph 0026). Refer to Figure 4, element 414 of the disclosure, the puzzles and associated parameters may be received via a plurality of messages);
receiving, from the AIOT device, a first message comprising an ephemeral key index corresponding to a cryptographic puzzle of the plurality of cryptographic puzzles (“the client 240A generates the solution to the puzzle and transmits the solution [and] an identifier for the particular puzzle that was solved” (see paragraph 0036));
establishing an ephemeral security context with the AIOT device using the determined ephemeral key (in addition to the solved puzzle, “the client 240A sends a request to the server 204 Request={Service, (y, x')} along with the signature sig of Request. This request may include proper key exchange mechanisms to establish a secure channel for future communication with the server” (see paragraph 0034). “If none of the clients 240A-240N solve the puzzle and transmit the results to the server 204 prior to expiration of the timestamp 210, then the server 204 deletes the corresponding puzzle 208” (see paragraph 0018), thusly the corresponding security context is similarly ephemeral)).
However, Yavuz et al. fail to disclose wherein the first message comprises a random device identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada et al. disclose a method comprising transmitting,
to the reader device, a first message comprising a random device identifier (see Figure 2, in step 5 “The terminal apparatus, in a case of requesting connection, includes a random ID of the terminal apparatus, information required for user authentication, or the like in the request” (see paragraph 0094)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Yavuz et al. to include a random device identifier in the first message as taught by Yamada et al. in order to provide information on the WTRU in a random access context, respectively.
However, Yavuz et al., Yamada et al., nor any other cited prior art reference disclose a method wherein each tuple of the plurality of tuples comprises an ephemeral key index, nor wherein the method comprises determining the ephemeral key associated with the received ephemeral key index.
Dependent claims 16-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 Application/Control Number: 18/508,364 Page 11 Art Unit: 2642 http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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 httos://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.
/ALEXANDER WU/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights