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 .
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 16, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the abstract has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 16, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the drawings has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 16, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to claim(s) 2, 14, 15, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 17-18, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12:
The amendments address the rejections directed to “populating the “applicative device,” the use of the “credentials” in authentication, the use of the generated key, and access by the “terminal device.” The associated rejections have been withdrawn; however, examiner notes that issues of indefiniteness remain regarding the new language used in the amended claims. See the rejections below under § Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 for further details.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 14:
These rejections are maintained.
The amendments do not address the rejections from the previous office action. Examiner notes that Applicant has argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “authenticate” means that “An authentication key that has been populated in the applicative device is used to authenticate terminal equipment to the applicative device (e.g., by sending the authentication key itself (e.g., as a password) or by sending a message signed or encrypted with the authentication key) from the gateway or router to the applicative device.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Where a specific function is claimed, it must be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how that function is performed. The claims do not indicate how this authentication takes place. Indeed, Applicant has stated in their response that multiple incompatible interpretations are possible in the current claim language.
Further, even if, arguendo, either of the two interpretations illustrated in Applicant’s arguments were to be applied to the claims, they would still fail to adequately describe any step which would be recognized as an “authentication” by one of ordinary skill in the art. There is no commonly understood method of authentication in the art in which an “applicative device,” by simply receiving a copy of a key or a message encrypted with the key from a “gateway or router,” would then consider a separate “terminal device” to be authenticated.
Regarding the argument that a “specific technique” of authentication is not required, Examiner agrees that a “specific technique” of authentication is not necessary for the claims to be definite. For example, it is not necessary for the claims to recite the particular encryption algorithm used. However, if a term of art such as “authentication” is recited and not redefined by the disclosure, it must be clear that the claim actually performs a function which would be recognized as fulfilling the definition of that term as understood in the art. In this case, it is unclear that anything recognized as an “authentication” has taken place.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 18-20, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of NEUMANN et al (Doc ID US 20140289524 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim(s) 1, 5, and 11-13:
In each of these claims, the term “applicative device” has been misspelled as “application device.”
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-9, and 14-20:
They are objected to for being dependent on one or more objected-to claims. These objections could be overcome by overcoming the objections to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claim such that they are no longer dependent on any objected-to claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, and 14:
Claim 1 recites, “… authenticating the terminal equipment to the applicative device using (1) the at least one of the gateway and the router and (2) the authentication key …”. Claims 3, 5, 11, 12, and 14 recite similar language. This limitation is not supported by the original disclosure and represents new matter. The specification discusses “terminal equipment” and authentication on pages 4 and 5, “The access to the data provided by the given applicative device is allowed to the terminal equipment when at least one of the following conditions is also met: … the electronic device checks that the terminal equipment has performed a successful additional authentication with the given applicative device.” Rather than actively performing an authentication, it seems that the “electronic device” (embodied in the gateway or router) merely somehow determines whether an authentication has already taken place. The specification is silent regarding “using” any of the gateway, router, or authentication key to authenticate the “terminal equipment.” These rejections can be overcome by amending the claims such that they recite only that subject matter which is explicitly supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-20:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 14:
Additionally, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “authenticate,” (and all its forms) in the claims is used without indication of the manner in which the authentication is performed. The accepted meaning in the art most commonly refers to the process of validating a user or process to verify that the user or process is not a counterfeit, usually with the use of secret information. The specification of the instant application teaches the following on page 3 (and similarly in claims 3 and 14),
“In some embodiments, the step of authenticating with the given applicative device comprises the following steps:
reading the authentication key from a memory of the electronic device; or
reading the information representative of characteristics of the LAN from a memory of the electronic device and generating again the authentication key based on the information read from the memory.”
It goes on to teach the following on page 12,
“More particularly, for proceeding with the authentication during the step S320, … the electronic device 110d reads the authentication key from a memory 201 of the electronic device 110d. Alternatively, in some embodiments the electronic device 110d reads the information representative of characteristics of the LAN 100 from a memory 201 of the electronic device 110d and generates again the authentication key based on the information read from the memory 201.”
Simply reciting simply “using” a gateway or router, and a key from memory, with no follow-on steps, do not align with any typical use of the term, “authentication.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9, 13, and 15-20:
They are dependent on one or more rejected claims, and thus inherit those rejections. This rejection could be overcome by overcoming the rejection(s) to any claims upon which these claims depend, or by amending the claims such that they are no longer dependent on any rejected 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 1-3, 7-9, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STINSON et al (Doc ID US 20160014124 A1), and further in view of NEUMANN et al (Doc ID US 20140289524 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
STINSON teaches:
A method for providing access to data provided by an applicative device, comprising ([0018] "Edge server 125 generally includes a processor as well as a memory and/or a computer readable medium … for storing data and computer executable-instructions."):
populating the applicative device with the authentication key generated by the at least one of the gateway and the router by sending the authentication key to the applicative device from the at least one of the gateway and the router to allow subsequent access to the data provided by the applicative device ([0035] "Next, in step 315, edge server 125 inserts source address 205 and encrypted address 210 into header 201." and [0036] "Next, in step 320, request processing server 135 receives request 140 and reads both source address 205 and encrypted address 210 from header 201."); and
providing, to the terminal equipment, access to the data of the applicative device by authenticating the terminal equipment to the applicative device using (1) the at least one of the gateway and the router and (2) the authentication key generated by the at least one of the gateway and the router ([0037] "Next, in step 325, request processing server 135 compares the decrypted address with source address 205." and [0042] "In step 350, if source address 205 was found, request processing server 135 compares request 140 with subscriber-specific authorization data in data store 130.").
NEUMANN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by STINSON:
generating, by at least one of a gateway and a router interposed between terminal equipment and the application device, an authentication key based on information representative of characteristics of a LAN connected to the at least one of the gateway and the router ([0017] "… The device 115 may be, for example, a computer, router, switch, or other network element." and [0032] "The authentication agent may generate the decryption key based on … identification information of network locations retrieved …");
Examiner notes that Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate that the "authentication agent" is present on processor 515, which is part of computer 400, which is an embodiment of device 115, recited as a router.
Sending a key to a destination device and facilitating access to the destination are known techniques in the art, as demonstrated by STINSON. Further, generating a key based on a characteristic of the connected network is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by NEUMANN. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the key and access facilitation of STINSON with the network characteristic-based key generation of NEUMANN. One wanting a more stable basis for authentication than one which changes for each communication would have the motivation to use a fingerprint of a network as a basis for authentication so that individuals with access to the network can take advantage of services authorized to the network, and so that authentication is not limited to a single communication.
Regarding claim 2:
For the purposes of this examination and in the interest of furthering prosecution, this claim is being examined as a list of alternatives. Should an applicant response to this office action address the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), applicant may, if desired, further clarify the claim language to narrow the scope of the claims to recite LAN characteristics consisting explicitly of each and every characteristic listed here. It is also noted that neither the claims nor specification recite any particular benefit to using any one or combination of LAN characteristics.
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the characteristics of the LAN are selected from a group including: a topology of the LAN; a geographical location of the LAN; a size of the LAN based on a number of devices communicatively connected to the LAN; at least one category of a device communicatively connected to the LAN; all or part of MAC addresses of the devices communicatively connected to the LAN (NEUMANN [0032] "... the identification information may be identification information of devices 115, 125, 130 or 135 (FIG. 1). The authentication agent may retrieve data specific to different machines in the networked environment, such as ... access control (MAC) addresses ..."); at least one characteristic of a Wi-Fi protocol implemented by the LAN; and data consumption characteristic based on average data or peak data transferred over the LAN.
Using MAC addresses of devices connected to a network as basis for authentication of the network is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by NEUMANN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON and NEUMANN with the MAC address characteristic of SONG with the motivation to use characteristics which would change based on the connected devices, so that new or leaving devices change the network such that the authentication information is no longer valid.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein said providing, to the terminal equipment, access to the data of the applicative device by authenticating the terminal equipment to the applicative device using the at least one of the gateway and the router by the at least one of the gateway and the router providing the authentication key to the applicative device comprises: reading the authentication key from a memory of the at least one of the gateway and the router (STINSON [0036] "Next, in step 320, request processing server 135 receives request 140 and reads both source address 205 and encrypted address 210 from header 201."); or reading the information representative of characteristics of the LAN from a memory of the at least one of the gateway and the router and generating again the authentication key based on the information read from the memory.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein populating the applicative device comprises: sending said authentication key to the applicative device (STINSON [0035] "Next, in step 315, edge server 125 inserts source address 205 and encrypted address 210 into header 201." and [0036] "Next, in step 320, request processing server 135 receives request 140 and reads both source address 205 and encrypted address 210 from header 201."); or sending said authentication key to a backend server such that the backend server to forwards the authentication key to the applicative device.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein providing to the terminal equipment access to the data of the applicative device comprises that the at least one of the gateway and the router confirms that at least one condition is also met, the condition being selected from a group consisting of (STINSON [0045] "In step 365, if the user is authorized to view the content or access the service, request 140 can be fulfilled, for example, the content is displayed via user device 110."): the at least one of the gateway and the router having received an input command indicative of the terminal equipment being a trusted device; the at least one of the gateway and the router having confirmed that a trusted device is effectively communicatively connected to the LAN; and
the at least one of the gateway and the router having confirmed that the terminal equipment has performed a successful additional authentication with the applicative device (STINSON [0043] "Next, in step 355, if the user is authorized to access the requested service, or view the requested content, then process 300 proceeds to step 365 …").
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the LAN utilizes an internet protocol (STINSON Fig 1 and [0005] "… A service provider generally uses at least one edge server 125 … which communicates with device 110 …").
Regarding claims 11-14 and 20:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claims 1-3 above.
Claims 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STINSON et al (Doc ID US 20160014124 A1) and NEUMANN et al (Doc ID US 20140289524 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of SCHIEFERSTEIN et al (Doc ID US 20150135330 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
SCHIEFERSTEIN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of STINSON and NEUMANN:
wherein the information representative of characteristics of the LAN includes a plurality of digital information representing each a characteristic of the LAN, wherein said generating further comprises: aggregating the digital information delivering an aggregated digital information ([0020] "… a hash value, preferably a cryptographic hash value, is formed from a combination of the first parameter and the second parameter …"); and
generating the authentication key based on a result of applying a one-way function to the aggregated digital information ([0020] "… a cryptographic hash value, is formed from a combination of the first parameter and the second parameter, which forms … the hash value as third parameter.").
Aggregating multiple parameters before hashing the aggregate is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by SCHIEFERSTEIN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON and NEUMANN with the aggregated hash of SCHIEFERSTEIN with the motivation to produce one value based on multiple characteristics. One needing to produce a single undecipherable value from multiple LAN characteristics would look to a known method such as hashing the aggregate of multiple values.
Regarding claims 15 and 16:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STINSON et al (Doc ID US 20160014124 A1) and NEUMANN et al (Doc ID US 20140289524 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of KAMAT (Doc ID US 20130167211 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of STINSON and NEUMANN teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
generating, by least one of the gateway and the router interposed between terminal equipment and the application device, an updated authentication key based on the updated information (NEUMANN [0017] "… The device 115 may be, for example, a computer, router, switch, or other network element." and [0032] "The authentication agent may generate the decryption key based on … identification information of network locations retrieved …"),
Basing authentication information on a characteristic of the originating LAN is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by NEUMANN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON and NEUMANN with the enciphered authentication information of NEUMANN with the motivation to use a fingerprint of a network as a basis for authentication so that individuals with access to the network can take advantage of services authorized to the network.
populating the applicative device with the updated authentication key, (STINSON [0035] "Next, in step 315, edge server 125 inserts source address 205 and encrypted address 210 into header 201." and [0036] "Next, in step 320, request processing server 135 receives request 140 and reads both source address 205 and encrypted address 210 from header 201.") and
providing, to the terminal equipment, access to the data of the applicative device by authenticating the terminal equipment to the applicative device using the at least one of the gateway and the router by the at least one of the gateway and the router providing the updated authentication key to the applicative device (STINSON [0037] "Next, in step 325, request processing server 135 compares the decrypted address with source address 205." and [0042] "In step 350, if source address 205 was found, request processing server 135 compares request 140 with subscriber-specific authorization data in data store 130.").
KAMAT teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of STINSON and NEUMANN:
further comprising: updating information representative of the characteristics of the LAN when a predetermined criterion representative of an effective change in the characteristics of the LAN is fulfilled ([0027] "… if any of the user properties are changed … the policy server 160 receives a notification that attributes have been modified. The policy server 160 then, at block 270 ... causes re-authentication of the user.");
Triggering reauthentication due to a change in the network is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by KAMAT. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON and NEUMANN with the reauthentication trigger of KAMAT with the motivation to render the access of the network invalid once the network changes, as this may indicate previously unauthorized users gaining access to the network.
Regarding claims 17 and 18:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claim 5 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STINSON et al (Doc ID US 20160014124 A1), NEUMANN et al (Doc ID US 20140289524 A1), and KAMAT (Doc ID US 20130167211 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of ZHONG (Doc ID US 20170150411 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of STINSON, NEUMANN, and KAMAT teaches:
The method according to claim 5,
ZHONG teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein the predetermined criterion that is fulfilled is comprises one of: a variation, over a predetermined period of time, in a number of devices connected to the LAN, being higher than a predetermined number; and a change in a communication protocol implemented in the LAN ([0025] "… the present disclosure can effectively decreases the communication traffic of the re-authentication process when a cellular network (for example, an LTE network) is switched to a WLAN …").
Triggering reauthentication due to a change in the network communication protocol is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by ZHONG. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON, NEUMANN, and KAMAT with the communication protocol reauthentication trigger of ZHONG with the motivation to render the access of the network invalid once the network changes, as this may indicate previously unauthorized users gaining access to the network.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STINSON et al (Doc ID US 20160014124 A1), NEUMANN et al (Doc ID US 20140289524 A1), and SCHIEFERSTEIN et al (Doc ID US 20150135330 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of KAMAT (Doc ID US 20130167211 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of STINSON, NEUMANN, and SCHIEFERSTEIN teaches:
The method according to claim 4,
said generating is executed again delivering an updated authentication key based on the updated information (NEUMANN [0017] "… The device 115 may be, for example, a computer, router, switch, or other network element." and [0032] "The authentication agent may generate the decryption key based on … identification information of network locations retrieved …"),
Basing authentication information on a characteristic of the originating LAN is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by NEUMANN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON, NEUMANN, and SCHIEFERSTEIN with the enciphered authentication information of NEUMANN with the motivation to use a fingerprint of a network as a basis for authentication so that individuals with access to the network can take advantage of services authorized to the network.
said populating is executed again such that the applicative device is populated with the updated authentication key, (STINSON [0035] "Next, in step 315, edge server 125 inserts source address 205 and encrypted address 210 into header 201." and [0036] "Next, in step 320, request processing server 135 receives request 140 and reads both source address 205 and encrypted address 210 from header 201.") and
said authenticating is executed again using the updated authentication key (STINSON [0037] "Next, in step 325, request processing server 135 compares the decrypted address with source address 205." and [0042] "In step 350, if source address 205 was found, request processing server 135 compares request 140 with subscriber-specific authorization data in data store 130.").
KAMAT teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the above combination:
wherein said information representative of characteristics of the LAN is updated when a predetermined criterion representative of an effective change in the characteristics of the LAN is fulfilled ([0027] "… if any of the user properties are changed … the policy server 160 receives a notification that attributes have been modified. The policy server 160 then, at block 270 ... causes re-authentication of the user."),
Triggering reauthentication due to a change in the network is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by KAMAT. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facilitated key transport and authentication of STINSON, NEUMANN, and SCHIEFERSTEIN with the reauthentication trigger of KAMAT with the motivation to render the access of the network invalid once the network changes, as this may indicate previously unauthorized users gaining access to the network.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703) 756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1600 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BB/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437
