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 instant claims include numerous instances of language that, under current US practice, do not appear to have any power to limit the claim. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111. Additionally, some of the language described below is also indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See the rejections below for further details.
Independent claim 1, a method claim, and claims 21 and 22, which are apparatus claims that refer back to claim 1, each recite “acquiring…a border gateway protocol (BGP) router advertisement message transmitted by a previous node, wherein the BGP router advertisement message carries information of a propagation path…[and] indicates a BGP next-hop node in a forwarding direction.” This limitation describes the content of the information in the advertisement and amounts to “printed matter” under the standard described in MPEP 2111.05. Furthermore, a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the method or substrate does not exist. The limitations describing the advertisement message merely recite what the data or information represents and do not further limit the claimed invention either functionally or structurally. For example, they do not give the “acquiring” step or its corresponding aspects in claims 21 and 22 a property they would not have if the information were different. Therefore, the limitations as to the content of the advertisement message are nonfunctional descriptive material, do not have patentable weight, and cannot patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. Dependent claims 2-18 include instances of language similar to those described above; similar reasoning applies. See additional discussion in rejections below.
Claim 1 additionally recites “determining, in a case that the BGP next-hop node and the current node are two adjacent nodes on the propagation path, an underlying transport path from the current node to the BGP next-hop node according to instruction information corresponding to the current node of the information of the propagation path.” This limitation is a contingent limitation that requires the “determining” to occur “in a case that the BGP next-hop node and the current node are two adjacent nodes on the propagation path.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Here, the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition “the BGP next-hop node and the current node are two adjacent nodes on the propagation path” being met, because the claim does not require that condition to occur. Therefore, the “determining” step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and does not have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although each claim nominally falls within at least one of the four eligible categories under step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which is a judicial exception to the four categories) without significantly more.
First, with respect to prong one of step 2A of the analysis, each of independent claim 1 and claims 21 and 22 is directed to the abstract idea of determining a transport path. The idea is recited in the following aspects of claim 1 (and in the corresponding aspects of claims 21 and 22):
“determining, in a case that the BGP next-hop node and the current node are two adjacent nodes on the propagation path, an underlying transport path from the current node to the BGP next-hop node according to instruction information corresponding to the current node of the information of the propagation path” (note that, as explained above in the “Claim Interpretation” section, this limitation is not required by the BRI of claim 1; however, the limitation is being analyzed here in connection with each of claims 1, 21, and 22 to ).
The idea amounts to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses a human reviewing a printout from a packet analyzer and thinking about a transport path according to written policy instructions. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to prong two of step 2A, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in each of claims 1, claims 21, and 22. In particular, besides the abstract idea itself, each claim recites generic computer functionality at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Simply invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, is not enough to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, to the extent that the claims require such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting or storing data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As specific examples, the claims recite the following elements which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
in claim 1, and as inherited by claims 21 and 22, “acquiring, on a current node, a border gateway protocol (BGP) router advertisement message…”, which amounts to gathering data over a network using a generic computer “node”;
in claim 21, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” which amounts to invoking generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea; and
in claim 22, “an electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor, and ac omputer program stored on the memory and capable of being run on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program…,” which amounts to invoking generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
In light of the above, the claimed invention clearly does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Rather than presenting a technological solution to a technological problem, each claim represents merely an abstract idea that is implemented using computers as tools. Therefore, the claims clearly cannot be said to represent a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the claims recite an abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to step 2B, each of claims 1, 21, and 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere field-of-use limitations. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and mere field-of-use limitations cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, as discussed above, to the extent that the claims recite or imply features such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot amount to significantly more to the abstract idea. Finally, upon reevaluating the elements previously determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot be considered unconventional. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, each of the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons given above, each of claim 1, 21, and 22 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under the same rationale as given above. Each of these claims include further details of the abstract idea, making it more specific, but no less abstract. Any additionally recited limitations which are not directed to the abstract idea itself do not include limitations which amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18, 21, and 22 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.
Note: some of the language identified in the “Claim Interpretation” section above overlaps with language described in the rejection below, but the questions of breadth and indefiniteness are not the same. Should applicant choose to amend the claims to overcome the rejections under 112(b), the Examiner notes that the amendments would not necessarily fundamentally alter the analysis in the “Claim Interpretations” section above.
Independent claim 1 is a method claim that recites “acquiring…a border gateway protocol (BGP) router advertisement message transmitted by a previous node, wherein the BGP router advertisement message carries information of a propagation path…[and] indicates a BGP next-hop node in a forwarding direction,” and also includes language describing the physical characteristics of the propagation path (“the propagation path is a path in a direction…”) and forwarding direction (“the forwarding direction is a direction…”) that is entirely untethered from the practice of the “acquiring” step. The acquiring step does not vary according to the actual physical situation in the network, so it is unclear what effect this language has on the scope of the claim. As noted above, the “information of a propagation path” is reasonably construed as non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not limit the claim for at least that reason, but even assuming that the claim were amended to require the information to be functional descriptive material (such as by requiring the detection of particular data within it and then acting upon that data), the practice of the method would only vary based on the contents of the message, not on the actual physical state of the network it purports to describe. As an example, the previous node could simply be mistaken about the physical state of the network, and nothing about the acquisition or processing of the information would be any different. Therefore, it is impossible for the artisan to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to avoid infringement, and the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.02.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vairavakkalai ‘863 (US Pub. No. 2018/0351863) in view of Vairavakkalai ‘257 (US Pub. No. 2024/0267257).
Note: Vairavakkalai ‘863 (US Pub. No. 2018/0351863) is in the same patent family as CN 108989212 as cited in the First Office Action of the State Intellectual Property Office of People’s Republic of China supplied by applicant on January 5, 2026, and Vairavakkalai ‘257 (US Pub. No. 2024/0267257) is in the same patent family as EP 3873042 as cited in the Supplementary European Search report supplied by applicant on September 9, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, note that the claim recites limitations which are not being given patentable weight, such as the informational contents of the advertisement message and also the “determining” step. See “Claim Interpretation” section above. However, the limitations are analyzed here in order to promote compact prosecution. Note also the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Vairavakkalai ‘863 shows a method for processing a router advertisement message, comprising:
acquiring, on a current node, a border gateway protocol (BGP) router advertisement message transmitted by a previous node (see [0060], “In some examples, route advertisement message 24 is a labeled-unicast BGP message that advertises an MPLS label for use in sending network traffic along an LSP 28 between PE router 20C and PE router 20B. In this case, PE routers 20 may also be referred to as Label Switching Routers (LSRs)”), wherein the BGP router advertisement message carries information of a propagation path (see [0065], “a new BGP attribute that allows a BGP speaker such as PE routers 20 to advertise multiple next hops for a set of NLRIs… the techniques of this disclosure also allow the sender of the BGP attribute to specify a desired relationship between the multiple next hops being advertised, and forwarding semantics associated with each of the multiple next hops in a single BGP attribute”), the propagation path is a path in a direction from a network egress node to a network ingress node (see [0066], “a mechanism where egress-node can signal multiple next hops along with their relationship to ingress nodes” called “MultiNexthop”; see also Fig. 18, showing corresponding signaling from an egress node toward an ingress node), the BGP router advertisement message indicates a BGP next-hop node in a forwarding direction (see [0066], “MultiNexthop … can be used to convey multiple next hops to a BGP-speaker”); and
determining, in a case that the BGP next-hop node and the current node are two adjacent nodes on the propagation path, an underlying transport path from the current node to the BGP next-hop node according to instruction information corresponding to the current node of the information of the propagation path (see [0061], “When two MPLS LSRs are adjacent in an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP), one of them can be termed an “upstream LSR” and the other a “downstream LSR”. The terms “downstream” and “upstream” refer to the direction of the ultimate flow of network traffic along the LSP, flowing from upstream network devices to downstream network devices along the LSP” and [0220], “The OFP techniques described herein are performed by two adjacent vNodes connected by an AFI 1032. The downstream vNode (relative to the ultimate flow of network traffic) signals, to the adjacent upstream vNode, the OFP fabric interface's nexthop(IP address) or nexthop(pfe-id) as the optimal next hop, and the upstream vNode uses that information select a next hop and forward data traffic.”).
Vairavakkalai ‘863 does not explicitly show that the forwarding direction is a direction from the network ingress node to the network egress node.
Vairavakkalai ‘257 shows a forwarding direction is a direction from a network ingress node to a network egress node (see Fig. 1, node 20, which ingress node for network 8, forwarding messages in tunnels toward network device 30, which is an egress node for network 8; see [0026]-[0027], [0031], and [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Vairavakkalai ‘863 with the teachings of Vairavakkalai ‘257 in order to support mapping of different classes of service across administrative domains or multiple heterogenous underlying transport tunnels, and improve interoperability between networks (see Vairavakkalai ‘257, [0022]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the information of the propagation path is located in a field of a newly added path attribute in the BGP router advertisement message, or in a field of an existing path attribute in the BGP router advertisement message (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 3, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the information of the propagation path carried in the BGP router advertisement message comprises: a node number field configured to represent number N of nodes on the propagation path, wherein N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1; N node identity fields each configured to represent an identity of a corresponding node on the propagation path; and M instruction fields each configured to represent instruction information corresponding to a corresponding node on the propagation path, wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to N (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 4, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 3 as applied above and further shows wherein the information of the propagation path carried in the BGP router advertisement message further comprises: N flag fields each configured to represent address information of a corresponding node on the propagation path and represent whether the corresponding node on the propagation path has the instruction field (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 5, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 4 as applied above and further shows wherein the information of the propagation path carried in the BGP router advertisement message further comprises: M instruction length fields each configured to represent a byte number of a corresponding instruction field of the M instruction fields; wherein the N flag fields are further each configured to indicate whether a corresponding node on the propagation path has the instruction length field (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 6, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the propagation path comprises one or more paths in the direction from the network egress node to the network ingress node, and each path is the path from the network egress node to the network ingress node or a part path of the path from the network egress node to the network ingress node (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 7, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein in a case that the network egress node comprises a plurality of different egress nodes, the propagation path comprises a plurality of paths in directions from the plurality of different egress nodes to the network ingress node, and each path is a path from a corresponding egress node to the network ingress node or a part path of the path from the corresponding egress node to the network ingress node (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0066], [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required by the BRI of the claim because the claim does not require its condition(s) precedent to be met).
Regarding claim 8, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein in a case that the network ingress node comprises a plurality of different ingress nodes, the propagation path comprises a plurality of paths in directions from the network egress node to the plurality of different ingress nodes, and each path is a path from the network egress node to a corresponding ingress node or a part path of the path from the network egress node to the corresponding ingress node (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required by the BRI of the claim because the claim does not require its condition(s) precedent to be met).
Regarding claim 9, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows after acquiring, on a current node, a BGP router advertisement message transmitted by a previous node, the method further comprises: determining, in a case that a plurality of nodes in the propagation path comprise the current node, a next node after the current node in the propagation path in the information of the propagation path; and transmitting, on the current node, the BGP router advertisement message to the next node (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above and further shows wherein transmitting, on the current node, the BGP router advertisement message to the next node comprises: transmitting, in a case that a BGP session is configured between the current node and the next node and an address family related to the BGP router advertisement message is enabled, on the current node, the BGP router advertisement message to the next node (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required by the BRI of the claim because the claim does not require its condition(s) precedent to be met).
Regarding claim 11, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows after acquiring, on a current node, a BGP router advertisement message transmitted by a previous node, the method further comprises: determining, in a case that a plurality of nodes in the propagation path comprise the current node, a next node after the current node in the propagation path in the information of the propagation path; and transmitting, in a case that no BGP session is configured between the current node and the next node, but a route reflector is pre-configured to transparently transmit the BGP router advertisement message, on the current node, the BGP router advertisement message to the route reflector (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required by the BRI of the claim because the claim does not require its condition(s) precedent to be met).
Regarding claim 12, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above and further shows wherein transmitting, on the current node, the BGP router advertisement message to the next node comprises: modifying the BGP next-hop node in the forwarding direction indicated by the BGP router advertisement message to the current node, and obtaining an updated BGP router advertisement message; and transmitting, on the current node, the updated BGP router advertisement message to the next node (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 12 as applied above and further shows wherein in a case that the BGP next-hop node in the forwarding direction indicated by the BGP router advertisement message is modified to the current node, the method further comprises: generating, on the current node, a BGP-intent routing table entry, wherein the BGP-intent routing table entry comprises information configured to represent the underlying transport path, and the information configured to represent the underlying transport path comprises at least one of: a transport delay of the underlying transport path or bandwidth information of the underlying transport path (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0066], [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required by the BRI of the claim because the claim does not require its condition(s) precedent to be met).
Regarding claim 14, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein before acquiring, on a current node, a BGP router advertisement message transmitted by a previous node, the method further comprises: acquiring intent information of a service, which is required to undergo communication, between the network ingress node and the network egress node, wherein the service which is required to undergo communication corresponds to the propagation path, and the intent information represents a total-metric from a node at one end to a node at the other end of the propagation path; and configuring the information of the propagation path according to the intent information, wherein a sum of metrics indicated by instruction information corresponding to nodes in the information of the propagation path is equal to the total-metric, and the metric comprises at least one of: a delay metric, a traffic engineering metric or an interior gateway protocol metric (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this claim includes at least one limitation which is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 15, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 14 as applied above and further shows wherein acquiring intent information of a service, which is required to undergo communication, between the network ingress node and the network egress node comprises: acquiring, in a case that the service which is required to undergo communication comprises P services, P pieces of intent information of the P services, wherein P is 1 or a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, and each piece of intent information represents a total-metric from a node at one end to a node at the other end of a corresponding propagation path; and wherein configuring the information of the propagation path according to the intent information comprises: configuring information of P propagation paths according to the P pieces of intent information, wherein a sum of metrics indicated by instruction information corresponding to nodes in information of each complete propagation path is equal to a total-metric represented by corresponding intent information (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this claim includes at least one contingent limitation that is not required by the BRI of the claim because the claim does not require its condition(s) precedent to be met).
Regarding claim 16, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 15 as applied above and further shows wherein after configuring information of P propagation paths according to the P pieces of intent information, the method further comprises: carrying the information of the P propagation paths in the BGP router advertisement message (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this claim includes at least one limitation which is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 17, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the instruction information comprises at least one of: transport delay requirement information, bandwidth requirement information or path affinity requirement information (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this claim includes at least one limitation which is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding claim 18, the combination laid out above shows the limitations of claim 17 as applied above and further shows wherein in a case that the instruction information comprises the transport delay requirement information, a transport delay of the underlying transport path is less than or equal to a transport delay indicated by the transport delay requirement information (see Vairavakkalai ‘863, [0060]-[0066] and [0092]-[0102]; however, note that this limitation is directed to the informational content of a message and does not have patentable weight).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination laid out above in connection with claim 1 shows a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to, when executed by a processor, implement steps of the method according to claim 1 (see discussion above, noting that the contingent clauses were analyzed above as if they were limiting, as they are here; further note that the medium and program are at least implicitly disclosed by Vairavakkalai ‘863 as necessary components of a computer-implemented communications system).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination laid out above in connection with claim 1 shows an electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of being run on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement steps of the method according to claim 1 (see discussion above, noting that the contingent clauses were analyzed above as if they were limiting, as they are here; further note that the electronic apparatus, memory, processor, and program are at least implicitly disclosed by Vairavakkalai ‘863 as necessary components of a computer-implemented communications system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights