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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘sensor nodes’ in claim 1, 19
Support for the sufficient structural disclosure is interpreted as at least from Figures 2, 2b and 6 and all associated written description
‘aggregator node’ in claim 13, 19
Support for the sufficient structural disclosure is interpreted as at least from Figures 2, 2b and 6 and all associated written description
Note – ‘network entity’ in claim 1 line 1, ‘sensor node’ in claim 13 line 1, and ‘system for’ in claim 19 line 1 are not interpreted as intending to invoke 112(f) as they are in the preamble of the claim. Applicant must clarify the record if a different interpretation is intended.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki (herein after Pez)(US Pub 20240179636) in view of Wang (US Pub 20190141524) and Sutherland (US Patent 11276001).
Re claim 1, Pez discloses a network entity for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory (Fig 9-10; el 1010; Par 147, 149); and at least one processor (Fig 9-10; el 1008; Par 147, 149) coupled with the at least one memory (Fig 9-10; el 1006 between 1008 and 1010; Par 147, 149) and configured to cause the network entity to:
transmit to multiple sensor nodes (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE elements) an over-the-air computing (OTAC) configuration (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE elements);
receive data over a multiple access channel (MAC) (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 78 – MAC/PUSCH) based on the OTAC configuration from the multiple sensor nodes (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 85, 128, 150 – Communication from UE elements 310 to 305 through 345); however Pez fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the design comprises transmission of an encryption configuration, wherein the received data is encrypted data, and to decrypt the received encrypted data using the encryption configuration; (2) and further wherein the encryption is a Homomorphic Encryption (HE).
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses wherein the design comprises transmission of an encryption configuration (Par 7, 134-135; Fig 2 el 201-202, Par 141-143, 150-153), wherein the received data is encrypted data (Par 17; Fig 2 el 203-205, Par 154-158, 163-164), and to decrypt the received encrypted data using the encryption configuration (Par 17; Fig 2 el 203-205, Par 154-158, 163-164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption configuration of Wang based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique with the encoding of Pez to provide a desired and expected level of protection and security for the data being communicated to ensure the communication meets the expectations of privacy for the environment as well as for ensuring the preservation of data values to accurately communicate the data between elements.
Regarding item (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Sutherland. Sutherland discloses further wherein the encryption is a Homomorphic Encryption (HE) (Col. 1 lines 26-47; Col. 2 lines 13-29; Col. 9 lines 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption scheme of Sutherland based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique that allows for secure data transmission while still allowing for operations to be performed on the data transmissions that allow for data privacy to be maintained to provide peace of mind to users regarding data safety and privacy.
Re claim 13, Pez discloses a sensor node for wireless communication, comprising;
At least one memory (Fig 7-8; el 810; Par 133, 135); and
at least one processor (Fig 7-8; el 808; Par 133, 135) coupled with the at least one memory (Fig 7-8; el 806 connecting 808 and 810; Par 133, 135) and configured to cause the sensor node to:
receive an over-the-air computing (OTAC) configuration (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE through 345) from an aggregator node of a network (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 68-69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE through 345); and
transmit data to the aggregator node (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 85, 128, 150 – Communication from UE elements 310 to 305 through 345) over a multiple access channel (MAC) (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 78 – MAC/PUSCH), wherein the data is configured using the OTAC configuration (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 85, 128, 150); however, Pez fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the design comprises reception of an encryption configuration, wherein the transmitted data is encrypted data using the encryption configuration; (2) and further wherein the encryption is a Homomorphic Encryption (HE).
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses wherein the design comprises reception of an encryption configuration (Par 7, 134-135; Fig 2 el 201-202, Par 141-143, 150-153), wherein the transmitted data is encrypted data (Par 17; Fig 2 el 203-205, Par 154-158, 163-164) using the encryption configuration (Par 17; Fig 2 el 203-205, Par 154-158, 163-164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption configuration of Wang based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique with the encoding of Pez to provide a desired and expected level of protection and security for the data being communicated to ensure the communication meets the expectations of privacy for the environment as well as for ensuring the preservation of data values to accurately communicate the data between elements.
Regarding item (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Sutherland. Sutherland discloses further wherein the encryption is a Homomorphic Encryption (HE) (Col. 1 lines 26-47; Col. 2 lines 13-29; Col. 9 lines 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption scheme of Sutherland based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique that allows for secure data transmission while still allowing for operations to be performed on the data transmissions that allow for data privacy to be maintained to provide peace of mind to users regarding data safety and privacy.
Re claim 2, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein, Sutherland further discloses to decrypt the received encrypted data using the HE configuration (Col. 10 lines 1-23, Col. 11 lines 21-57), the at least one processor (Col. 2 Lines 40-60) is configured to cause the network entity to:
decrypt the received encrypted data (Col. 10 lines 1-23, Col. 11 lines 21-57); while Pez further discloses as an OTAC aggregated result (Fig. 3 output from 345 to 305; Par 68-73); and compute an objective function for the data (Fig. 3 output from 345 to 305; Par 68-73) that is based on the OTAC aggregated result (Fig. 3 output from 345 to 305; Par 68-73) and the OTAC configuration (Fig. 3 output from 345 to 305; Par 68-73).
Re claim 6, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein, Pez further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to determine the HE configuration based on one or more factors, including: a desired bit security guarantee; a data input space; a desired threshold of sensor nodes superposed by a MAC superposition of the MAC (Par 44, 69-72); a desired threshold of residual noise during the decryption of the received encrypted data without a decryption processing failure; a function objective calculated during the decryption of the received encrypted data; a table description of supported HE cryptographic schemes; or a modulation and coding scheme of the OTAC configuration (Par 44, 69-72); or a combination thereof (Par 44, 69-72).
Re claim 7, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein, Wang further discloses wherein the HE configuration is based on: a selected HE cryptographic scheme; a public-private key pair (Par 7, 11, 20); a relinearization key; a secret key (Par 134); an invertible encoding of data input space to plaintext space of a selected HE scheme; or an invertible encoding of ciphertext space of a selected HE scheme to an intermediate space of an OTAC transceiver processing modulation and coding scheme for the OTAC configuration.
Re claim 8, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein, Wang further discloses wherein, to decrypt the received encrypted data using the HE configuration (Par 7-8, 11, 17, 20-22 – public/private key), the at least one processor is configured to cause the network entity to embed an asymmetric cryptographic primitive (Par 7-8, 11, 17, 20-22 – public/private key).
Re claim 10, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein, Pez further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to determine the OTAC configuration based on one or more factors, including: a function objective to be calculated (Par 68-73); channel state information (CSI) for the multiple sensor nodes (Par 55-57, 68-73); multiple reference signals (RS) reports for timing advance determination for the multiple sensor nodes (Par 55-57, 68-73); one or more precoders and combiners for spatial beamforming available to the multiple sensor nodes; radio transceiver capabilities of the multiple sensor nodes; or a set of available time and frequency communication resources (Par 68-73), or a combination thereof (Par 55-57, 68-73).
Re claim 15, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the sensor node of claim 13, Wang further discloses wherein the HE configuration is a public HE configuration (Par 7-8, 11, 17, 20-22 – public/private key) that includes: a selected HE cryptographic scheme; a public encryption key (Par 7-8, 11, 17, 20-22 – public key); an invertible encoding of data input space to plaintext space of a selected HE scheme; an invertible encoding of ciphertext space of a selected HE scheme to an intermediate space of an OTAC transceiver processing modulation and coding scheme; or combinations thereof.
Re claim 16, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the sensor node of claim 13, Wang further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the sensor node to: encode a data input from a data space to a plaintext space (Par 135-136); encrypt a plaintext representation to a ciphertext representation via cryptographic additive homomorphic encryption; or encode a ciphertext representation to an input space of the OTAC configuration.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pez, Wang and Sutherland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mustafa (US Pub 20170019248).
Re claim 3, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, but fail however to explicitly disclose wherein the HE configuration includes a public HE configuration and a private HE configuration.
This design is however disclosed by Mustafa. Mustafa discloses wherein the HE configuration (Par 40, 44-45, 78-80) includes a public HE configuration (Par 40, 44-45, 78-80) and a private HE configuration (Par 40, 44-45, 78-80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption scheme of Mustafa based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique that allows for secure data transmission while also focusing on maintaining privacy for individual communication entities to provide peace of mind to users regarding data safety and privacy.
Re claim 4, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang, Sutherland and Mustafa as a whole discloses the network entity of claim 3, Mustafa further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the network entity to configure the multiple sensor nodes to encrypt data using the public HE configuration (Par 40, 44-45, 78-80, 168-175-decryption of aggregated public HE encryption data).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pez, Wang and Sutherland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmed (US Pub 20190036678).
Re claim 5, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, but fail however to explicitly disclose wherein the HE configuration comprises a Partial Homomorphic Encryption (PHE) encryption scheme, a Somewhat Homomorphic Encryption (SWE) encryption scheme, or a Full Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) encryption scheme, or a combination thereof.
This design is however disclosed by Ahmed. Ahmed discloses wherein the HE configuration (Par 15, 170, 429, 443) comprises a Partial Homomorphic Encryption (PHE) encryption scheme (Par 15, 170, 429, 443), a Somewhat Homomorphic Encryption (SWE) encryption scheme (Par 15, 170, 429, 443), or a Full Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) encryption scheme (Par 15, 170, 429, 443), or a combination thereof (Par 15, 170, 429, 443).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption scheme of Ahmed based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique that allows for secure data transmission while still allowing for specific and operationally desired data processing techniques to be performed on the data transmissions that allow for data privacy to be maintained to provide peace of mind to users regarding data safety and privacy.
Re claim 9, the combined disclosure of Pez, Wang and Sutherland as a whole disclose the network entity of claim 1, but fail however to explicitly disclose wherein the HE configuration is homomorphic with respect to addition operation.
This design is however disclosed by Ahmed. Ahmed discloses wherein the HE configuration is homomorphic with respect to addition operation (Par 27, 209, 264, 271-272, 285).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption scheme of Ahmed based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique that allows for secure data transmission while still allowing for specific and operationally desired data processing techniques to be performed on the data transmissions that allow for data privacy to be maintained to provide peace of mind to users regarding data safety and privacy.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezeshki (herein after Pez)(US Pub 20240179636) in view of Wang (US Pub 20190141524).
Re claim 19, Pez discloses A system for wireless communication, comprising:
an aggregator node that determines an objective function for data (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 68-69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE through 345) aggregated over a multiple access channel (MAC) (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 78 – MAC/PUSCH) accessed by multiple sensor nodes (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 68-69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE through 345); and
multiple sensor nodes that simultaneously transmit data (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 85, 128, 150 – Communication from UE elements 310 to 305 through 345) over the MAC (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 78 – MAC/PUSCH) to the aggregator node (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 85, 128, 150 – Communication from UE elements 310 to 305 through 345); however, Pez fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the transmitted data is encrypted.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Wang. Wang discloses wherein the transmitted data is encrypted (Par 17; Fig 2 el 203-205, Par 154-158, 163-164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption configuration of Wang based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique with the encoding of Pez to provide a desired and expected level of protection and security for the data being communicated to ensure the communication meets the expectations of privacy for the environment as well as for ensuring the preservation of data values to accurately communicate the data between elements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pez and Wang as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Sutherland (US Patent 11276001).
Re claim 20, the combined disclosure of Pez and Wang as a whole disclose the system of claim 19, Pex further discloses wherein the aggregator node applies an over-the- air computing (OTAC) configuration to data (Par 13, Fig 3, Par 58-59, 68-69, 72-73; Fig 4 el 415, Par 76 – configuration communication from 305 to 310 UE through 345) transmitted over the MAC (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 78 – MAC/PUSCH) from the multiple sensor nodes to the aggregator node (Fig 3, Par 67-72; Par 85, 128, 150 – Communication from UE elements 310 to 305 through 345); Wang disclose wherein encryption configuration (Par 7, 134-135; Fig 2 el 201-202, Par 141-143, 150-153) is applied to data is transmitted (Par 17; Fig 2 el 203-205, Par 154-158, 163-164); however, the combination fails to disclose wherein the encryption data is homomorphic encryption (HE).
This design is however disclosed by Sutherland. Sutherland discloses wherein the encryption data is homomorphic encryption (HE) (Col. 1 lines 26-47; Col. 2 lines 13-29; Col. 9 lines 58-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Pez in order to incorporate the encryption scheme of Sutherland based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be obvious to incorporate an encryption technique that allows for secure data transmission while still allowing for operations to be performed on the data transmissions that allow for data privacy to be maintained to provide peace of mind to users regarding data safety and privacy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 14 and 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 11 and 17 the prior art fails to disclose the specific consideration of filter properties in the OTAC configuration. Re claim 14 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specified pre-processing and configuration of the data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights