DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 7/14/2026 has been entered. In response to amendment filed on 7/14/2026 claim 2 is amended and claim 1 was cancelled. Claims 2- 16 are pending for examinations. Previously given rejection based on 35 USC 112 first paragraph as well as note about effective filing date are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the remarks on 7/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sung et al. (US Pat. No. 9584443 B2) and Thomas (EP 2853070 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 2- 3, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pat. No. 9584443 B2) in view of Thomas (EP 2853070 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Sung teaches a method for an access point (AP) to communicate packet data traffic with an endpoint device (EPD) (see Fig. 1B and lines 55- 56 of col. 3 about Communication device 106 and 108 may work as a gateway, a router, a switch, an access point, a hub, a bridge, etc.), comprising:
at an AP, negotiating with an EPD to establish a plurality of separately encrypted tunnels between the AP and the EPD (FIG. 1B (tunnels 103A-C between routers 106/108); FIG. 1C and FIG. 2A block 201 (M×N tunnels); FIG. 3 (tunnel ID field 304, AES IV field 306, AES encrypted payload field 312));
at the AP, associating each tunnel of the plurality of tunnels with a virtual interface (see Fig. 1C and lines 57- 67 of col. 3 and lines 1- 2 of col. 4 regarding virtual tunnels; further see lines 3- 10 of col. 4… plurality of established tunnels 116 may be aggregated, combined or bonded together to form one aggregated connection. Those skilled in the arts would appreciate that there are myriad ways to aggregate, combine, or bond a plurality of established tunnels to form one aggregate tunnel. An aggregated connection is perceived as one tunnel by sessions or applications that are using it.); and
at the virtual interface, distributing packet data traffic for forwarding to the EPD among the plurality of tunnels according to a dynamically selectable transmit mode of a plurality of transmit modes (see abstract about the first network node receives data packets from its network interface. It then selects a first tunnel and selects none or at least one second tunnel according to a selection policy.; further see lines 8- 19 of col. 2 about the selection policy is based on one or more of the following criteria: user selection, performance of a plurality of tunnels, service provider, usage limit, location, time, usage price, security, user identity, Internet Protocol address range, communication protocol, communication technology, application, and device. According to one of the embodiments, the performance of the first tunnel is determined to be better than the performance of the second tunnel, and the performance is substantially based on latency and bandwidth of the tunnels; further see lines 54- 67 of col. 9 and lines 1- 14 of col. 10 and Fig. 6; further see lines 14- 31 of col. 21. When communications router 106 is configured to transmit both DEP 810 and 820, it may or may not use the same tunnel for transmitting. For illustration purpose, communications router 106 is configured to transmit two DEPs 810 for each OEP 800, and one DEP 820 for every five OEPs 800. Two DEPs 810 corresponding to the same OEP 800 is not transmitted through the same tunnel. A first DEP 810 corresponding to each OEP 800 may be transmitted through the second tunnel, and a second DEP 810 corresponding to each OEP 800 may be transmitted through a third tunnel. DEP 820 may be transmitted through either the second tunnel, or the third tunnel. DEP 820 may be transmitted through the second tunnel and the third tunnel in round-robin fashion. Alternatively, when communications router 106 is configured not to transmit DEP 810 and DEP 820 through the same tunnel, it may select the second tunnel for transmitting one DEP 810 for each OEP 800 and the third tunnel for transmitting one DEP 820 for every five OEPs 800...; further see lines 33- 52 of col. 21 about in some scenarios it may be preferred to not transmit DEPs as it may have an adverse effect on the transmission of OEPs. For example, when the first and second tunnels are established using the same network interface of communication device 106 and/or established using the same network interface of communication device 108, transmitting DEPs through the second tunnel may increase the latency experienced by the OEPs through the first tunnel. The throughput of the OEPs may also be decreased. A similar effect may be observed when a first tunnel and a second tunnel is established through the same WAN in site 102, and/or the same WAN in site 104. A similar effect may also be observed when the first and second tunnels are established using a network provided by the same carrier, as the base station that the tunnels connect to may be the same. Additionally, the computing resources consumed for generating and transmitting DEPs may slow down transmission of OEPs. Therefore, in these scenarios, it may be preferable to not transmit DEPs, or to not transmit a high number of DEPs corresponding to each OEP.);
wherein in a first mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes packet data traffic into a plurality of unique parallel streams, each given parallel stream of the plurality of unique parallel streams for encryption and transmission over a respective one of the plurality of tunnels (see Fig. 2B #205- 206 and lines 4- 39 of col. 6 about the effective weight of the tunnels are adjusted, or it is determined that no adjustment is needed, the weighting scheme of the system is updated at block 205 of the illustrated embodiment. This update may comprise storing any processed information, using such information in further processing, causing the system to take no action, etc….FIG. 2B illustrates an embodiment where, after weighting method 200 is implemented, the packets are distributed based, at least in part, on the modified weight of the tunnels. Specifically, block 206 of the illustrated embodiment operates to distribute packets across the tunnels in accordance with the weighting scheme determined by operation of method 200. In some embodiments, this distribution will change throughout a data transfer session, and therefore the steps of FIG. 2B are shown as repeating. Some embodiments change the packet distribution each time the system is updated at block 205. Moreover, block 205 may cause changes to be implemented periodically, in response to certain drop rate change thresholds, etc. It should be appreciated that the determination of weighting by operation of method 200 and the application of determined weighting to packet distribution at block 206 may have different periodicity. For example, method 200 may operate to provide updates of weighting scheme information using a relatively short iterative cycle while the distribution of packets is altered based upon such weighting scheme information using a longer iterative cycle; further see Fig. 3 #312 encrypted payload), and
in a second mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes multiple parallel non-unique data streams to at least two of the plurality of tunnels for separate encryption and transmission over each of the at least two of the plurality of tunnels (see lines 57- 67 of col. 1 and lines 1- 8 of col. 2 about When the first network node receives data packets from a network interface of the first network node, the first network node selects a first tunnel according to a selection policy, and also selects none or at least one second tunnel according to the selection policy. The first network node then transmits original encapsulating packets (OEPs) through the first tunnel. The OEPs encapsulate the data packets and each of the OEPs has an original encapsulating packet global sequence number (OEP-GSN). The OEP-GSN is stored in a field of the each of the OEPs. The first network node also transmits at least one duplicate encapsulating packet (DEP) through the at least one second tunnel when at least one second tunnel is selected. The at least one DEP encapsulates at least one of the data packets. Each of the at least one DEP has a duplicate encapsulating packet global sequence number (DEP-GSN), which is stored in a field of each of the at least one DEP; further see Fig. 8B lines 50- 67 of col. 11 and lines 1- 3 of col. 12; Fig. 9; further see lines 10- 15 of col. 14 about ) According to one of the embodiments of the present invention, communications router 106 may transmit multiple DEPs for one OEP. Each of the multiple DEPs is transmitted through different tunnels. ).
But Sung is silent about unique parallel streams for encryption and transmission over a respective one of plurality of tunnels for mode 1 and about plurality of tunnels for separate encryption for mode 2; however Thomas teaches in Fig. 7 steps 703-713 teaches about assigning block to a tunnel by policy, encrypt with that tunnel's key, encapsulate, send. Further Thomas teaches in [0045] about At step 603, VPN client 319 and VPN server 341 negotiate TLS security for the default VPN tunnel (e.g., default VPN tunnel 3320 ). Step 603 can include negotiation of encryption and/or decryption keys, and cryptographic protocols to be used for the default tunnel. At step 605, VPN client 319 and VPN server 341 perform encrypted VPN negotiation for the default VPN tunnel. At step 607, VPN server 341 assigns a private network address (e.g., in private network 305) to VPN client 319. At step 609, VPN client 319 initiates a connection for a new alternate tunnel (e.g., VPN tunnel 3321 , ... 332i ). At step 611, VPN client 319 and VPN server 341 negotiate TLS security for the new alternate VPN tunnel. Step 611 can include negotiation of encryption and/or decryption keys, and cryptographic protocols to be used for the new alternate tunnel. At step 613, VPN client 319 and VPN server 341 perform encrypted association so that new alternate VPN tunnel is associated with the default VPN tunnel established in step 605. At step 615, VPN client 319 and VPN server 341 perform encrypted VPN negotiation for the new alternate VPN tunnel. The teaching of Thomas is not limited to tunnels carrying unique/original traffic; Thomas's per-tunnel key negotiation process (steps 609-615) is performed for each alternate tunnel established between the endpoints generally, without regard to whether that tunnel is subsequently used to carry original or duplicate/redundant data. Accordingly, applying Thomas's per-tunnel key negotiation to each of Sung's tunnels — including the second (and any further) tunnel(s) over which Sung transmits DEPs teaches that the at least two tunnels carrying Sung's non-unique duplicate streams are separately encrypted, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Thomas with the teachings of Sung to make system more secure. Having a mechanism wherein having per tunnel encryption mechanism; greater way more reliable and secure communication can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 3, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, further comprising testing communications between the AP and the EPD for packet loss, and
selecting the second mode during times of high packet loss and/or times of unstable network connectivity; Sung see lines 5- 34 of col. 7.. the router on the receiving end calculates the packet drop rate of each tunnel, DR(x,y), every f seconds by monitoring the per tunnel sequence number of the received packets. DR(x,y) may be characterized as the sequence numbers missed divided by a sequence number increase for a period f. The length of period f may vary, and in one embodiment f is equal to 5 seconds...some embodiments lower the effective weight EW(x,y) of a tunnel by EW(x,y).Math.DR(x,y). Other metrics may be used to modify the effective weight of a tunnel. In some embodiments, the sender may receive feedback and the effective weight may be reduced by number that is greater than or less than the packet drop rate. Such variances may be configured according to the particular needs of a communication system. The above example represents a metric that attempts to lower the effective weight of the tunnel to a weight which prevents further packet drops while maximizing the amount of usable bandwidth of the tunnel. Any metric which finds this balance may be preferred; further see Fig. 6 lines 39- 65 of col. 9.. FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating a process for transmitting encapsulating packets from communications router 106 to communications router 108 through an aggregated connection according to various embodiments of the present invention. The aggregated connection may comprise a plurality of tunnels. In step 601, CPU 501 of communications router 106 selects a tunnel among the plurality of tunnels for transmitting original encapsulating packets (OEPs). The selected tunnel may be called a first tunnel. Communications router 106 then transmits the OEPs through the first tunnel. In step 602, CPU 501 selects another tunnel among the plurality of tunnels for transmitting duplicate encapsulating packets (DEPs). The tunnel selected in step 302 may be called a second tunnel. Communications router 106 then transmits DEPs through the second tunnel. In one variant, the process of FIG. 6 may be performed periodically. The process may preferably be performed every few seconds. Alternatively, the process of FIG. 6 is performed upon receiving a trigger. For example, a trigger is received when CPU 501 determines that acknowledgements are not being received, or are being received late through the first tunnel and/or the second tunnel. This may indicate that the latency of the first tunnel and/or the second tunnel has become very high. CPU 501 then performs the steps of FIG. 6 again in order to select a first and second tunnel again. In another example, the trigger may be received when a user or administrator manually initiates the process of FIG. 6.
Regarding claim 8, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, further comprising, after establishing a given tunnel of the plurality of tunnels, determining a particular subset of all packet data traffic to the EPD that is directed to the given tunnel; Thomas see [0049- 0050]… VPN client 319 analyzes the application packet to determine at least one characteristic thereof. This analysis can include an analysis of application packet headers to determine information such as application protocol, source port ("Sport"), destination address ("Daddr"), destination port ("Dport"), requested QoS level, and message importance, as non-limiting examples. The analysis can optionally include an inspection of the application data and/or message content in the application packet (i.e., "deep packet inspection"). Based on the results of the analysis, VPN client 319 applies client VPN policies (e.g., client VPN policies 327) to assign the application packet to a VPN tunnel; see [0050].
Regarding claim 16, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, wherein at least two of plurality of tunnels in the second mode share a common physical transport media; Sung see lines 35- 52 of col. 21 … For example, when the first and second tunnels are established using the same network interface of communication device 106 and/or established using the same network interface of communication device 108, transmitting DEPs through the second tunnel may increase the latency experienced by the OEPs through the first tunnel. The throughput of the OEPs may also be decreased. A similar effect may be observed when a first tunnel and a second tunnel is established through the same WAN in site 102, and/or the same WAN in site 104. A similar effect may also be observed when the first and second tunnels are established using a network provided by the same carrier, as the base station that the tunnels connect to may be the same.
Claim(s) 4- 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pat. No. 9584443 B2) in view of Thomas (EP 2853070 B1) and in further view of Albright et al. (US Pat. No. 6209039 B1), hereafter Martin.
Regarding claim 4, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, but Sung is silent about wherein at least two of the plurality of tunnels are concurrently active; however martin teaches in col. 6 lines 5- 21 about at least two of the plurality of tunnels are concurrently active. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martin with the teachings of Sung in view of Thomas to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein at least two of the plurality of tunnels are concurrently active; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 5, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, but Sung fails to state about at a given time after each of the plurality of tunnels is established and associated with the virtual interface, placing one or more of the plurality of tunnels in an active tunnel mode and at least one other tunnel of the plurality of tunnels in a standby mode, wherein in the standby mode the at least one other tunnel is instantaneously selectable for redesignation to the active tunnel mode; however Martin states in Abstract about … plurality of data links that connect a master node in the first network to a slave node in the second network. The RNNI is initialized by operating an independent instance of a Link Integrity Verification (LIV) routine on each of the data links, returning an UP or DOWN status. One of the data links is designated as the ACTIVE data link, and the remaining data links are designated as INACTIVE.. . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martin with the teachings of Sung in view of Thomas to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism about at a given time after each of the plurality of tunnels is established and associated with the virtual interface, placing one or more of the plurality of tunnels in an active tunnel mode and at least one other tunnel of the plurality of tunnels in a standby mode, wherein in the standby mode the at least one other tunnel is instantaneously selectable for redesignation to the active tunnel mode; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 6, Sung in view of Thomas and Martin teaches as per claim 5, wherein Martin states about at least one of the one or more of the tunnels in an active mode and the at least one other tunnel share a common physical interface at the EPD; martin in context with abstract (i.e. a plurality of data links that connect a master node in the first network to a slave node in the second network. The RNNI is initialized by operating an independent instance of a Link Integrity Verification (LIV) routine on each of the data links, returning an UP or DOWN status. One of the data links is designated as the ACTIVE data link, and the remaining data links are designated as INACTIVE. Once the RNNI is initialized, the ACTIVE data link is monitored using RNNI link management procedures including the LIV routine and a Permanent Virtual Circuit (PVC) polling routine…) pls refer to lines 4- 16 of col. 7regarding use of the common Frame Relay access protocol at the UNIs, NNIs, and RNNIs.
Claim(s) 9- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pat. No. 9584443 B2) in view of Thomas (EP 2853070 B1) and in further view of Sella et al. (US Pat. No. 8611355 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 8, but Sung is silent about, wherein determining the particular subset comprises associating a particular traffic flow with the given tunnel based at least on a traffic type and a quality of service available through the given tunnel; however Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Sella with the teachings of Sung in view of Thomas to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein determining the particular subset comprises associating a particular traffic flow with the given tunnel based at least on a traffic type and a quality of service available through the given tunnel; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system
Regarding claim 10, Sung in view of Thomas and Sella teaches as per claim 9, further comprising characterizing the quality of service available through the given tunnel based at least in part on evaluating a plurality of connectivity metrics for each of the plurality of tunnels, the plurality of connectivity metrics comprising at least each of bandwidth, packet latency, and packet loss; Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. route data, embodiments use a virtual routing server (or set of virtual routing servers distributed throughout the network), sometimes referred to as a virtual router. The virtual router may connect to all physical routers in the network and gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream.
Regarding claim 11, Sung in view of Thomas and Sella teaches as per claim 9, wherein associating a particular traffic flow with the given traffic flow comprises at least one of favoring selection of a given tunnel with lowest latency for relatively small sized data and favoring selection of a given tunnel with highest bandwidth for relatively large sized data; Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. route data, embodiments use a virtual routing server (or set of virtual routing servers distributed throughout the network), sometimes referred to as a virtual router. The virtual router may connect to all physical routers in the network and gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream.
Regarding claim 12, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, but Kini is silent about further comprising evaluating a plurality of connectivity metrics for each of the plurality of tunnels, the plurality of connectivity metrics comprising at least each of bandwidth, packet latency, and packet loss; however Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Sella with the teachings of Sung in view of Thomas to make system more reliable.
Regarding claim 13, Sung in view of Thomas and Sella teaches as per claim 2, wherein evaluating the plurality of connectivity metrics comprises analyzing current user traffic for each of the plurality of tunnels; Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. route data, embodiments use a virtual routing server (or set of virtual routing servers distributed throughout the network), sometimes referred to as a virtual router. The virtual router may connect to all physical routers in the network and gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream.
Regarding claim 14, Sung in view of Thomas and Sella teaches as per claim 13, wherein evaluating the plurality of connectivity metrics further comprises running connectivity tests using free capacity available from the AP; Sella lines 35- 44 of col. 8 (i.e. it may select the path from a plurality of different available paths connecting the source to the destination based on the relative amount of available capacity or based on the relative latency of the plurality of different paths. In another embodiment, path determination module 708 may determine the path such that data from the data stream will pass through a particular machine or class of machines in the network) and claim 2 regarding selecting the first path from a plurality of different paths connecting the source to the destination based on a relative amount of available capacity on the plurality of different paths .
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pat. No. 9584443 B2) in view of Thomas (EP 2853070 B1) and in further view of Provine et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0031490 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sung in view of Thomas teaches as per claim 2, but Sung is silent about wherein at least two of the tunnels are concurrently active, the method further comprising instantaneously switching traffic from one tunnel of the at least two of the tunnels to another of the at least two of the tunnels without loss or leakage of data; however Provine in [0015] and Fig. 5 states about steps of switching over traffic between protected tunnels and backup tunnel(s) after a failure according to one embodiment of the present invention. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Provine with the teachings of Sung in view of Thomas to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein at least two of the tunnels are concurrently active, the method further comprising instantaneously switching traffic from one tunnel of the at least two of the tunnels to another of the at least two of the tunnels without loss or leakage of data; greater way more reliable way resources can be utilized/managed can be carried out in the communication system
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 form for considered prior arts for record.
Reference Lehman, JR et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0215799 A1) teaches about method for reduction of multipoint transport delay, the method comprising; using an application and system to transport real-time media data; wherein one or more servers authenticates one or more user ID's for permission and assignment to said multicast group; wherein one or more servers generates said multicast group routing addresses for deliver to said multicast enabled routers; wherein said multicast router instantiates one or more multipoint communication tunnels between said creation and termination points within said one or more public or private networks; wherein the said transport of said real-time media data payload never leaves the network during transport. need not be processed, compressed, decompressed, encrypted or un-encrypted, controlled or manipulated by said server; see claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights