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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 13, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0146682 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lin”, and in view of Konrad et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0170692 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Konrad”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: communicating, by a first electronic device, on an operational status associated with the set of networks] (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0017]-[0018], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]). Lin teaches a system for identifying a network for communication of data. This determination includes determining whether a network is operational, i.e. accessible or not. Regarding this limitation, this communication can be performed over a first network in combination with Konrad below.
and responsive to input, at the first electronic device, to communicate a message to the second electronic device when the first network is inaccessible by the first electronic device (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]). Lin teaches transmitting data such as messages between devices and choosing an appropriate network for communicating such data, and this can be the second network when the first network is inaccessible.
(taught by Konrad below)
and communicating, by the first electronic device, the message (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]). Lin teaches using a second network when the first network is inaccessible.
Konrad teaches the following limitations:
a sender key [pre-master key] … the sender key enabling encryption and decryption of messages (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0027]). Konrad teaches a method for establishing secure communication between devices with different processing power levels. This includes establishing and sending a pre-master key which can be also be used for encryption/decryption.
encrypting, by the first electronic device, the message using a message key [master key] generated based on the sender key [pre-master key] (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0016], Par. [0027]). Konrad teaches deriving a master key from the pre-master key and uses the master key for encrypted communication.
message encrypted with the message key (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0016], Par. [0027]).
Lin teaches a multi-network system for transmitting data such that one network may act as a backup network for a different network, but does not teach communicating keys for encryption. Konrad however teaches a method for establishing secure communication through sharing a pre-master key and deriving a master key for encrypted communications which would improve security (Par. [0006], Par. [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-network communication system of Lin with the key communication of Konrad in order to gain the benefit of additional security through encrypted communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the key establishment of Konrad would have been compatible with the communication system of Lin as both systems are directed towards device communication, and that such a key establishment would improve security by allowing for encrypted communications protecting against unauthorized modification of messages.
Regarding Claim 2:
Lin further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the first network comprises a wireless broadband network [LTE] and the second network comprises a satellite network [satellite dish] (Fig. 2B, Par. [0018]-[0023], Par. [0027]). Lin teaches that a first network can be an LTE network and a second network can comprise satellite communication.
Regarding Claim 3:
Konrad further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising generating the sender key using one or more encryption key generation algorithms (Par. [0030]-[0032]). Konrad teaches generation of keys through random number generation algorithms.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Konrad further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the sender key is stored by the first electronic device and the second electronic device for one or more predefined time periods [validity time period] and is stored in association with an exchange of messages between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Par. [0014], Par. [0035]-[0036], Par. [0040]). Konrad further teaches that a pre-master key can function as a master key, which is stored for a validity time period corresponding to a session, i.e. in association with an exchange of messages under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Konrad further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the message encrypted with the message key is decryptable by the second electronic device using the sender key stored by the second electronic device (Par. [0014], Par. [0035]-[0036], Par. [0040]). Konrad teaches that the pre-master key can be identical to the master key.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Konrad further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising responsive to a rollover threshold [validity time period], communicating, by the first electronic device, a new sender key over the first network to the second electronic device (Par. [0014], Par. [0035]-[0036], Par. [0040]).
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform operations including (Par. [0037]-[0038], Par. [0041]-[0042]).
communicating (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0017]-[0018], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]).
and responsive to input, at the electronic device, to communicate a message to the additional electronic device when the first network is inaccessible by the electronic device (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]).
(taught by Konrad below)
and communicating, by the electronic device, the message (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]).
Konrad teaches the following limitations:
a sender key … the sender key enabling encryption and decryption of messages (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0027]).
encrypting, by the electronic device, the message using a message key generated based on the sender key (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0016], Par. [0027]).
message encrypted with the message key (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0016], Par. [0027]).
Lin teaches a multi-network system for transmitting data such that one network may act as a backup network for a different network, but does not teach communicating keys for encryption. Konrad however teaches a method for establishing secure communication through sharing a pre-master key and deriving a master key for encrypted communications which would improve security (Par. [0006], Par. [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-network communication system of Lin with the key communication of Konrad in order to gain the benefit of additional security through encrypted communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the key establishment of Konrad would have been compatible with the communication system of Lin as both systems are directed towards device communication, and that such a key establishment would improve security by allowing for encrypted communications protecting against unauthorized modification of messages.
Regarding Claim 19:
Lin teaches the following limitations:
An electronic device comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (Par. [0037]-[0038], Par. [0041]-[0042]).
communicating (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0017]-[0018], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]).
and responsive to input, at the electronic device, to communicate a message to the additional electronic device when the first network is inaccessible by the electronic device (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]).
(taught by Konrad below)
and communicating, by the electronic device, the message (Par. [0009], Par. [0011]-[0013], Par. [0044], Par. [0046], Par. [0058]-[0061]).
Konrad teaches the following limitations:
a sender key … the sender key enabling encryption and decryption of messages (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0027]).
encrypting, by the electronic device, the message using a message key generated based on the sender key (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0016], Par. [0027]).
message encrypted with the message key (Par. [0006], Par. [0014], Par. [0016], Par. [0027]).
Lin teaches a multi-network system for transmitting data such that one network may act as a backup network for a different network, but does not teach communicating keys for encryption. Konrad however teaches a method for establishing secure communication through sharing a pre-master key and deriving a master key for encrypted communications which would improve security (Par. [0006], Par. [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-network communication system of Lin with the key communication of Konrad in order to gain the benefit of additional security through encrypted communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the key establishment of Konrad would have been compatible with the communication system of Lin as both systems are directed towards device communication, and that such a key establishment would improve security by allowing for encrypted communications protecting against unauthorized modification of messages.
Regarding Claim 20:
Lin teaches the following limitation:
wherein the second network comprises a satellite network (Fig. 2B, Par. [0018]-[0023], Par. [0027]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Stapleton (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0330314 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Stapleton”.
Regarding Claim 4:
Stapleton teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more encryption key generation algorithms comprise a post-quantum encryption key generation technique [Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism] (Par. [0021]). Stapleton teaches that keys can be generating using different algorithms including Elliptic-Curve DH (ECDH) and Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM), a post-quantum encryption key generation technique.
Lin/Konrad teaches generating encryption keys, but do not teach a post-quantum encryption key generation technique. Stapleton however teaches that encryption keys can be generated in various ways such as ECDH and in particular ML-KEM, a post quantum encryption key generation technique. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the encryption key generation algorithms of Stapleton in order to gain the predictable result of generating an encryption key using a post-quantum technique. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the encryption key generation techniques of Stapleton are compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards encryption key generation, and that additionally using such key generation techniques such as ML-KEM as described in Stapleton would have been a predictable result for alternatively generating encryption keys.
Regarding Claim 5:
Stapleton teaches the following limitation:
wherein the post-quantum encryption key generation technique is module-lattice-based key encapsulation mechanism (ML-KEM) (Par. [0021]).
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6:
Stapleton teaches the following limitation:
wherein the one or more encryption key generation algorithms further comprise an elliptic curve cryptography technique [Elliptic-Curve DH] (Par. [0021]). Stapleton further teaches key generation using elliptic curves as part of key generation algorithms and this was previously acknowledged in the rejection of Claim 4 above.
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as in Claim 4.
Claims 7, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Green et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0223586 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Green”.
Regarding Claim 7:
Green teaches the following limitation:
wherein the sender key is selectively communicated over the first network to the second electronic device based on at least one of frequent or recent communication of messages [chat invitation] between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Par. [0009], Par. [0032]-[0035], Par. [0053]-[0054]). Green teaches a chat invitation message and requiring the recipient to accept the invitation for beginning a secure chat communication. This can be considered a recent communication in combination with Lin/Konrad, as communicating the sender key is required for beginning the secure communication session, and the initial chat invitation would be a prerequisite communication, i.e. recent.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system in which a sender key is communicated in order to conduct secure communication, but do not teach communicating the sender key based on frequent/recent messages. Green however teaches that a chat invitation/acceptance can precede a secure communication session (Par. [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the chat invitation/acceptance of Green in order to gain the predictable result of communicating the sender key based on recent messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the chat invitation/acceptance messages of Green would have been compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards encrypted communication, and that by preceding the start of a secure communication session with a chat invitation/acceptance, it would have the predictable result that the communication of a sender key would be based on recent messages.
Regarding Claim 9:
Green teaches the following limitation:
wherein the sender key is communicated in connection with an exchange of messages between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Par. [0009], Par. [0032]-[0035], Par. [0053]-[0054]). Green teaches a chat invitation message and requiring the recipient to accept the invitation for beginning a secure chat communication. This can be considered an exchange of messages in combination with Lin/Konrad, as communicating the sender key is required for beginning the secure communication session, and the initial chat invitation/acceptance would be a prerequisite communication/exchange of messages.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system in which a sender key is communicated in order to conduct secure communication, but do not teach communicating the sender key based on an exchange of messages. Green however teaches that a chat invitation/acceptance can precede a secure communication session (Par. [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the chat invitation/acceptance of Green in order to gain the predictable result of communicating the sender key based on an exchange of messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the chat invitation/acceptance messages of Green would have been compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards encrypted communication, and that by preceding the start of a secure communication session with a chat invitation/acceptance, it would have the predictable result that the communication of a sender key would be based on an exchange of messages.
Regarding Claim 15:
Green teaches the following limitation:
wherein the sender key is generated uniquely based on an exchange of messages between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Par. [0009], Par. [0032]-[0035], Par. [0053]-[0054]). Green teaches a chat invitation message and requiring the recipient to accept the invitation for beginning a secure chat communication. This can be considered uniquely generating the sender key based on an exchange of messages in combination with Lin/Konrad under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as generating the sender key is required for beginning the secure communication session, and the initial chat invitation/acceptance would be a prerequisite communication/exchange of messages. Furthermore, as Lin/Konrad previously were shown to teach using random numbers for generating the sender key for communication sessions, this sender key would be unique.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system in which a sender key is communicated in order to conduct secure communication, but do not teach generating the sender key based on an exchange of messages. Green however teaches that a chat invitation/acceptance can precede a secure communication session (Par. [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the chat invitation/acceptance of Green in order to gain the predictable result of generating the sender key based on an exchange of messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the chat invitation/acceptance messages of Green would have been compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards encrypted communication, and that by preceding the start of a secure communication session with a chat invitation/acceptance, it would have the predictable result that the generation of a sender key would be based on an exchange of messages.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Daniel (U.S. Patent No. 9,178,862 B1) hereinafter referred to as “Daniel”.
Regarding Claim 8:
Daniel teaches the following limitation:
wherein the sender key is selectively communicated over the first network to the second electronic device based on the second electronic device being associated with a high-priority contact of a user associated with the first electronic device (Col. 6, lines 21-30). Daniel teaches engaging in encrypted communication with trusted contacts, i.e. high-priority.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system, but do not teach communicating based on a high-priority contact designation. Daniel however teaches that encrypted communication can be performed with trusted contacts (Col. 6, lines 21-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the trusted contacts list of Daniel in order to gain the predictable result of selectively communicating the sender key with a high-priority contact. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the trusted contacts of Daniel is compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards encrypted messaging systems, and that engaging in encrypted communication with trusted contacts would gain the predictable result of selectively communicating the sender key based on the contact being high-priority.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Postel (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0270171 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Postel”.
Regarding Claim 10:
Postel teaches the following limitations:
further comprising: generating a pseudonym for a contact associated with the second electronic device, wherein the sender key is selectively communicated over the first network to the second electronic device based on the contact satisfying one or more criteria [access process] (Par. [0031], Par. [0032]). Postel teaches a secure chat in which users have pseudonyms and must be authenticated for starting a communication session. In combination with Lin/Konrad, this is directed towards communicating the sender key.
and communicating the message over the second network to the second electronic device utilizing the pseudonym without revealing an identity of the contact to any intermediary along a path of communication to the second electronic device (Par. [0031], Par. [0032]). Since the chat session requires pseudonyms, this suggests that the contact identity is not revealed to an intermediary.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system, but do not teach using pseudonyms. Postel however teaches that chat sessions can require pseudonyms and additional authentication for secrecy/privacy measures including data deletion (Par. [0031]-[0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the pseudonyms of Postel in order to gain the benefit of additional privacy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pseudonyms of Postel would have been compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards secure communication, and that by using such pseudonyms and authentication, additional privacy can be ensured and enforced by not revealing identities and deleting conversations if necessary.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Kocher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0138192 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Kocher”.
Regarding Claim 12:
Konrad further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising generating, by the first electronic device, the message key by: retrieving the sender key from storage of the first electronic device based on the exchange of messages between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Par. [0014], Par. [0035]-[0036], Par. [0040]).
(taught by Kocher below)
Kocher teaches the following limitation:
and deriving the message key based on the sender key [initial shared secret] and at least one characteristic [message identifier] of the exchange of messages since the sender key was communicated to the second electronic device (Par. [0011], Par. [0014], Par. [0045]-[0046]). Kocher teaches generating message keys for encryption based on a message identifier which can be a message counter and an initial shared secret. This counter is a characteristic of the exchange of messages under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as it represents a number of messages.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system, but do not teach generating message keys based on a characteristic of messages exchanged. Kocher however teaches that message keys can be additionally derived by using a message identifier such as a counter representing the number of messages in a conversation, and that this enhanced key derivation improves security (Abstract, Par. [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the message key derivation using a message identifier of Kocher in order to gain the benefit of additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the message key derivation of Kocher would have been compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards secure communication, and that by using a message identifier acting as a nonce for key derivation, this would gain the benefit of additional security through additional protection against external monitoring and leakage.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0275300 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Ko”.
Regarding Claim 14:
Ko teaches the following limitation:
further comprising generating, by the first electronic device, the sender key based on a first identifier associated with the first electronic device and a second identifier associated with the second electronic device (Par. [0208], Par. [0270], Par. [0272]). Ko teaches that an encryption key can alternatively be based on both transmitter/receiver identification information.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system, but do not teach generating keys based on sender/receiver identifiers. Ko however teaches that keys can alternatively be generated based on both transmitter/receiver identification information (Par. [0208]), and that this further allows for ensuring proper encryption/decryption to the correct entity (Par. [0270], Par. [0272]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sender key generation of Lin/Konrad with the key generation of Ko in order to gain the predictable result of the sender key being based on identifiers of the first and second devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the key derivation of Ko would have been an alternative substitute for generating keys as in Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards generating keys using random numbers for secure communication, and Ko teaches that including such identifiers for key generation is an alternative to pure random number generation, which is what Lin/Konrad were shown to teach.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin/Konrad as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,665,145 B1) hereinafter referred to as “Mitter”.
Regarding Claim 17:
Mitter teaches the following limitation:
wherein the communicating the sender key over the first network to the second electronic device causes the sender key to be further communicated to at least one additional electronic device associated with a user that is associated with the second electronic device (Col. 4, lines 58-67, Col. 5, lines 1-15). Mitter teaches that an encryption key can be sent to all devices associated with a user.
Lin/Konrad teaches a secure communication system in which a sender key is communicated, but do not teach communicating the sender key to multiple devices. Mitter however teaches that an encryption key can be conveyed to all devices associated with a user, and that this has the benefit of increasing messaging availability across multiple devices (Col. 1, lines 46-54) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the secure communication system of Lin/Konrad with the multiple device key communication of Mitter in order to gain the benefit of increased communication availability One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the key communication of Mitter would have been compatible with the system of Lin/Konrad as both are directed towards secure messaging, and that sending an encryption key to all devices associated with a user would gain the benefit of increased communication availability and convenience by supporting multiple devices.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Kesavan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0275590 A1) – Includes methods regarding encrypted conversations
Whitfield et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0056605 A1) – Includes methods regarding back up networks
Tutt et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,432,340 B1) – Includes methods regarding secure end-to-end chatting
Brander et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0350895 A1) – Includes methods regarding securing instant messaging sessions
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN V VO whose telephone number is (571)272-2505. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/E.V.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2431 /TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights