DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-31 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-16 are original claims to patent US 11,570,626 B2 to Chandramouli et al. (herein Chandramouli) and claims 17-31 are newly added claims.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,570,626 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2026 is/are considered by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, MPEP 609, and MPEP 1406, to the fullest extent of the items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined through and not considered.
Oath/Declaration Objections
The reissue oath/declaration filed 10/17/2025 for this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) and objected to because it fails: (1) to identify the broadened claims (37 CFR 1.175(b)). The declaration does not specifically identify at least one broadened claim (see MPEP 1412.03).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-31 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action (see Oath/Declaration Objections): (1) to identify the broadened claims (37 CFR 1.175(b)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0264439 A1 to Muhanna et al. (herein Muhanna).
Claim 1
Muhanna shows an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor (Muhanna: figure 23; [0100]-[0101]; figures 4, 11, 17, element UE 215; [0101], UE can be a router), to cause the apparatus at least to:
receive an encrypted new routing identifier with an integrity signature (Muhanna: figures 4, 11, 17, IAS message element and information going to UE from MME and HSS; [0080] IAS messages includes user specific information, which can be for a router and include IMSI, see [0079]; [0040], temporary network identifier, which is related to routing; and [0051], [0055], [0060], [0075], IAS includes signatures/keys) from a security or access management entity (Muhanna: figure 4, element 220; [0050]; [0055]), wherein the encrypted new routing identifier is received in a non-access stratum message (Muhanna: [0035] and [0050], NAS) after authentication of the apparatus is completed (Muhanna: figure 4, element 435 shows authentication before element 450, the IAS message; and also under the broadest reasonable interpretation this language reads upon a subsequent time a mobile device is authenticated, since UEs will be authenticated repeatedly in a network);
check a validity of the integrity signature using a key (Muhanna: [0040], after receiving messages from MME, the UE/router independently generates keys); and
if the integrity signature is valid, decipher and store the new routing identifier (Muhanna: 0040], after receiving messages from MME, the UE/router independently generates keys).
Claim 2
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein check the validity of the integrity signature using a key comprising using an integrity key to check the validity of the integrity signature (Muhanna: [0055], outer portion using MAC signature and KIASINT).
Claim 3
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the integrity key is known only by the apparatus and a node of the home public land mobile network of the apparatus (Muhanna: [0061]).
Claim 4
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein decipher the encrypted new routing identifier further comprising decipher the encrypted new routing identifier using an encryption key (Muhanna: [0055], encrypted inner portion and KIASENC).
Claim 5
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the encryption key is known only by the apparatus and a node of the home public land mobile network of the apparatus (Muhanna: [0061]).
Claim 6
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to receive the new routing identifier as part of a configuration, authentication or registration process (Muhanna: figures 4, 11, and 17).
Claims 7-12
The limitations of claims 7-12 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-6 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Claim 13
Muhanna shows an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor (Muhanna: figure 23; [0100]-[0101]; figures 4, 11, 17, element UE 220; [0050]), to cause the apparatus at least to:
decide at the apparatus to update a routing identifier for at least one user equipment (Muhanna: figures 4, 11, 17, IAS message element and information going to UE from MME and HSS; [0080] IAS messages includes user specific information, which can be for a router and include IMSI, see [0079]; [0040], temporary network identifier, which is related to routing; and [0051], [0055], [0060], [0075], IAS includes signatures/keys);
obtain or generate a new routing identifier to be assigned to the at least one user equipment (Muhanna: figures 4, 11, 17, IAS message element and information going to UE from MME and HSS; [0080] IAS messages includes user specific information, which can be for a router and include IMSI, see [0079]; [0040], temporary network identifier, which is related to routing; and [0051], [0055], [0060], [0075], IAS includes signatures/keys);
encrypt the new routing identifier with an encryption key; generate an integrity signature of the encrypted new routing identifier with an integrity key (Muhanna: [0040], encrypted identifier; [0055], MAC signature and keys KIASENC and KIASINT); and
transmit the encrypted new routing identifier with the integrity signature in a non-access stratum message to the at least one user equipment after authentication of the at least one user equipment is completed (Muhanna: figures 4, element 450 after element 435; see also figures 11 and 17).
Claim 14
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the encryption key and the integrity key are known only by the at least one user equipment and the apparatus (Muhanna: [0061]).
Claim 15
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein transmit the encrypted new routing identifier with the integrity signature to the at least one user equipment further comprising send a non-access stratum message that comprising the encrypted new routing identifier to the at least one user equipment (Muhanna: [0035] and [0050], NAS).
Claim 16
Muhanna shows the apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising send the non-access stratum message to the at least one user equipment after an authentication of the at least one user equipment is completed or as part of a configuration, authentication or registration process (Muhanna: figures 4, element 450 after element 435; see also figures 11 and 17).
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) 17-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0264439 A1 to Muhanna et al. (herein Muhanna) in view of US 10,425,817 B2 to Torvinen et al. (herein Torvinen).
Claim 17
The limitations of claim 17 largely correspond to the limitations of claim 1 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner. However, Muhanna does not explicitly state “the new routing identifier indicates one or more of: an Authentication Server Function (AUSF) instance or a Unified Data Management (UDM) instance for decrypting a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) of the mobile apparatus”. Torvinen demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a de-concealing server for a SUCI (Torvinen: 9:14-21; 10:25-11:36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the routing identifier (user specific information including the temporary identifier) of Muhanna as indicating a server (AUSF or UDM) to decrypt a SUCI as suggested by the teachings of Torvinen. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: it is important to maintain confidentiality (Torvinen: 1:22-35); Torvinen is providing the same components as Muhanna while indicating the need to maintain confidentiality/concealment (Torvinen: 10:25-40); the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; and both references are directed to authentication of UEs.
Claim 18
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 17, wherein the key for the checking whether the integrity signature is valid is derived from an authentication and key agreement (AKA) procedure (Muhanna: [0035], AKA).
Claim 19
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 17, wherein the key for the checking whether the integrity signature is valid is known only by the mobile apparatus and a node of a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) of the mobile apparatus (Muhanna: [0061]).
Claim 20
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 17, wherein the new routing identifier is an encrypted new routing identifier, and wherein the mobile apparatus is configured to decipher the encrypted new routing identifier using an encryption key (Muhanna: [0040], [0055], encrypt/decrypt using keys and signature).
Claim 21
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 20, wherein the encryption key is separate from the key for the checking whether the integrity signature is valid (Muhanna: [0055], MAC signature and keys KIASENC and KIASINT).
Claim 22
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 20, wherein the encryption key is known by the mobile apparatus and a node of an HPLMN of the mobile apparatus (Muhanna: [0061]).
Claim 23
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 17, wherein the new routing identifier is contained within a container in the NAS message (Muhanna: [0035] and [0050], NAS).
Claim 24
Muhanna shows the mobile apparatus of claim 17, wherein the new routing identifier is assigned by an HPLMN of the mobile apparatus (Muhanna: [0040]; figures 4, 11, 17).
Claims 25-31
The limitations of claims 25-31 correspond to the limitations of claims 17-24 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner's arguments filed 07/15/2026 (herein Remarks) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Remarks argue: (1) Muhanna does not disclose a routing identifier (Remarks: pages 13-15); (2) Muhanna does not disclose receiving a “new” routing identifier (Remarks: pages 15-16); (3) Muhanna does not show after authentication is completed (Remarks: pages 16-18); (4) Muhanna does not show the claimed checking and storing limitations (Remarks: pages 18-19); (5) Muhanna does not show “update a routing identifier” (Remarks: page 19); (6) the combination of Muhanna and Torvinen does not cure alleged deficiencies of Muhanna alone (Remarks: pages 20-21); (7) there is no motivation to combination of Muhanna and Torvinen (Remarks: pages 21-23); (8) the combination would not yield the claims (Remarks: pages 23-24); and (9) the combination does not show additional limitations (Remarks: pages 24-25).
Issue 1
The cited prior art shows the broadest reasonable interpretation of “routing identifier”. The disclosure of the 11,570,626 patent to Chandramouli et al. states the specification is illustrative and not limiting (column 3, lines 40-43). As such, the claimed “routing identifier” is broader than the specification citations now argued in the Remarks. The Muhanna cited GUTI, temporary identifier, is related to routing as the rejection indicates.
First, the disclosed temporary identifier is assigned to a device that can be a router and therefore is a “routing identifier” (Muhanna: [0040], “[t]he MME may also assign a temporary network identifier … GUTI … to the UE”). The device/system 2300 of Muhanna can be a router and/or a UE (Muhanna: [0100]-[0101]). User equipment (UE) is known to be able to act as routers (for example establishing computer sub-networks, hotspots, etc.), which blurs the distinction between “network-side” and “user-side”.
Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize routing as related to activities requiring a network identification (e.g. an endpoint, target, entity on the network), which is what the GUTI (globally unique temporary identifier) provides as Muhanna describes it as a “network identifier” (Muhanna: [0040]).
The claims do not require more and the cited prior art shows the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Issue 2
Muhanna states, “[t]he MME may also assign a temporary network identifier … GUTI … to the UE” (Muhanna: [0040]), which shows the temporary identifier is not previously known to the UE and is in fact newly assigned. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Issue 3
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not specify any boundaries as to what is in/out of “the authentication process” as suggested by the Remarks, but instead recites, “… new routing identifier is received … after authentication of the apparatus is completed”. The claim language does not even indicate there is an “authentication process” or how the claims related to it (e.g. part of the process, additional to the process, describing the entire process, how or when the process starts or is completed). As the rejections indicate, the broad “after authentication of the apparatus is completed” language is shown in at least two ways.
First, the message with the temporary identification is sent/received after apparatus is authenticated (Muhanna: figure 4, element 435 shows authentication before element 450, the IAS message). Claim 1 is broadly written and does not specify who or what must have completed authentication of the apparatus. And the cited prior art clearly shows at least one instance of “after the authentication of the apparatus is completed”. As such, the arguments by the Remarks to “during the authentication process” are not persuasive.
Second, since the claims are open-ended and broad, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes situations of receiving the new routing identifier in an additional authentication process after a previous authentication process has been completed (e.g. UEs may be authenticated repeatedly in a network). The Remarks assertion that such a view is unreasonable are not supported by the claim language, and the Remarks do not cite to any claim language for support.
Further, the Remarks assert, “Muhanna’s IAS message is not a NAS message” (Remarks: page 17). However, the paragraph goes on to state, “Muhanna merely discloses that the IAS message is used to transfer NAS keysets”. This alone shows Muhanna’s disclosure is to a NAS message under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. The Remarks offer no actual evidence of what is or isn’t a NAS message. Messages related to NAS are certainly NAS messages under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
For these reasons, these arguments are not persuasive.
Issue 4
Muhanna shows the process of encrypting an integrity signature with keys (Muhanna: [0040], [0051], [0055], [0060], [0075]), and specifically shows the further details of decrypting and checking validity of the integrity signature using a key (Muhanna: [0050]). Further, Muhanna shows decipher and storing the new routing identifier, since it decrypts the data and information processed in computing device is necessarily stored in some manner (whether permanently or in various registers for processing, etc.). Muhanna’s statement to decrypting (Muhanna: [0050]) shows the broadest reasonable interpretation of “if the integrity signature is valid”. From the plain reading of Muhanna, it is done for all conditions including the one claimed. Further, the claim language does not provide the alternative side of the “if” conditional. In other words, as claimed, the conditional does not provide a patentable distinction and does not require result “only if” the condition is met. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Issue 5
Muhanna’s temporary identifier is assigned after receiving an initial identifier (Muhanna: figures 4, 11, 17). This constitutes an update. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Issue 6
As seen from the preceding issue discussions, Muhanna discloses the limitations as indicated by the rejections. Torvinen is cited for additional reasons, while Muhanna is cited for showing sending a new or updated routing identifier. Nor does the combination cited against different claims with different limitations demonstrate the rejection of claim 1 is improper in view of Muhanna alone. It is entirely possible for a reference to teach the limitations of one claim that “largely correspond” with the limitations of a second claim, while not teaching limitations that are only found in the first claim. These arguments are not persuasive.
Issue 7-8
Muhanna shows the sending a new routing identifier to a UE as discussed above. The rejection does not need to show a rationale/explanation for doing what Muhanna already teaches. Nor is the alleged directionality of Torvinen asserted by the Remarks relevant. Torvinen is cited for showing the value of a SUCI and the related AUSF/UDM for maintaining confidentiality. For example, Torvinen shows a de-concealing server for a SUCI (Torvinen: 9:14-21; 10:25-11:36). And as such, it would have been obvious to implement the routing identifier (user specific information including the temporary identifier) of Muhanna as indicating a server (AUSF or UDM) to decrypt a SUCI as suggested by Torvinen. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: it is important to maintain confidentiality (Torvinen: 1:22-35); Torvinen is providing the same components as Muhanna while indicating the need to maintain confidentiality/concealment (Torvinen: 10:25-40); the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; and both references are directed to authentication of UEs.
Although, Torvinen states, “the UE 1 includes a temporary identifier (e.g., a 5G-GUTI) in a registration request” (Torvinen: column 10, lines 38-40), in Muhanna this temporary identifier is sent not from, but to the UE (Muhanna: [0040], “[t]he MME may also assign a temporary network identifier … GUTI … to the UE”). Therefore, when Torvinen is combined with the existing teachings of Muhanna it would be obvious for the routing identifier (user specific information including the temporary identifier) of Muhanna to indicate a server (AUSF or UDM) to decrypt a SUCI. The alternative proposals and alleged changing of directionality asserted by the Remarks would be the less logical and more likely scenario to change the principle operation of Muhanna.
As such, these arguments are not persuasive.
Issue 9
The broadest reasonable interpretation of AMF is merely a label, that in the case of the above outlined rejections refers to at least the MME and HSS as discussed in the corresponding limitations of claim 1, (e.g. the limitations concerning receiving the routing identifier). Additionally, the disclosed temporary identifier is assigned to a device that can be a router and therefore is a “routing identifier” (Muhanna: [0040], “[t]he MME may also assign a temporary network identifier … GUTI … to the UE”). The device/system 2300 of Muhanna can be a router and/or a UE (Muhanna: [0100]-[0101]). User equipment (UE) is known to be able to act as routers (for example establishing computer sub-networks, hotspots, etc.), which blurs the distinction between “network-side” and “user-side”. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The following objections/rejections from the Office Action of 02/27/2026 are withdrawn in view of the Patent Owner Response of 07/15/2026: (1) the rejection/objection of claims 1-31 and the declaration under 35 USC 251 for a defective reissue declaration as not identifying at least one error (37 CFR 1.175(a)); and (2) the claim objection/rejections under 35 USC 112 and 251 regarding lack of support for the newly added claim language, “wherein the new routing identifier indicates one or more of: an Authentication Server Function (AUSF) instance or a Unified Data Management (UDM) instance for decrypting a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) of the mobile apparatus”.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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 Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights