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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in on 07/09/2025 and 03/06/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application is claiming priority of a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/134465, filed on November 25, 2022, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Acknowledge is made of the domestic priority data as claimed by applicant application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Anticipated by Challener et al. (US-20110213953-A1 hereafter Challener).
Regarding claim 9 Challener disclose a trustworthiness measurement method comprising:
receiving, by a first remote attestation agency (RAA) network element, a first challenge value generated based on a preset periodicity or a first control message, wherein a validity period of the first challenge value is a first duration (see Challener par.0059: “the attestee (RAA) may send the PCR measurements (S214). TPM 126 in attestee 104 cryptographically signs the contents of PCRs 136 and returns the PCR values along with its signature over the value. TPM 126 also sends a log file (which includes tickStamp from the last boot, which is the current boot cycle) along with the PCR values. The log file is used to interpret the PCR values.”, par.0065: “attester (RAS) measures the staleness of the PCR values (S224). Once attester 102 verifies the measurements and the log file, attester 102 can calculate the time for the new tickCount and the old tickCount and determine the time difference between the two by dividing it by a parameter. From the time difference, freshness of the measurements can be determined.”);
generating, by the first RAA network element, measurement information based on the first challenge value (see Challener par.0059: “the PCR measurements (S214). TPM 126 in attestee 104 cryptographically signs the contents of PCRs 136 and returns the PCR values along with its signature over the value. TPM 126 also sends a log file (which includes tickStamp from the last boot, which is the current boot cycle) along with the PCR values.”); and
sending, by the first RAA network element, the measurement information to a remote attestation service RAS network element (see Challener par.0060: “Once attester 102 receives the PCR values sent by attestee 104, attester 102 may request for the tickCount to check the freshness of the PCR values.”).
Regarding claim 19 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 9 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 9. A communication apparatus comprising at least one processor coupled to at least one memory storing a computer program including executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see Challener Fig. 1 par.0028: “each of the elements of attestee 104 are illustrated as individual devices, however, in some embodiments at least two of communication module 122, BIOS 124, TPM 126, security module 128 and processor 130 may be combined as a unitary device. Further, in some embodiments, at least one of communication module 122, BIOS 124, TPM 126, security module 128 and processor 130 may be implemented as a tangible computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.”), cause the communication apparatus to:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. (CN-115334506-A hereafter ZHANG), in view of FU et al. (CN-109714168-B hereafter FU).
Regarding claim 1 ZHANG teaches a trustworthiness measurement method comprising:
obtaining, by a remote attestation service (RAS) network element, an attestation result of a first remote attestation agency (RAA) network element (see ZHANG par.0028-0030: “method for an edge computing node, after the UPF (RAS) receives the remote attestation request, the process of verifying whether the UE is credible in conjunction with the UDM includes: After receiving the remote attestation request, the UPF initiates a UE credible evidence verification request to UDM; The UDM verifies the trusted evidence of the UE, and returns a UE trusted verification result response to the UPF (RAA).”);
ZHANG does not explicitly teach receiving, by the RAS network element, a first request from a second RAA network element, wherein the first request is used to request the attestation result of the first RAA network element; and
sending, by the RAS network element, the attestation result of the first RAA network element to the second RAA network element.
In this instance examiner notes the teaching of prior art reference FU.
With regards of applicant’s claim limitations element of, receiving, by the RAS network element, a first request from a second RAA network element, wherein the first request is used to request the attestation result of the first RAA network element (see FU par.20: “a trusted remote certification system, comprising: a first service trusted server, a second service trusted server and a trusted remote authentication server… par.31:the second service trusted server is used for receiving the challenge request sent by the first service trusted server, and obtaining the first service trusted server of the challenge request to verification information;”); and
sending, by the RAS network element, the attestation result of the first RAA network element to the second RAA network element (see FU par.31: “wherein verification request comprises: the first service server to verification information and returning a corresponding verification response to the second service trusted server according to verification request.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG teaching “UDM returns to UPF a UE trusted verification response containing UE trusted verification results; UE trusted verification response includes random number nonce2', UE_ID, UE trusted verification result Success/Failure; UPF receives UE trusted verification response, Judging whether the session is valid by verifying whether the random number nonce2' is the same as nonce2, if they are consistent, it is valid; if the session is valid,”, (see ZHANG par.94) with FU teaching because FU teaching of, “a second service trusted server receives a challenge request of a first service trusted server;
168. step2, the second service trusted server verifies whether the certificate of the first service trusted server in the challenge request is legal, if so, step3 is executed, and if not, the illegal operation is terminated”, (see Fu par.167-168).
Regarding claim 11 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 1. A communication apparatus comprising at least one processor coupled to at least one memory storing a computer program including executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see FU par.291: “Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present application essentially or the part of the prior art contribution or all or part of the technical solution can be embodied in the form of a software product, the product computer software stored in a storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions to make a computer device (can be a personal computer, a server or a network device and so on) executes all or part of the steps of the method of each embodiment of the invention. and the aforementioned storage medium U disk, read only memory (ROM, Read-Only Memory), random access memory (RAM, Random Access Memory), mobile hard disk, disk or optical disk and so on can store the program code of the medium.”), cause the communication apparatus to:
Regarding claim 2 ZHANG in view of FU disclose the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 1, ZHANG further discloses wherein obtaining the attestation result of the first RAA network element comprises generating, by the RAS network element, the attestation result of the first RAA network element (see ZHANG par.38: “after the UPF receives the remote attestation request, it initiates a process of UE credible evidence verification request to UDM, including: After receiving the remote attestation request, the UPF generates a random number nonce2, and initiates a UE trusted evidence verification request challenge to the UDM. The UE trusted evidence verification request includes: the random number nonce2, UE_ID, and the trusted evidence of the UE.”, par.38: “46. The UPF receives the UE trusted verification response, and judges whether the session is valid by verifying whether the random number nonce2' is the same as nonce2. If they are consistent, the session is valid;”).
Regarding claim 12 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 2 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 2.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et in view of Fu as applied to claim 2, in view of Challener et al. (US-20110213953-A1 hereafter Challener).
Regarding claim 3 ZHANG in view of FU disclose the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 2, ZHANG and FU do not explicitly teach, however Challener teaches further comprising:
generating, by the RAS network element, a first challenge value based on a preset periodicity or a first control message, wherein a validity period of the first challenge value is a first duration (see Challener par.0065: “attester (RAS) measures the staleness of the PCR values (S224). Once attester 102 verifies the measurements and the log file, attester 102 can calculate the time for the new tickCount and the old tickCount and determine the time difference between the two by dividing it by a parameter. From the time difference, freshness of the measurements can be determined.”);
receiving, by the RAS network element, measurement information from the first RAA network element, wherein the measurement information is determined based on the first challenge value (see Challener par.0057: “security module 128 of attestee (RAA) provides the nonce to security module 112 of attester 102. Security module 112 then uses the nonce to generate the request for the PCR values”, par.0060: “Once attester 102 receives the PCR values sent by attestee 104, attester 102 may request for the tickCount to check the freshness of the PCR values.”); and
verifying, by the RAS network element, the measurement information (see Challener par.0064: “the response from the attestee is verified (S222). In an example embodiment, attester 102 verifies response from attestee 104 using the public key provided during the handshake. In an example embodiment, security module 112 uses the public key and the nonce decrypt the response and verify the authenticity. Once decrypted and authenticated, processor 106 uses PCR values to verify the integrity of the log file which includes the hash values extended in to PCRs 136.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG in view of FU teaching of claim 2 with Challener teaching because Challener teaching of, “fresh measurements also solves a "reboot in the middle" problem associated with remote attestation. This problem is defined by a computer being attacked after it has attested to be in a trustworthy state. After the attacker completes their nefarious task, they reboot the machine back into the trustworthy state unbeknownst to the remote attester. The technique behind provably fresh measurements solves this problem by recording the tickNonce associated with a tickCount. Because a reboot in the middle would have different tickNonce's associated with the tickStamp's taken before and after the reboot, the reboot would be noticeable to the remote attester. A remote attester can distinguish between boot sequences by comparing the tickNonce from PCRs reported before and after the reboot. The attester is able to detect the reboot even if the tickStamp recording of the middle (bad) boot sequence is faked--because in the "reboot in the middle" attack, it is the two good boot sequences that need to be distinguished.”, (see Challener par.0082).
Regarding claim 13 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 3 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et in view of Fu, and Challener as applied to claim 3, in further view of Yu et al. (US-20200366659-A1 hereafter Yu).
Regarding claim 4 ZHANG in view of FU, and Challener disclose the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 3, ZHANG in view of FU, and Challener do not explicitly disclose however Yu teaches further comprising:
in response to the verification succeeding, signing, by the RAS network element, the measurement information, and generating the attestation result of the first RAA network element (see Yu par.0070: “After verifying the signature 426, the attestation service 408 can generate the AVR 430 that includes the attestation evidence 420, a verification result 434 indicating whether the signature 426 in the attestation evidence 420 is valid, and a signature 436 of the attestation service 408.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG in view of FU, and Challener teaching of claim 3 with Yu teaching because Yu teaching of, “If the attestation service 408 determines that the signature 426 in the attestation evidence 420 is valid, the attestation service 408 can determine that the key management node 406 is a trustworthy entity. If the attestation service 408 determines that the signature 426 is invalid, the attestation service 408 can determine that the key management node 406 is not a trustworthy entity, and can flag an error and reject any subsequent data and requests from the key management node 406.”, (see Yu par.0079).
Regarding claim 14 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 4 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et in view of Fu, as applied to claim 2, in further view of Deutsch et al. (US-20140317413-A1 hereafter Deutsch).
Regarding claim 5 ZHANG in view of FU disclose the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 2, ZHANG in view of FU do not explicitly teach, however Deutsch teaches further comprising sending, by the RAS network element, the attestation result to the first RAA network element (see Deutsch par.0032: “The attestation verifier (RAS) 115 sends an attestation confirmation 116 to the services provider 105 verifying compliance of the client 110 with the policy 107 specified by the services provider 105”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG and FU teaching of claim 2 with Deutsch teaching because Deutsch teaching of, “the attestation verifier is a Trusted eXecution Technology (TXT) compatible attestation verifier such as TXT validator 330. The TXT validator 330 may communicate with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 345 integrated with the client's 340 hardware… TXT facilitates a remote attestation process which has more granularity into the client device's infrastructure to enable the service provider to pin point what exactly is missing or wrong with the device via the specified policy in coordination with the attestation verifier.”, (see Deutsch par.0052).
Regarding claim 15 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 5 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et in view of Fu as applied to claim 2, in view of LU et al. (CN-110011801-B hereafter LU).
Regarding claim 6 ZHANG in view of FU the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 1, ZHANG teaches wherein obtaining the attestation result of the first RAA network element (see ZHANG par.0028-0030: “method for an edge computing node, after the UPF (RAS) receives the remote attestation request, the process of verifying whether the UE is credible in conjunction with the UDM includes: After receiving the remote attestation request, the UPF initiates a UE credible evidence verification request to UDM; The UDM verifies the trusted evidence of the UE, and returns a UE trusted verification result response to the UPF (RAA).”)comprises:
ZHANG in view of FU do not explicitly teach, however LU teaches
receiving, by the RAS network element, the attestation result of the first RAA network element sent by a third RAA network element; or
receiving, by the RAS network element, the attestation result of the first RAA network element sent by a public verification party (PYE) (see LU par.17-19: “sending the remote attestation credential to the third-party remote attestation server for verification of the remote attestation credential by the third-party remote attestation server; obtaining a verification result returned by the third-party remote certification server; the verification result is signed by the third party remote certification service terminal based on a held private key… sending the verification result and the generated public key to the remote receiving object, so that the remote receiving object verifies the signature of the verification result at least based on the public key of the third-party remote certification server”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG in view of FU teaching of claim 1 with LU teaching because LU teaching of, “a remote certification for the autonomously generated public key to the remote receiving object through the third-party remote certification server, and after the public key passes through the remote certification, the generated private key can be directly used to sign the execution result of the code to be executed in the protected code, and the signed execution result is sent to the remote receiving object to complete the remote certification for the execution result, so that the remote certification for the execution result is not needed to be initiated to the remote receiving object through the third-party remote certification server”, (see LU par.44).
Regarding claim 16 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 6 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et in view of Fu as applied to claim 1, in view of Reitsma et al. (US-20190199530-A1 hereafter Reitsma).
Regarding claim 7 ZHANG in view of FU the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 1, ZHANG in view of FU do not explicitly teach, however Reitsma teaches wherein the first request comprises one or more of the following: a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI), a public key (PK), or an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) (see Reitsma par.180: “Attestation Request 201 preferably includes a list of attestation methods supported on mobile device 101 together with the respective parameters and optionally other binding app/device information, including MAC addresses, International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI), serial numbers, device model, OS type and version, baseband version, and application name.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG in view of FU teaching of claim 1 with Reitsma teaching because Reitsma teaching of, “different types of attestation can be requested, e.g., indicating. For example, this can be accomplished by including them in the attestation request or by configuring the attestation server such that the server knows which method to use based on the mobile device sending the request or the application server that requests the attestation. This in effect enforces an agency policy. Therefore, the type of attestation method is included in an attestation request and provided by the mobile device…in order to improve the efficiency of the attestation checks, the attestation server maintains in memory the results from previous attestation requests. In this exemplary embodiment, the attestation server requests device attestation status from this memory, but can alternately be retrieved from a database.”, (see Reitsma par.0018).
Regarding claim 17 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 7 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et in view of Fu as applied to claim 1, in further view of LEE et al. (US-20220070178-A1 hereafter LEE).
Regarding claim 8 ZHANG in view of FU disclose the trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 1, ZHANG in view of FU do not explicitly teach, however LEE teaches further comprising:
obtaining, by the RAS network element, endorsement information and reference value information from a first remote attestation infrastructure (RAI) network element, wherein the endorsement information and the reference value information are used to verify the measurement information or the attestation result (see LEE par.0043: “A verifier (RAI) (e.g., a trusted third party, such as the manufacturer of the device) may assess the evidence (e.g., using appraisal policies) to create an attestation result to support the service provider in making their determination of the trustworthiness of the network endpoint (e.g., an IoT device, etc.).”, par.0108-0109: “the evidence may comprise a measurement and report of a state of the network endpoint and/or the device (generally referred to herein as a “UE”). For example, the evidence may include firmware information, software information, location information, a timestamp (e.g., time and/or date information), etc. associated with the UE. In some examples, the attestation may include a user attestation. The user attestation may further comprise one or more of a biometric liveness score, a trusted location, information about a user finger used to authenticate, other metadata associated with preventing spoofing of the user authentication, or any combination of such user attestation information… The verifier applies an evidence appraisal policy to the received evidence to assess the trustworthiness of the attester (e.g., the UE) and generates an attestation result. The evidence appraisal policy may comprise one or more rules or constraints directing the verifier on how to evaluate the validity of the evidence provided by the attester. The attestation result may indicate whether the verifier vouches for the validity of the attester and the evidence. For example, the verifier may be a trusted third party, such as a manufacturer of the network endpoint and/or the device, and the evidence appraisal policy may include device verification information regarding compliant firmware version(s) information, compliant software version(s) information, compliant location(s) information, compliant timestamp(s) information, etc. The verifier may generate the attestation result indicating whether the evidence provided by the attester is in-compliance with the device verification information.” par.0113: “the attester 702 transmits evidence 710 that is received by the verifier 706. At 712, the verifier 706 compares the evidence 710 against an evidence appraisal policy. The verifier 706 then transmits an attestation result 714 that is received by the attester 702. If the attester 702 determines that the attestation result 714 indicates compliance, then the attester 702 transmits (or forwards) an attestation result 716 to the relying party 704. At 718, the relying party 704 compares the attestation result 716 against an attestation appraisal policy.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined ZHANG in view of FU teaching of claim 1 with LEE teaching because LEE teaching of, “performing remote attestation includes a verifier that appraises the evidence produced by the remote peer entity via appraisal policies and creates an attestation result to support the relying party in their decision.”, (see LEE par.0042).
Regarding claim 18 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 8 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 8.
Claim 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challener as applied to claim 9, in further view of Deutsch et al. (US-20140317413-A1 hereafter Deutsch).
Regarding claim 10 Challener discloses The trustworthiness measurement method according to claim 9, Challener does not explicitly teach, however Deutsch teaches further comprising receiving, by the first RAA network element, an attestation result from the RAS (see Deutsch par.0032: “The attestation verifier 115 sends an attestation confirmation 116 to the services provider 105 (RAA) verifying compliance of the client 110 with the policy 107 specified by the services provider 105”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Challener teaching of, “fresh measurements also solves a "reboot in the middle" problem associated with remote attestation. This problem is defined by a computer being attacked after it has attested to be in a trustworthy state. After the attacker completes their nefarious task, they reboot the machine back into the trustworthy state unbeknownst to the remote attester. The technique behind provably fresh measurements solves this problem by recording the tickNonce associated with a tickCount. Because a reboot in the middle would have different tickNonce's associated with the tickStamp's taken before and after the reboot, the reboot would be noticeable to the remote attester. A remote attester can distinguish between boot sequences by comparing the tickNonce from PCRs reported before and after the reboot. The attester is able to detect the reboot even if the tickStamp recording of the middle (bad) boot sequence is faked--because in the "reboot in the middle" attack, it is the two good boot sequences that need to be distinguished.”, (see Challener par.0082) with Deutsch teaching because Deutsch teaching of, “the attestation verifier is a Trusted eXecution Technology (TXT) compatible attestation verifier such as TXT validator 330. The TXT validator 330 may communicate with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 345 integrated with the client's 340 hardware… TXT facilitates a remote attestation process which has more granularity into the client device's infrastructure to enable the service provider to pin point what exactly is missing or wrong with the device via the specified policy in coordination with the attestation verifier.”, (see Deutsch par.0052).
Regarding claim 20 is an apparatus claim that recites similar limitations as the method claim 10 and is rejected based on the same rational as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Bhandari et al. (US-20200322176-A1) checking whether a modular network device is trustworthy when it contains multiple security chips or cryptoprocessors. The device may have a main supervisor processor and several plug-in modules, such as line cards or route processors, and each module can have its own cryptographic trust anchor. The system asks each module to produce a signed security measurement showing its current integrity or security state. The supervisor then verifies those signed measurements and combines them into one signed dossier. That dossier acts like a consolidated trust report for the whole physical device. A secure enclave stores the dossier so it can be protected from tampering or theft. The dossier can then be used by another network device or external verifier to perform remote attestation. The signing key is tied to the logical or virtual device identity rather than a specific hardware part. That means the attestation identity can persist even if modules are replaced over time.
Gonzalez et al. (US-20170257365-A1) attestation and whitelist management following a suggested Attestation Service (AS) architecture. The Whitelist Setup Process proceeds as follows: establish baseline reference values; create a Whitelist; import the Whitelist into the AS; the AS stores whitelist values in a database. For an attestation request, an ISV Product software sends a request 31 for the platform trust status from the Attestation Service (AS). In step 32, the AS requests the Integrity Measurements (IM) from each computer platform via Remote Attestation, and the platform responds with the integrity measurements. In step 33, the AS validates the integrity measurements against its Whitelist of known-good values. In step 34, the AS attests to the trustworthiness of the platforms in the trusted computing pool to the ISV Product server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUILIO MUNGUIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/DUILIO MUNGUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497 /ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights