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(s) 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 14-20 are amended. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected. Claims 9 and 20-22 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 01/09/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0003754 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 and 2/26/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 8, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to consideration of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 12/9/2024 have been fully considered and are persuasive. All references on said IDS are being considered by the Examiner.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 8 and 9, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119, have been fully considered. Examiner notes that no certified copy of the required foreign priority document are present in the application file. If Applicant believes this is in error, they are encouraged to reference www.uspto.gov/PatentsPDX for help ensuring that the necessary documents have been uploaded. Examiner further notes that the benefit to the filing date of the foreign priority application cannot be granted until the certified copy is present in the application file.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 9, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to the objection(s) to the abstract have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The associated objection(s) to the abstract is/are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 9, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 12:
The amendments to the claims sufficiently address these rejections, and they are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 20:
The amendments to the claims do not sufficiently address these rejections. Where Applicant has argued that description can be found in ¶¶ [0097] – [0104], examiner notes that the only mentions of predictions appears in ¶ [0097], which mostly repeats the claim language. The rest of these paragraphs appear to describe measurements of actual operations. Further, even were these paragraphs interpreted as though they were describing the method of predicting operation times, they assert values which are “assumed,” with no indication of how these values were calculated. For example, ¶ [0099] recites, “Assuming, in an example, that a ratio of time consumed … is 6:4, the operation time of the hoisting operation … may correspond to an operation time of 0.6 + 0.4 x (n - 1) times of the rotation operation.” This rejection is maintained.
Examiner notes that no arguments were received from Applicant with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 12, the amendments to the claims do not appear to address the rejections. These rejections are maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 6 and 17, the amendments to the claims appear to address the rejections. These rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 9, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments directed to the prior art of Maloney:
Examiner notes that the role of the “packing constant” in the claims, as drafted, is indecipherable. Where claim 1 recites, “… arranging the duplicated encrypted input data for each channel of the encrypted input data …”, it seems to indicate that each channel contains a copy of the encrypted input data; whereas later in the claim, it is indicated that each channel contains only a portion of a copy. Where it references “slots,” it is unclear to what “slots” are being referred. Where the claims recite, “… data belonging to a same channel … are spaced apart in the packing data …”, it is unclear what “spaced apart” means in this context, as it is further unclear what constitutes a “slot.” In the interest of compact prosecution, prior art is referenced where is most closely matches those limitations whose meanings can be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. This portion of the rejections is maintained.
Regarding the arguments directed to the prior art of Kim:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At present, the independent claims, in particular, are so bafflingly worded that it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the limitations. Prior art is provided in the interest of compact prosecution, and is mapped to whatever portions of the limitations from which a meaningful interpretation can be derived. This portion of the rejections is maintained.
Examiner notes that due to the change in scope of the claims, the rejections as a whole are withdrawn; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of AHARONI et al (Doc ID US 20230053311 A1).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specifically, the abstract is not in narrative form (it is nearly a verbatim copy of the amended independent claim); does not sufficiently assist a reader in deciding to read the full text (instead requires the reader to consult the text to decipher the abstract); is not clear (the actual inventive concept of the application is not made clear to the reader); and uses the phraseology used in claims (it is a nearly verbatim copy of the amended independent claim).
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) 9 and 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 claim(s) 9 and 20:
Claim 9 recites, “… selecting the operation … based on a comparison result of a predicted operation time of the hoisting operation and a predicted operation time of the first rotation operation.” Claim(s) 20 recite(s) similar language. The specification fails to adequately describe this limitation. The specification does discuss prediction of these operations in ¶ 0097; however, this portion of the specification provides no details other than those present in the claim. There is no description of how the operation times of these operations are predicted. Or how these predictions are used to select the “hoisting” and “rotation operations.”
These rejections can be overcome by amending the claim(s) such that they recite only that subject matter which is has adequate description in the original disclosure.
It is important to note that in regards to an adequate written description, “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” (MPEP 2161.01).
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, 3-12, and 14-22 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 claim(s) 1 and 12:
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 “duplication constant” in the claims is used to refer to a value which is used to instruct the number of times the input tensor is duplicated in the packing operation; while the accepted meaning refers to duplicating input data to account for differences in matrix dimensions between the input tensor and the packed data. No reason is given for the claimed duplication or the selection of the value assigned to the duplication constant. Indeed, the specification at ¶ 0070 teaches that the duplication constant “may include any predetermined constant.” A predetermined duplication constant cannot fulfill the role the term is given in the art. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 1 recites, “… a first rotation operation and an addition operation that are performed on an elementwise product result of the packing data and each of the convolutional kernels belonging to the same group …”. Claim 12 recites similar language. The claims are indefinite because the meaning of “elementwise product result” is unclear. Typically in the art, elementwise products are the result of a number of multiplication operations between two matrices of equal dimensions. The claims, on the other hand, seem to indicate that it is perform “on the packing data” or “on the packing data and each of the convolutional kernels.” The claims are firstly indefinite because of the ambiguity of which elements are involved in the “elementwise product.” The claims are further indefinite because it is unclear how either interpretation would be accomplished.
Claim 1 also recites, “… the homomorphic encryption operation comprising a first rotation operation and an addition operation that are performed on an elementwise product result …, to sum the elementwise product result corresponding to each channel … for each of the convolutional kernels belonging to the same group …”. Claim 12 recites similar language. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what addition operation is performed, and further, whether the “sum” is meant to refer to the same addition operation, or is an intended use for the result of the rotation and addition operations.
Regarding claims 3-11, and 14-22:
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 9 and 20-22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9:
The following limitations are novel and are not taught by KIM or MALONEY, alone or in combination:
The method of claim 8, wherein the selecting of the operation comprises selecting the operation from among the hoisting operation and the first rotation operation based on the number of pieces of data to be summed for the convolution operation and based on a comparison result of a predicted operation time of the hoisting operation and a predicted operation time of the first rotation operation.
Regarding claim 21:
The following limitations are novel and are not taught by KIM or MALONEY, alone or in combination:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second rotation operation is simultaneously performed on the plurality of operation result sets corresponding to different groups among the plurality of groups in the convolutional kernel set.
Regarding claim(s) 20 and 22:
The claim(s) is/are allowable with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as counterpart claim(s) 9 and 20.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Doc ID US 20240171372 A1), and further in view of MALONEY et al (arXiv:2306.09189v2 [cs.CR]) and AHARONI et al (Doc ID US 20230053311 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
KIM teaches:
A processor-implemented method, the method comprising ([0022] "Client device 102 includes one or more processors 104, interface 108, and memory 106. Processor(s) 104 can execute instructions, such as instructions from one or more applications loaded from memory 106 …"):
generating an operation result set based on a homomorphic encryption operation for a convolution operation of a neural network between the packing data and each of a plurality of convolutional kernels belonging to a same group among a plurality of groups in a convolutional kernel set ([0039] "A batched convolution with BB′ kernels, which can be represented as:
PNG
media_image1.png
41
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and
the homomorphic encryption operation comprising a first rotation operation and an addition operation that are performed on an elementwise product result of the packing data and each of the convolutional kernels belonging to the same group, to sum the elementwise product result corresponding to each channel of the encrypted input data for each of the convolutional kernels belonging to the same group ([0067] "… Packing the B ciphertexts into one convolved polynomial then costs 2(B−1) multiplications and B−1 rotations without consuming multiplicative depth."); and
generating a convolution operation result of the encrypted input data by performing a second rotation operation on a plurality of operation result sets generated corresponding to a plurality of groups in the convolutional kernel set ([0067] "… Packing the B ciphertexts into one convolved polynomial then costs 2(B−1) multiplications and B−1 rotations without consuming multiplicative depth."),
the plurality of operational result sets comprising the operation result set, the second rotation operation being a rotation operation that combines the plurality of operation result sets into the convolution operation result ([0057] "… convolutions between each batch are computed separately and then summed into one, which is represented in FIG. 4 with the asterisks in the product between Î(X) and K(X).").
MALONEY teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by KIM:
generating packing data of encrypted input data by duplicating the encrypted input data according to a duplication constant representing a number of times the encrypted input data is included in the packing data (Pg 3 "If an image does not fill a shard, its channels are duplicated. When s > m2c, we define a duplication factor given by d = s/m2c, and place d copies of each channel when concatenating them together."), and
Convolution and rotation operations in the context of homomorphic encryptions (HME) and using kernels are known techniques in the art, as demonstrated by KIM. Further, packing encrypted data involving data duplication is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MALONEY. 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 convolution and rotation operations of KIM with the duplication of packed encryption data of MALONEY with the motivation to designate a value with which the encrypted data is encrypted so that the encrypted data is artificially expanded to provide enough channels for FHE to be effective.
AHARONI teaches the following limitations not taught by the above combination:
arranging the duplicated encrypted input data for each channel of the encrypted input data according to a packing constant representing an interval of slots at which data belonging to a same channel of the encrypted input data are spaced apart in the packing data, the packing data comprising a plurality of packing channels, each of the plurality of packing channels corresponding to a two-dimensional arrangement of a portion of the encrypted input data ([0057] "... the interleaving stride results in non-contiguous mapping of the elements of said input tensor, such that each of the tile tensors includes a subset of the elements of the input tensor which are spaced within the input tensor according to the interleaving stride.");
Arranging input data into channels with a predetermined distance between channels which share the same data is/are known technique(s) in the art, as demonstrated by AHARONI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HME method of KIM and MALONEY with the packing method of AHARONI with the motivation to ensure that the data any kernel would pass over would be non-repeating samples. This is a known technique which has been used to improve similar devices.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first rotation operation and the addition operation are performed in a same rotation direction for each of the convolutional kernels belonging to the same group in the convolutional kernel set (KIM [0035] "… For an input ciphertext ct, the rotation operation outputs a ciphertext ct.sub.rot=Rot(ct, j), which has a message vector rotated j steps left from the input vector …").
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the operation result set comprises: generating the elementwise product result of each of the convolutional kernels belonging to the same group in the convolutional kernel set and the packing data (KIM [0035] "The CKKS scheme uses ... an encoding algorithm ... and a decoding algorithm ... parameterized by a scaling factor Δ, which controls the precision of the following arithmetic operations ...:
PNG
media_image2.png
75
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where ⊕ and ⊙ denote the component-wise addition and Hadamard product of vectors, respectively ...");
performing the first rotation operation and the addition operation on the elementwise product result (KIM [0035] "... With these encoding and decoding algorithms, the CKKS scheme encrypts a vector of complex numbers into a ciphertext and can perform addition or multiplication on the vectors with the foregoing ciphertext operations. The CKKS scheme also uses a rotation operation denoted by Rot."); and
generating the operation result set by extracting a valid value from a result of the first rotation operation and the addition operation (KIM [0081] "... the extraction can be performed by multiplying a plaintext vector having 1 at valid positions and by 0 at all other positions in the vector.").
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the generating of the operation result set further comprises: generating, among the result of the first rotation operation and the addition operation, the operation result set by multiplying the valid value by 0 and remaining values by 1 (KIM [0081] "... the extraction can be performed by multiplying a plaintext vector having 1 at valid positions and by 0 at all other positions in the vector.").
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the homomorphic encryption operation comprises a multiplication operation, the addition operation, and the first rotation operation for the convolution operation (KIM [0035] "... With these encoding and decoding algorithms, the CKKS scheme encrypts a vector of complex numbers into a ciphertext and can perform addition or multiplication on the vectors with the foregoing ciphertext operations. The CKKS scheme also uses a rotation operation denoted by Rot.").
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (KIM [0022] "Client device 102 includes one or more processors 104, interface 108, and memory 106. Processor(s) 104 can execute instructions, such as instructions from one or more applications loaded from memory 106 …").
Regarding claims 12, 14-16, and 18:
These claims are rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as their counterpart claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 11 above.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Doc ID US 20240171372 A1), MALONEY et al (arXiv:2306.09189v2 [cs.CR]), and AHARONI et al (Doc ID US 20230053311 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of LEE et al (Doc ID US 20210344479 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 4,
LEE teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI:
wherein the generating of the operation result set further comprises: generating, among the result of the rotation operation and the addition operation, the operation result set by multiplying the valid value by 0 and remaining values by 1 (KIM [0081] "... the extraction can be performed by multiplying a plaintext vector having 1 at valid positions and by 0 at all other positions in the vector.").
Distributing a group of filters (kernels) in a layer for a single layer for a convolution operation is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by LEE. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HME method of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI with the kernel group of LEE with the motivation to use a chosen group of kernels for a single convolution operation so that the results are more easily processed together.
Regarding claim 17:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 6 above.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Doc ID US 20240171372 A1), MALONEY et al (arXiv:2306.09189v2 [cs.CR]), and AHARONI et al (Doc ID US 20230053311 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of ROH et al (IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD ’24).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 1,
ROH teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI:
wherein the generating of the operation result set comprises: selecting an operation from among a hoisting operation and the first rotation operation based on a number of pieces of data to be summed for the convolution operation (2.3.3 When rotating the same ciphertext multiple times, the “hoisting” technique … provides a speed-up.); and
generating the operation result set based on the selected operation (2.4. "The convolution operation then involves computing the sum of PMult(HRot(𝑐𝑡0, 𝑖), 𝑝𝑡0(𝑓𝑖+4)) for 𝑖 ∈ [−4,4], where 𝑝𝑡0(·) represents a rotated version of 𝑝𝑡0 .... The hoisting technique can be applied here, as the same 𝑐𝑡0 undergoes multiple rotations. This process is repeated to get partial sums, which are then HAdded to produce the output ciphertext ...").
Using a hoisting operation to reduce computational complexity in encryption operations is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by ROH. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HME method of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI with the hoisting operation of ROH with the motivation to reduce overall complexity. This solution is obvious because hoisting is particularly useful in rotation operations.
Regarding claim 19:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 6 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Doc ID US 20240171372 A1), MALONEY et al (arXiv:2306.09189v2 [cs.CR]), and AHARONI et al (Doc ID US 20230053311 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHOI et al (Doc ID US 20230188317 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI teaches:
The method of claim 1,
CHOI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI:
wherein the encrypted input data is generated by encoding input data into a one- dimensional vector and encrypting the encoded one-dimensional vector ([0066] The processor 200 may generate packed data by performing data packing on an encrypted image. The encrypted image may be generated by encoding an input image into a one-dimensional vector and encrypting the encoded one-dimensional vector. A weight may be encoded as a one-dimensional vector.).
Encoding an input as a one-dimensional vector and then encrypting the vector is a standard encryption technique in the art, as demonstrated by CHOI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the HME method of KIM, MALONEY, and AHARONI with the encryption operation of CHOI with the motivation to provide specific steps for encryption of input to ensure a standardized encrypted data object for packing.
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
Prosecution Insights