DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on May 4, 2026. Claims 1, 7, and 18-20 have been amended and claim 16 has been canceled. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending. Of such, claims 1-15 and 17-18 represent an apparatus and claims 19-20 represent a method directed to access point and method to achieve security in coordinated beamforming.
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 Objections
The objection to the claim has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 18.
Specification
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of the revision submitted on May 4, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the Remarks, the Applicant states that the prior art Jiang and Cherian fail to disclose that the protected frame is decrypted by a security key identified by the non-AP station through an identifier carried in the protected frame in claims 1, 7, 19, and 20.
The Applicant acknowledges that Cherian’s beacon MIC computation “may be associated with a usage of TA or RA and a security key, such as BIGTK” (Cherian, ¶ 179) but argues that Cherian does not show the STA identifying the key through the TA. The Applicant’s specification discloses the recited identification of the security key “by identifier carried in the protected frame” requires no more than the in-frame TA/BSSID indicating which key the non-AP station uses (See Applicant’s Spec, ¶ 50). Further, the Applicant’s specification describes the non-AP station as identifying “a security key to decrypt the protected frame by an identifier carried in the protected frame” where “the identifier is a transmitter address (TA) or a BSSID” (See Applicant’s Spec ¶¶ 47, 57).
Cherian maintains the security key pair link – “the wireless communication device may use BIGTK per link” (Cherian, ¶ 178), the root AP managing a respective key for each affiliated AP (Cherian ¶ 179), and the STA “may maintain connectivity with both the root AP 102-a and the satellite AP 102-b” (Cherian ¶ 115), so the STA holds a distinct per-link key for each AP from which it receives protected frames. The transmitted AP’s BSSID is carried in the frame’s A1-A3 fields, which form the additional authentication data (AAD) over which the message integrity check (MIC) is computed (Cherian ¶¶ 176-178), and Cherian uses the in-frame TA to derive a per-device value (Cherian, ¶ 65). Based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in view of Cherian, the STA identifies the key used to decrypt a given frame by the in-frame TA/BSSID, the only information distinguishing which per-link key applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 20200274588), hereinafter referred to as Jiang, in view of Cherian et al. (US 20240389140), hereinafter referred to as Cherian.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang discloses:
A first access point (AP) in a multiple access point (MAP) system of a wireless network, wherein the MAP system further comprises a second AP (In ¶ 7, Jiang discloses “In these embodiments, to perform the multi-AP CBF, the AP1 102 may be configured to initiate a first sounding sequence with one or more STAs (BSS STAs 104) (STA.sub.11-STA.sub.1N) associated with the AP1 102 and the one or more STAs (OBSS STAs 124) (STA.sub.21-STA.sub.2N) associated with a second AP (AP2 122).”), comprising: a transceiver , configured to transmit and receive frames over the wireless network (In ¶ 20, Jiang discloses “The communication station 200 may include communications circuitry 202 and a transceiver 210 for transmitting and receiving signals to and from other communication stations using one or more antennas 201”), and a control circuit configured to: transmit a protected frame to a non-AP station associated to the second AP (In ¶ 9, Jiang discloses “To perform the multi-AP CBF, the processing circuitry may encode a first null data packet (NDP) announcement frame (NDPA1 106) for transmission. The NDPA1 106 may initiate a first sounding sequence. The NDPA1 106 may be encoded to include an identity (ID) of a second AP (AP2 122) (i.e., an overlapping BSS (OBSS)), identities of one or more STAs (BSS STAs 104) (i.e., STA.sub.11-STA.sub.1N) associated with the AP1 102 and identities of one or more STAs (OBSS STAs 124) (i.e., STA.sub.11-STA.sub.2N) associated with the AP2 122” further in ¶ 10, Jiang discloses “In these embodiments, the processing circuitry may encode a first beam-forming refinement phase (BFRP) trigger frame 110 (e.g., a CSI report trigger frame) for transmission a SIFS after the NDP1 108.”); and receive a response frame in response to the protected frame from the non-AP station (In ¶ 10, Jiang discloses “The TB PPDUs may be sent by the BSS STAs 104 and the OBSS STAs 124 in response to the first BFRP trigger frame 110 and are received on the allocated resource units.”);
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the protected frame is decrypted by a security key identified by the non- AP station through an identifier carried in the protected frame (In ¶ 178, Cherian discloses “the wireless communication device may use BIGTK per link.” And in ¶ 115 “STA 104-a may maintain connectivity with both the root AP 102-a and the satellite AP 102-b at any given time” and further in ¶ 179 “For example, the beacon MIC computation performed by the satellite AP 102-b may be associated with (such as involve) a usage of TA or RA and a security key, such as a BIGTK.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Jiang and Cherian disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The first AP as claimed in claim 1, wherein the protected frame is encrypted by a unified security key distributed over the MAP system or by a shared security key derived from the second AP through a backhaul or a fronthaul connecting the first AP and the second AP (In ¶ 281, Cherian discloses “the relay component 1530 is capable of, configured to, or operable to support a means for encrypting the unencrypted group addressed frame to obtain an encrypted group addressed frame, where an encryption of the encrypted group addressed frame is associated with the sequence number and a group temporary key (GTK)”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Jiang and Cherian disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The first AP as claimed in claim 1, wherein the protected frame is encrypted by a non-shared security key of the first AP. (In ¶ 178, Cherian discloses “In some aspects, the wireless communication device may use a beacon integrity group temporal key (BIGTK) to encrypt or otherwise protect the beacon frame 900.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Jiang and Cherian disclose:
The first AP as claimed in claim 2, wherein the control circuit is further configured to transmit an announcement frame to the second AP before transmitting the protected frame (In ¶ 9, Jiang discloses “To perform the multi-AP CBF, the processing circuitry may encode a first null data packet (NDP) announcement frame (NDPA1 106) for transmission. The NDPA1 106 may initiate a first sounding sequence. The NDPA1 106 may be encoded to include an identity (ID) of a second AP (AP2 122) (i.e., an overlapping BSS (OBSS)), identities of one or more STAs (BSS STAs 104) (i.e., STA.sub.11-STA.sub.1N) associated with the AP1 102 and identities of one or more STAs (OBSS STAs 124) (i.e., STA.sub.11-STA.sub.2N) associated with the AP2 122”),
However, Jiang does not disclose the security key or parameters.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the announcement frame comprises a plurality of security parameters to encrypt the protected frame (In ¶ 176, Cherian discloses “The beacon frame 900 may include a frame control (FC) field 902, an A1 field 904, an A2 field 906, an A3 field 908, a management frame body 910 including management content 912 and an management MIC element (MME) 914, and an FCS field 916. The MME 914 may include an element ID field 918, a length field 920, a key ID field 922, an integrity packet number (IPN) field 924, and a MIC field 926.”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Jiang and Cherian disclose the limitations of Claim 4.
However, Jiang does not disclose the security key or parameters.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the plurality of security parameters comprise an indicator of the security key. (In ¶ 176, Cherian discloses “The beacon frame 900 may include a frame control (FC) field 902, an A1 field 904, an A2 field 906, an A3 field 908, a management frame body 910 including management content 912 and an management MIC element (MME) 914, and an FCS field 916. The MME 914 may include an element ID field 918, a length field 920, a key ID field 922, an integrity packet number (IPN) field 924, and a MIC field 926.”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Jiang and Cherian disclose the limitations of Claim 5.
However, Jiang does not disclose the security key or parameters.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the plurality of security parameters further comprise a packet number (PN) associated to the security key. (In ¶ 176, Cherian discloses “The beacon frame 900 may include a frame control (FC) field 902, an A1 field 904, an A2 field 906, an A3 field 908, a management frame body 910 including management content 912 and an management MIC element (MME) 914, and an FCS field 916. The MME 914 may include an element ID field 918, a length field 920, a key ID field 922, an integrity packet number (IPN) field 924, and a MIC field 926.”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 7, Jiang discloses:
A non-AP station associated to a first AP in a multiple access point (MAP) system of a wireless network, wherein the MAP system further comprises a second AP (In ¶ 7, Jiang discloses “In these embodiments, to perform the multi-AP CBF, the AP1 102 may be configured to initiate a first sounding sequence with one or more STAs (BSS STAs 104) (STA.sub.11-STA.sub.1N) associated with the AP1 102 and the one or more STAs (OBSS STAs 124) (STA.sub.21-STA.sub.2N) associated with a second AP (AP2 122).”), comprising: a transceiver, configured to transmit and receive frames over the wireless network (In ¶ 20, Jiang discloses “The communication station 200 may include communications circuitry 202 and a transceiver 210 for transmitting and receiving signals to and from other communication stations using one or more antennas 201”), and a control circuit, configured to: receive a protected frame from the second AP (In ¶ 9, Jiang discloses “To perform the multi-AP CBF, the processing circuitry may encode a first null data packet (NDP) announcement frame (NDPA1 106) for transmission. The NDPA1 106 may initiate a first sounding sequence. The NDPA1 106 may be encoded to include an identity (ID) of a second AP (AP2 122) (i.e., an overlapping BSS (OBSS)), identities of one or more STAs (BSS STAs 104) (i.e., STA.sub.11-STA.sub.1N) associated with the AP1 102 and identities of one or more STAs (OBSS STAs 124) (i.e., STA.sub.11-STA.sub.2N) associated with the AP2 122” further in ¶ 10, Jiang discloses “In these embodiments, the processing circuitry may encode a first beam-forming refinement phase (BFRP) trigger frame 110 (e.g., a CSI report trigger frame) for transmission a SIFS after the NDP1 108.”); and transmit a response frame in response to the protected frame to the second AP (In ¶ 11, Jiang discloses “The second BFRP trigger frame 130 may trigger second CSI reports 134 from the BSS STAs 104 and second CSI reports 136 from the OBSS STAs 124 to the AP2 122.”);
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the non-AP station identifies a security key to decrypt the protected frame by an identifier carried in the protected frame. (In ¶ 178, Cherian discloses “the wireless communication device may use BIGTK per link.” And in ¶ 115 “STA 104-a may maintain connectivity with both the root AP 102-a and the satellite AP 102-b at any given time” and further in ¶ 179 “For example, the beacon MIC computation performed by the satellite AP 102-b may be associated with (such as involve) a usage of TA or RA and a security key, such as a BIGTK.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Jiang and Cherian disclose the limitations of Claim 7.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 7, wherein the protected frame is decrypted by a unified security key distributed over the MAP system or by a shared security key distributed from the first AP to the second AP through a backhaul or a fronthaul connecting the first AP and the second AP. (In ¶ 281, Cherian discloses “the relay component 1530 is capable of, configured to, or operable to support a means for encrypting the unencrypted group addressed frame to obtain an encrypted group addressed frame, where an encryption of the encrypted group addressed frame is associated with the sequence number and a group temporary key (GTK)”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the protected frame is decrypted by a non-shared security key of the second AP. (In ¶ 178, Cherian discloses “In some aspects, the wireless communication device may use a beacon integrity group temporal key (BIGTK) to encrypt or otherwise protect the beacon frame 900.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 8.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 8, wherein the non-AP station derives the unified security key or the shared security key through a first management frame transmitted from the first AP during an association to the first AP (In ¶ 176, Cherian discloses “The beacon frame 900 may include a frame control (FC) field 902, an A1 field 904, an A2 field 906, an A3 field 908, a management frame body 910 including management content 912 and an management MIC element (MME) 914, and an FCS field 916. The MME 914 may include an element ID field 918, a length field 920, a key ID field 922, an integrity packet number (IPN) field 924, and a MIC field 926.”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 10.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
wherein the first management frame is a beacon frame, or a probe response frame, or a (re)association response frame. (In ¶ 176, Cherian discloses “The beacon frame 900 may include a frame control (FC) field 902, an A1 field 904, an A2 field 906, an A3 field 908, a management frame body 910 including management content 912 and an management MIC element (MME) 914, and an FCS field 916. The MME 914 may include an element ID field 918, a length field 920, a key ID field 922, an integrity packet number (IPN) field 924, and a MIC field 926.”).
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 8.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 8, wherein the non-AP station derives an update of either the unified security key or the shared security key through a second management frame transmitted from the first AP after an association to the first AP (In ¶179, Cherian discloses “In some aspects, the root AP 102-a may manage the BIGTK or IPN values for the affiliated APs both for initial BIGTK installation on a client via a 4-way handshake and for later rekeying.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 9.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 9, wherein the non-AP station derives the non-shared key through a management frame transmitted from the first AP. (In ¶ 178, Cherian discloses “In some aspects, a wireless communication device may compute, calculate, select, identify, or otherwise determine a MIC value in accordance with the AAD 928, the element ID field 918, the length field 920, the key ID field 922, and the IPN field 924 and may place the MIC value in the MIC field 926.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 9.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 9, wherein the non-AP station derives the non-shared key through a management frame transmitted from the second AP. (In ¶ 178, Cherian discloses “In some aspects, a wireless communication device may compute, calculate, select, identify, or otherwise determine a MIC value in accordance with the AAD 928, the element ID field 918, the length field 920, the key ID field 922, and the IPN field 924 and may place the MIC value in the MIC field 926.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 13.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 13, wherein the non-shared security key is distributed from the second AP to the first AP through a backhaul or a fronthaul connecting the first AP and the second AP. (In ¶ 119, Cherian discloses “Additionally, or alternatively, the satellite AP 102-b may receive and store information associated with one or more security keys (such as end-to-end security keys) via which one or both of the root AP 102-a and the STA 104-a may use to protect over-the-air signaling.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 7, wherein the non-AP station maintains a PN space identified by the identifier and the security key. (In ¶ 179, Cherian discloses “For example, the beacon MIC computation performed by the satellite AP 102-b may be associated with (such as involve) a usage of TA or RA and a security key, such as a BIGTK. The root AP 102-a may manage the BIGTK or IPN values for APs affiliated with the root AP 102-a (such as for all collocated and non-collocated affiliated APs).”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Jiang and Cherian discloses the limitations of Claim 7.
However, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the use of a security key.
Cherian discloses:
The non-AP station as claimed in claim 7, wherein the identifier is a transmitter address (TA) or a basic service set identifier (BSSID). (In ¶ 65, Cherian discloses “In such implementations, the satellite AP may use an AID to derive (such as calculate, select, or map to) a receiver address (RA) for data or BA frame transmissions in the downlink direction and may use a transmitter address (TA) to derive (such as calculate, select, or map to) an AID for data or BA frame transmissions in the uplink direction”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang’s approach by utilizing Cherian’s approach of using a security key as the motivation would have been the use of a key to encode and encrypt the frames would protect the frames over the air signaling between the devices (See Cherian, ¶ 119).
Claims 19 and 20 are directed to a method having functionality corresponding to the apparatus of Claims 1 and 7 respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitazoe et al. (US 20130064225) discloses a method for security activation in a wireless communication network with access points and security keys.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADI H KOBROSLI whose telephone number is (571)272-1952. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at 571-272-3880. 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.
/SHADI H KOBROSLI/Examiner, Art Unit 2492 /RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights