The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 9/30/2024.
Claims 14-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations recite "wherein the database has a specific security function for the IoT device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for a database in the claims.
For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as inheriting all the limitations of claim 1 and including a database accessible by the entity selecting the security function.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations recite "wherein the database has a specific security function for a device class of the IoT device." There is insufficient antecedent basis for a database in the claims.
For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as inheriting all the limitations of claim 1 and including a database accessible by the entity selecting the security function.
Regarding claims 10-11, the limitations recite the term "and/or". It's unclear if the term "and/or" should be interpreted as "and and or" or "and or or."
For examination purposes, the term has been interpreted as "and or or."
Further, claim 10 recites "the security measure." There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims.
For examination purposes, "the security measure" of claim 10 has been interpreted as the security function.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (US 20180247045 A1, hereinafter David) in view of Hanes (US 20220360562 A1, hereinafter Hanes).
Regarding claim 1, David discloses a method for operating a networked IoT device in an automation network with an application (Fig. 1A, a networked IOT device - see also ¶[0006], "externally connected controllers"; ¶[0029], "controller spawns a unique set of binary processes"; ¶[0003], "many consumer products are now IoT devices with internet-connected features, such as home automation devices (e.g., wirelessly controllable light switches), appliances (e.g., smart refrigerators able to transmit images of the fridge's contents), and automobiles (e.g., internet-connected components, such as infotainment and navigation devices). For instance, modern vehicles can have over 100 controllers, or Electronic Control Units (ECUs), that are responsible for running most of the car's functions, such as the steering wheel, engine, braking system, airbags, and navigation systems"; ¶[0040], "the system 150 can be implemented on a variety of other IoT devices and systems") and
with a security guideline implemented on the IoT device with a security specification (¶[0004], "IoT devices (e.g., ECUs in connected cars)"; ¶[0007], "ECUs can maintain secure operation and prevent the attacks from ever infiltrating the IoT device's infrastructure"; ¶[0035], "policy 108 can define a particular set of processes that are authorized and a particular set of contexts within which those processes on the automobile can be executed by the controller 114"), the method comprising:
a security function for the application on the basis of a device state of the IoT device (¶[0034], "context 113 can be determined by the controller 114 based on information received and/or detected about the current state of the IoT device 112 and its surroundings"; ¶[0030], "generate a custom security policy for a controller, an example IoT device 112 (e.g., ECU)"; ¶[0031], "generate a custom context-based security policy 108 for the controller that is to execute the software"); and
operating the IoT device with the application with the security function (¶[0030], "an example IoT device 112 (e.g., ECU) that includes an example controller 114 that will use the generated security policy to operate securely and to prevent malware"; ¶[0034], "controller 114 can securely operate using the controller software 102, which is confined to operating within the confines of the security policy 108").
David does not explicitly disclose selecting the security function.
Hanes discloses selecting a security function for the application on the basis of a device state of the IoT device (¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of David and Hanes to arrive at a system in which the security function is selected.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would reduce computational resource consumption (e.g., selecting between already existing measures instead of creating one from scratch).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the device state comprises an operating state of the IoT device (David, ¶[0013], "The one or more permitted contexts can include one or more of: an initiation state, a shutdown state, an operational state, and in motion state").
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the device state comprises a communication environment of the IoT device (David, ¶[0034], "current state of the IoT device 112 and its surroundings, such as through information detected by sensors/devices (e.g., proximity sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, GPS chipset), obtained from other controllers and/or devices (e.g., infotainment system, navigation system, other onboard systems, vehicle-to-vehicle communication network, remote computer system, other external devices/systems)").
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the device state comprises a resource utilization (David, ¶[0013], "The one or more permitted contexts can include one or more of: an initiation state, a shutdown state, an operational state, and in motion state").
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the security function is selected from a database or from a configurable list of two or more security measures (Hanes, ¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126").
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the database has a specific security function for the IoT device (Hanes, ¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126").
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the database has a specific security function for a device class of the IoT device (Hanes, ¶[0029], "the IoT device 110 may emit a URI including an indication of the type of the IoT device"; ¶[0030], "the IoT gateway 104 may utilize the URI that was emitted by the IoT device 110 to request and/or pull a MUD file from a MUD file server 112, associated with a manufacturer of the IoT device"; ¶[0033], "For example, the IoT gateway 104 associated with the MUD controller 106 may communicate the SASE security requirements and/or the SASE profile with a SIG associated with a SASE cloud service 108 and request the security services required and/or recommended for the IoT device 110").
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the security function has specifications for authentication with communication partners of the IoT device and/or specifications for security protocols and/or specifications for monitoring communication connections (David, ¶[0035], "policy 108 can define a particular set of processes that are authorized and a particular set of contexts within which those processes on the automobile can be executed by the controller 114").
Regarding claim 12, David discloses a set of computer program instructions stored on a non-transitory medium, the set of instructions when executed on an IoT device (Fig. 1A, an IoT device; ¶[0080], "FIG. 8 is a block diagram of example computing devices 800, 850 that may be used to implement the systems and methods described in this document"; ¶[0081], "Computing device 800 includes a processor 802 […] The processor 802 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 800, including instructions stored in the memory 804 or on the storage device 806"), providing the IoT device:
an input interface for information relating to the device state (¶[0034], "context 113 can be determined by the controller 114 based on information received and/or detected about the current state of the IoT device 112 and its surroundings"; Fig. 1A);
a security function for the application on the basis of the information relating to the device state (¶[0034], "context 113 can be determined by the controller 114 based on information received and/or detected about the current state of the IoT device 112 and its surroundings"; ¶[0030], "generate a custom security policy for a controller, an example IoT device 112 (e.g., ECU)"; ¶[0031], "generate a custom context-based security policy 108 for the controller that is to execute the software"); and
an enforcement component for enforcing the security function (¶[0030], "an example IoT device 112 (e.g., ECU) that includes an example controller 114 that will use the generated security policy to operate securely and to prevent malware"; ¶[0034], "controller 114 can securely operate using the controller software 102, which is confined to operating within the confines of the security policy 108").
David does not disclose a database having two security functions for operating an application; and that the security function is selected by a selection component.
Hanes discloses a database having two security functions for operating an application (Hanes, ¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126"); and
a selection component for selecting a security function for the application on the basis of the information relating to the device state (¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of David and Hanes to arrive at a system including a database having two security functions for operating an application; and in which the security function is selected by a selection component.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would reduce computational resource consumption (e.g., selecting between already existing measures instead of creating one from scratch).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (US 20180247045 A1) in view of Hanes (US 20220360562 A1), and further in view of Sohail et al. (US 20200403991 A1, hereinafter Sohail).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
While David discloses that "the system 150 can be implemented on a variety of other IoT devices and systems" (¶[0040]), the combined teachings of David and Hanes do not explicitly disclose that the IOT device comprises a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop, and/or closed-loop control device for: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device.
Sohail discloses an IoT device may comprises: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop, and/or closed-loop control device for: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device (¶[0046], "determine if the given IoT device 120 is consuming a normal or abnormal amount of power for a given application and/or configuration"; ¶[0027], "IoT devices can be used for network control and management of manufacturing equipment or manufacturing process control"; ¶[0066], "if a given sensor node is not identified as exhibiting anomalous behavior (negative determination in block 408), the given sensor node is allowed to continue passing data in the sensor network and storing data to the backend data storage system").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of David, Hanes and Sohail to arrive at a system in which the IOT device comprises a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop, and/or closed-loop control device for: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve efficiency, safety, and convenience in different environments.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein: the device state comprises an operating state of the IoT device for performing a current work step of the IoT device (David, ¶[0013], "The one or more permitted contexts can include one or more of: an initiation state, a shutdown state, an operational state, and in motion state").
The combined teachings of David and Hanes do not disclose that the work step comprises: a manufacturing step, a maintenance step, an open-loop control step, and/or a closed-loop control step for controlling: a manufacturing step, a maintenance step, or a monitoring step for monitoring a manufacturing step or a maintenance step.
Sohail discloses that a word step may comprise: a manufacturing step, a maintenance step, an open-loop control step, and/or a closed-loop control step for controlling: a manufacturing step, a maintenance step, or a monitoring step for monitoring a manufacturing step or a maintenance step (¶[0046], "determine if the given IoT device 120 is consuming a normal or abnormal amount of power for a given application and/or configuration"; ¶[0027], "IoT devices can be used for network control and management of manufacturing equipment or manufacturing process control"; ¶[0066], "if a given sensor node is not identified as exhibiting anomalous behavior (negative determination in block 408), the given sensor node is allowed to continue passing data in the sensor network and storing data to the backend data storage system").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of David, Hanes and Sohail to arrive at a system in which the work step comprises: a manufacturing step, a maintenance step, an open-loop control step, and/or a closed-loop control step for controlling: a manufacturing step, a maintenance step, or a monitoring step for monitoring a manufacturing step or a maintenance step.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve efficiency, safety, and convenience in different environments.
Regarding claim 13, David discloses an IoT device comprising: a set of computer program instructions stored on a non-transitory medium, the set of instructions when executed on an IoT device (Fig. 1A, an IoT device; ¶[0080], "FIG. 8 is a block diagram of example computing devices 800, 850 that may be used to implement the systems and methods described in this document"; ¶[0081], "Computing device 800 includes a processor 802 […] The processor 802 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 800, including instructions stored in the memory 804 or on the storage device 806"), providing the IoT device:
an input interface for information relating to the device state (¶[0034], "context 113 can be determined by the controller 114 based on information received and/or detected about the current state of the IoT device 112 and its surroundings"; Fig. 1A);
selecting a security function for the application on the basis of the information relating to the device state (¶[0034], "context 113 can be determined by the controller 114 based on information received and/or detected about the current state of the IoT device 112 and its surroundings"; ¶[0030], "generate a custom security policy for a controller, an example IoT device 112 (e.g., ECU)"; ¶[0031], "generate a custom context-based security policy 108 for the controller that is to execute the software"); and
an enforcement component for enforcing the security function (¶[0030], "an example IoT device 112 (e.g., ECU) that includes an example controller 114 that will use the generated security policy to operate securely and to prevent malware"; ¶[0034], "controller 114 can securely operate using the controller software 102, which is confined to operating within the confines of the security policy 108").
David does not disclose a database having two security functions for operating an application; and a selection component for selecting the security function; wherein the IoT device comprises: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop control device, or a closed-loop control device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device.
Hanes discloses a database having two security functions for operating an application (Hanes, ¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126"); and
a selection component for selecting a security function for the application on the basis of the information relating to the device state (¶[0014], "IoT endpoints"; ¶[0037], "store an endpoint profile mapping 124 between one or more security profiles and the endpoint 126. In some examples, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate a traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based at least partly on the security profile associated with the endpoint 126. Additionally, or alternatively, the SASE engine 120 may be configured to evaluate the traffic flow associated with the endpoint 126 based on various security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, such that the SASE engine 120 may be configured to autonomously select between security profiles associated with the endpoint 126, based on contextual data associated with the endpoint 126"); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of David and Hanes to arrive at a system including a database having two security functions for operating an application; and in which the security function is selected by a selection component.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would reduce computational resource consumption (e.g., selecting between already existing measures instead of creating one from scratch).
The combined teachings of David and Hanes do not disclose that the IoT device comprises: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop control device, or a closed-loop control device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device.
Sohail discloses that the IoT device may comprise: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop control device, or a closed-loop control device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device (¶[0046], "determine if the given IoT device 120 is consuming a normal or abnormal amount of power for a given application and/or configuration"; ¶[0027], "IoT devices can be used for network control and management of manufacturing equipment or manufacturing process control"; ¶[0066], "if a given sensor node is not identified as exhibiting anomalous behavior (negative determination in block 408), the given sensor node is allowed to continue passing data in the sensor network and storing data to the backend data storage system").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of David, Hanes and Sohail to arrive at a system in which the IOT device comprises a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, an open-loop, and/or closed-loop control device for: a manufacturing device, a maintenance device, or a monitoring device for a manufacturing device or a maintenance device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve efficiency, safety, and convenience in different environments.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David (US 20180247045 A1) in view of Hanes (US 20220360562 A1), and further in view of Heldt-Sheller et al. (US 20160366136 A1, hereinafter Heldt-Sheller).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of David and Hanes disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined teachings of David and Hanes do not disclose that the security measure is selected when the IoT device is started and/or when the application is started and/or at repeatedly successive intervals of time.
Heldt-Sheller discloses that a security measure is selected when the IoT device is started and/or when the application is started and/or at repeatedly successive intervals of time (¶[0032], "possible device states include an operational state (isOp) to indicate whether the ACL is to be applied when the device is in an operational state").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Davis, Hanes, and Heldt-Sheller to arrive at a system in which the security measure is selected when the IoT device is started and/or when the application is started and/or at repeatedly successive intervals of time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the device behavior to be "explicit and deterministic when deployed, reducing the potential for erroneous application of control data by the device software" (Heldt-Sheller, ¶[0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220109679 A1, which discloses "a security management entity 73 requests a report regarding a degree of risk from the viewpoint of the security of the segment, particularly, regarding the segments before and after the ID providing point and the conversion point for each segment of the IoT device 72 to each IoT device 72. In other words, as information regarding the security used to determine the security policy, the report regarding a segment security state that is the state of the segment between the IoT devices 72 related to the security is requested" (¶[0264]).
US 20200304296 A1, which discloses "the image forming apparatus 14 serving as an edge server may include the determining unit 68 (determining unit) that determines, based on the content of data or the collection status of data, whether or not to change the encryption policy 76 (“enhance” the security in the second operation)" (¶[0100]).
US 20200162500 A1, which discloses "an upper section 1030 is implemented to report a status of the IoT devices and the IoT network(s). For example, in FIG. 10B under a section entitled “Profile” in the upper section of the dashboard 1000, it is reported that the operating characteristics of all seven (7) devices discovered are identifiable. In the upper section of the dashboard 1000 in a section entitled “Security”, a relative security metric/score for at least one IoT device of the IoT network and/or for the entire network. In one embodiment, the relative security score is reflective of a comparison of a security posture of the subject IoT network versus, for example, an IoT network that has no weaknesses" (¶[0129]); "a GUI can be implemented to suggest corrective actions for weaknesses in IoT devices or a subject IoT network(s) identified in, for example, an IoT network model in accordance with the present principles. For example, FIG. 10C depicts a GUI, presented as a pop-up window for the dashboard 1000 of FIG. 10B, on which suggestions for correcting security and/or privacy concerns can be displayed in accordance with an embodiment of the present principles. In the embodiment of FIG. 10C, a first correction option presented to a user suggests to replace the SmartLock discovered in the subject network of FIG. 10B, with a secure type of SmartLock. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 10C, a second suggested correction option includes relocating a device, specifically the Kevo SmartLock, to a more secure location, such as an indoor location. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 10C, a third suggested correction option includes disabling the WiFi on the Kevo SmartLock" (¶[0133]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights