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 .
This is a non-final office action in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 5/1/2025.
Claim 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-31 are pending and being considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 209 777.7, filed on 09/16/2022.
This application is 371 of PCT/EP2023/074472 filed 09/06/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2025, has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed as stated above is attached to the instant Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 line 1, “The computer system according to one of the present claim 16” should read “The computer system according to one or more respective zones”.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Interpretation(s) - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “security module is configured to …” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner further notes, claim 16 invokes claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as shown above, therefore, “security module” is interpreted as hardware, so that claim 16 includes at least one hardware component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 claim limitation “security module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner reviewed applicant’s Specification and found the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 17-28 depend on claim 16, therefore are also rejected for the same reason set forth above.
Claim 20 line 1 recites “the zone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear the zone is referring to the first zone or the second zone.
Similarly, claim 23 line 3.
Claim 25 line 8 recites “those zones”. It is not clear which zones those zones are referring to, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-21, 24, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bye et al (US20160004876A1, hereinafter, "Bye"), in view of Herington et al (US20070250929A1, hereinafter, "Herington").
Regarding claim 16, similarly claim 29, claim 31, Bye teaches:
A computer system/A computer-implemented method/A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program containing instructions for providing a plurality of functions for a device, the computer system comprising: a plurality of system modules; a plurality of system resources; and a security module (Bye, discloses systems and methods for provisioning and using multiple trusted security zones on electronic device, see [Title]/[Abstract]. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show a plurality of system modules, system resources and security module (e.g., trusted service manager (TSM))); wherein the plurality of system modules are configured to provide functions for the device, wherein a first zone from a plurality of zones is assigned a first number of system modules and/or parts of system modules of the plurality of system modules, wherein a second zone from the plurality of zones is assigned a second number of system modules and/or parts of system modules of the plurality of system modules, wherein each zone of the plurality of zones is a logically and/or physically delimitable unit in the computer system, wherein the first zone is assigned a first number of system resources from the plurality of system resources, wherein the second zone is assigned a second number of system resources from the plurality of system resources (e.g., [Abstract] The method further comprises provisioning by the master trusted application the subordinate trusted security zone to be accessible based on the independent key. And [0021] A computing device or electronic device having a trusted security zone that comprises a master trusted security zone and a plurality of subordinate trusted security zones (i.e., logically and/or physically delimitable unit in the computer system). And [0028] The trusted execution environment and/or the trusted security zone may provide a base layer of functionality and/or utilities for use of applications that may execute in the trusted security zone. And [0029] The trusted security zone is implemented by partitioning all of the hardware and software resources of the mobile device into two partitions: a secure partition and a normal partition. Placing sensitive resources in the secure partition can protect against possible attacks on those resources. For example, resources such as trusted software applications may run in the secure partition and have access to hardware peripherals such as a touchscreen or a secure location in memory. Also refer to Fig. 3 at 202-204), wherein the security module (Fig. 1, trusted service manager (TSM)) is configured [to recognize violations of rules] relating to the assignment of the first number of system resources of the plurality of system resources for the first zone and violations of rules relating to the assignment of the second number of system resources of the plurality of system resources for the second zone ([0025] Over time, the resource needs of different trusted applications associated with different subordinate trusted security zones may change. The master trusted application may be able to reallocate trusted security zone resources among the subordinate trusted security zones based on analysis of historical resource usage reports provided by the subordinate trusted security zones).
While Bye teaches the main concept of the claimed invention as shown above, but does not specifically teach (the security module is configured) to recognize violations of rules, in the same field of endeavor Herington teaches:
(wherein the security module) (Fig. 2 or Fig. 3, Controller, also see Bye TSM) is configured to recognize violations of rules … (Herington, discloses system and method for automatic isolation of misbehaving processes acting contrary to the rules established for that process for the resource it is running on, see [Title]/[Abstract]. And [0012] Returning to FIG. 1, block 102 sets the rule review to the first process in the process table as maintained, for example, by block 120. Block 103 sets the rule, as maintained, for example, by block 121, to monitor the first resource using the latest version of the rules. Block 104 determines if the process violates the rule being checked. And [0014] If at any time block 104 determines a process (for example, process 3) is violating a rule, then misbehaving (or potentially misbehaving) process 3 is moved to a dedicated partition,…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Herington in the provisioning subordinate trusted security zones of Bye by determining whether the process violates the rule being checked. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform appropriate action when misbehaving processes is determined to isolate the misbehaving processes (Herington, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 17, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 16,
Bye further teaches: wherein the device is a vehicle ([0028] The trusted execution environment can be implemented on mobile phones and tablets as well as extending to other trusted devices such as personal computers, servers, sensors, medical devices, point-of-sale terminals, industrial automation, handheld terminals, automotive, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 16,
Bye further teaches: wherein the first zone is more trustworthy than the second, less trustworthy zone, wherein a risk of manipulation of a more trustworthy zone is lower than that of a less trustworthy zone ([0029] For example, resources such as trusted software applications may run in the secure partition and have access to hardware peripherals such as a touchscreen or a secure location in memory. Less secure peripherals such as wireless radios may be disabled completely while the secure partition is being accessed, while other peripherals may only be accessed from the secure partition. While the secure partition is being accessed through the trusted execution environment, the main mobile operating system in the normal partition is suspended, and applications in the normal partition are prevented from accessing the secure peripherals and data. This prevents corrupted applications or malware applications from breaking the trust of the device).
Regarding claim 19, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 18,
Bye further teaches: wherein the functions provided by the system modules are of varying criticality for operational reliability of the device, wherein a first more critical function of the plurality of functions is provided by a system module of the first zone and a second less critical function of the plurality of functions is provided by a system module of the second zone ([0029] Less secure peripherals such as wireless radios may be disabled completely while the secure partition is being accessed, while other peripherals may only be accessed from the secure partition. While the secure partition is being accessed through the trusted execution environment, the main mobile operating system in the normal partition is suspended, and applications in the normal partition are prevented from accessing the secure peripherals and data. This prevents corrupted applications or malware applications from breaking the trust of the device).
Regarding claim 20, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 16,
Bye further teaches: wherein zones from the plurality of zones are allocated corresponding access rights to system resources, wherein the second zone is allocated fewer access rights to the second number of system resources than the first zone to the first number of system resources ([0029] For example, resources such as trusted software applications may run in the secure partition and have access to hardware peripherals such as a touchscreen or a secure location in memory. Less secure peripherals such as wireless radios may be disabled completely while the secure partition is being accessed, while other peripherals may only be accessed from the secure partition. While the secure partition is being accessed through the trusted execution environment, the main mobile operating system in the normal partition is suspended, and applications in the normal partition are prevented from accessing the secure peripherals and data).
Regarding claim 21, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 20,
Bye further teaches: wherein the access rights include at least one of: authorized read access, or authorized write access, or authorized execute access, of a zone of the plurality of zones to a corresponding system resource ([0033] Hardware logic ensures that no secure partition resources can be accessed by the normal partition components or applications. A dedicated secure partition operating system runs in a virtual processor separate from the normal partition operating system that likewise executes in its own virtual processor. Users may install applications on the mobile device which may execute in the normal partition operating system described above. The trusted security zone runs a separate operating system for the secure partition that is installed by the mobile device manufacturer or vendor, and users are not able to install new applications in or alter the contents of the trusted security zone).
Regarding claim 24, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 16,
Bye further teaches: wherein the security module is assigned to the first zone of the plurality of zones, or to another zone of the plurality of zones that is more trustworthy than the first zone, or to a most trustworthy zone of the plurality of zones (e.g., [0023] The master trusted security zone may execute a master trusted application that performs a variety of functions for provisioning and mediating between the plurality of subordinate trusted security zones).
Regarding claim 30, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 29,
Bye further teaches: wherein the enforcing of the zone separation in the computer system further includes: allocating a first number of system modules and/or parts of system modules of a plurality of system modules to a first zone of the at least two zones; allocating a first number of system resources from a plurality of system resources to the first zone; allocating a second number of system modules and/or parts of system modules of the plurality of system modules to a second zone of the at least two zones; and allocating a second number of system resources from the plurality of system resources to the second zone (e.g., [0025] Over time, the resource needs of different trusted applications associated with different subordinate trusted security zones may change. The master trusted application may be able to reallocate trusted security zone resources among the subordinate trusted security zones based on analysis of historical resource usage reports provided by the subordinate trusted security zones. For example, the master trusted application may take resources away from a subordinate trusted security zone that historically uses only about 35% of its resources and reallocate them to a different subordinate trusted security zone that has requested an increase in dedicated resources).
Claims 22-23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bye-Herington as applied above to claim 20, further in view of Trumbull et al (US20090177675A1, hereinafter, "Trumbull").
Regarding claim 22, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 20,
The combination of Bye-Herington does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Trumbull teaches:
wherein access for the zone to a system resource is classified as authorized when a predetermined criterion is met, and access for the same zone to the system resource is classified as unauthorized when the predetermined criterion is not met, wherein the predetermined criterion includes one or more of the following criteria: a predetermined criterion relates to contextual information of the device and/or a plurality of devices; an expected number of messages sent from a zone in a predetermined time period is less than or equal to a predetermined value; zone data are sent in a specified sequence and/or whether the data sent contain a range (Trumbull, discloses systems and methods of providing identification and access management, [Abstract]. And [0010] The system could include a network security zone having an access rule related to a network resource object. The system could also include a first circuit to generate an alert if information related to an attempted access to the network resource object fails to meet certain criteria associated with the access rules. The system could further include a second circuit to conduct an analysis of behavioral patterns related to the attempted access and to change the access rule to prevent a future unauthorized access attempt based on the analysis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Trumbull in the provisioning subordinate trusted security zones of Bye-Herington by determining an attempted access to the network resource object but fails to meet certain criteria associated with access rules. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prevent unauthorized access attempts to network resource (Trumbull, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 23, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to claim 20,
The combination of Bye-Herington teaches violation of rules but does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Trumbull teaches:
wherein a violation of rules relating to an assigned system resource for a zone corresponds to an unauthorized access by the zone to a system resource for which no access right is assigned to the the zone (Trumbull, discloses systems and methods of providing identification and access management, [Abstract]. And [0052] For example, if the access attempt originates from an authorized user or device, IAM system 106 could allow access, record access information, and correlate such information into access reports. If the access attempt is an unauthorized attempt, IAM system 106 could disallow access, record any access attempt or related information, provide an alert to an authorized entity, and correlate such information into access attempt or alert reports).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Trumbull in the provisioning subordinate trusted security zones of Bye-Herington by determining an attempted access to the network resource object but fails to meet certain criteria associated with access rules. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prevent unauthorized access attempts to network resource (Trumbull, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 25, Bye-Herington combination teaches the computer system according to one of the present claim 16,
The combination of Bye-Herington does not specifically teach the following, in the same field of endeavor Trumbull teaches:
wherein the security module is configured to: collect information about access to system resources from one or more respective zones of the plurality of zones, wherein the information is provided to the security module by the respective zones; compare the information about accesses of the one or more respective zones to system resources with information in relation to rules relating to the assignment of system resources for those zones (Trumbull, discloses systems and methods of providing identification and access management, [Abstract]. And [0009] The method could include collecting information related to an attempted access to a network resource object associated with the network. The method could also include comparing the collected information with one or more access rules defined in a network security zone);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Trumbull in the provisioning subordinate trusted security zones of Bye-Herington by determining an attempted access to the network resource object but fails to meet certain criteria associated with access rules. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prevent unauthorized access attempts to network resource (Trumbull, [Abstract]).
The combination of Herington and Trumbull further teaches:
and based on a result of the comparison, identify whether there have been any violations of the rules relating to the assignment of system resources for the one or more respecitve zones (Herington, e.g., [0014] If at any time block 104 determines a process (for example, process 3) is violating a rule, then misbehaving (or potentially misbehaving) process 3 is moved to a dedicated partition… And see Trumbull above for the comparison of collected information with one or more access rules).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as resolving of any outstanding informalities and concerns under 35 USC 112(b) presented in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 26 depends on claim 16, further recites, “wherein the security module or another module with which the security module is in communication is configured to trigger a response in a manipulated zone to mitigate effects of manipulation by an external intervention on the computer system, wherein the manipulated zone corresponds to a zone for which violations of rules relating to the assignment of system resources assigned to the zone have been recognized, wherein the response includes initiating a countermeasure against the recognized violations within the manipulated zone”.
Claim 27 depends on claim 16, further recites, “wherein the security module or the other module with which the security module is in communication is configured to trigger a response in a non-manipulated zone to mitigate effects of manipulation by an external intervention on the computer system, wherein the response includes initiating a countermeasure in the non-manipulated zone as a result of recognized violations in the manipulated zone”.
Claim 28 depends on claim 16, further recites, “wherein: one or more system modules of the plurality of system modules are configured to query the security module for information about recognized violations in one or more manipulated zones or for other relevant information; the security module is configured to provide the information to the one or more system modules; and each of the one or more system modules of the plurality of system modules are further configured to: identify, from the information on recognized violations, whether violations of rules relating to the assignment of system resources have occurred for one or more zones of the plurality of zones; and trigger a response in a corresponding zone to which the system module is assigned when violations of rules relating to the assignment of system resources have been identified for at least one zone of the plurality of zones”.
The prior arts identified, either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations of claims shown above.
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Wegner et al (US20150212952A1) discloses method for the coexistence of software having different safety levels in a multicore processor.
Choo et al (US20030009685A1) discloses system and method for computer system including compartments implemented on an operating system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights