DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 11/4/2025.
In the amendment, Applicant has amended claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-18.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments focus on the teaching of Roeland in [0107]. In particular, Applicant argues that Roeland does not teach that a separate indication is used to indicate that a bearer is to be offloaded rather than the QCI value itself.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In addition to [0107], consider [0109] of Roeland, which indicates that some “semi-static mapping” may indicate which bearers can be moved (offloaded) or not. For example, in [0109], Roeland indicates that “QCI range a to b can be allocated to bearers that shouldn't be moved to WLAN 115, while QCI range a+n to b+n is set for those that can be moved”. This clearly indicates that the QCI values themselves indicate whether the corresponding bearer is offloaded/moved or not.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6 of claim 7, “including a processor coupled a memory” should be changed to “including a processor coupled to a memory”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomici et al (US 2017/0231020) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0127964).
Regarding claim 1: Tomici discloses a method for Quality of Service (QoS) Class Identifier (QCI) based traffic offload of Packet Data Network (PDN) traffic at a trusted Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) access gateway, comprising:
for an initial attachment of a User Equipment (UE) via a Trusted Wireless Access Network (TWAN) (see [0037], for example, which describes an initial attachment process for the UE with the TWAN):
using, by a Trusted Wireless Access Gateway (TWAG), a first QoS profile including the first value while requesting default bearer creation with Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) using General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol (GTP)V2 Create Session Request (see [0037], for example, which indicates that the TWAN (which includes a TWAG connected to the PGW) sends a “create session request” to the PGW including a first (default) QoS profile for the default bearer; as noted in [0047], the GTP protocol used includes GTP V2);
receiving by the TWAG, from the PGW, a second QoS profile based on various parameters, the second QoS profile including a second [value] (see [0037], for example, which indicates that the PGW responds by sending a “create session response” including a second QoS profile (the EPS Bearer QoS, which is also referred to as an “appropriate” bearer QoS); this QoS is clearly based on one or more parameters).
Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
receiving by the TWAN a first QCI value in an Access point Network (APN)-Configuration Attribute Value Pair (AVP);
making, at the TWAG, a determination of whether the value of the second QCI, assigned by the PGW or a home subscriber server (HSS) and selected from a set of operator reserved valued, equals a QCI offload (QCIo) value enforcing offload of traffic from the TWAN, and routing traffic in accordance with the determination.
Tomici also does not explicitly describe the QoS values exchanged in [0037] as QCIs.
However, Roeland discloses a bearer QoS value as a QCI throughout; see [0102], for example. Roeland also discloses using a “particular QCI value” to indicate that traffic “should be offloaded” (see [0107], for example). That is, the traffic is “steered” or routed based on the value of the QCI being the same as the “particular” value. Clearly, this QCI and the corresponding attribute (offloading traffic) are provided in this example. Further, a determination must be made in accordance with this configuration to determine whether a QCI for traffic to be routed matches this offload or “particular” QCI value. Additionally, Roeland discloses in [0107] that the QCI value range is 255, of which 10 values are “standardized”. Of the remaining values, at least some are “assigned” by “the 3GPP network” (interpreted as operator); thus, the non-standardized QCI values that the 3GPP network assigns are interpreted as “operator reserved values” as they are reserved for the particular operator (such as a 3GPP network) to assign. Roeland discloses that the offload QCI (the “particular” QCI) is selected from this set of operator reserved values (see [0107]). See also [0109], for example, which indicates that some “semi-static mapping” may indicate which bearers can be moved (offloaded) or not. For example, in [0109], Roeland indicates that “QCI range a to b can be allocated to bearers that shouldn't be moved to WLAN 115, while QCI range a+n to b+n is set for those that can be moved”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici to provide a particular QCI value to the TWAN and based on the value of the QCI, to route traffic accordingly; that is, if the QCI equals the offload QCI (the “particular QCI value”), the traffic will be offloaded. The rationale for doing so would have been to simplify the implementation of the QCI routing by using unused QCI values as suggested by Roeland in [0107].
Regarding claim 13: Tomici discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions (Tomici discloses a software implementation as indicated in [0097] and Figures 12C and 12D, for example) for Quality of Service (QoS) Class Identifier (QCI) based traffic-offload of Packet Data Network (PDN) traffic at a trusted Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) access gateway which, when executed, cause a system to perform steps comprising:
for an initial attachment of a User Equipment (UE) via a Trusted Wireless Access Network (TWAN) (see [0037], for example, which describes an initial attachment process for the UE with the TWAN): 20Attorney Docket No.: PWS-72676US01 Date of Deposit: April 24, 2021
using, by a Trusted Wireless Access Gateway (TWAG), a QoS profile while requesting default bearer creation with packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) using a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol (GTP)V2 Create Session Request (see [0037], for example, which indicates that the TWAN (which includes a TWAG connected to the PGW) sends a “create session request” to the PGW including a QoS profile for the default bearer; as noted in [0047], the GTP protocol used includes GTP V2);
receiving by the TWAG, from the PGW, a second QoS profile based on various parameters, the second QoS profile including a second [value] (see [0037], for example, which indicates that the PGW responds by sending a “create session response” including a second QoS profile (the EPS Bearer QoS, which is also referred to as an “appropriate” bearer QoS); this QoS is clearly based on one or more parameters).
Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
receiving by the TWAN a first QCI value in an Access point Network (APN)-Configuration Attribute Value Pair (AVP); and
making, at the TWAG, a determination if the value of the second QCI, assigned by the PGW or a home subscriber server (HSS) and selected from a set of operator reserved valued, equals a QCI offload (QCIo) value enforcing offload of traffic from the TWAN, and routing traffic in accordance with the determination.
Tomici also does not explicitly describe the QoS values exchanged in [0037] as QCIs.
However, Roeland discloses a bearer QoS value as a QCI throughout; see [0102], for example. Roeland also discloses using a “particular QCI value” to indicate that traffic “should be offloaded” (see [0107], for example). That is, the traffic is “steered” or routed based on the value of the QCI being the same as the “particular” value. Clearly, this QCI and the corresponding attribute (offloading traffic) are provided in this example. Further, a determination must be made in accordance with this configuration to determine whether a QCI for traffic to be routed matches this offload or “particular” QCI value. Additionally, Roeland discloses in [0107] that the QCI value range is 255, of which 10 values are “standardized”. Of the remaining values, at least some are “assigned” by “the 3GPP network” (interpreted as operator); thus, the non-standardized QCI values that the 3GPP network assigns are interpreted as “operator reserved values” as they are reserved for the particular operator (such as a 3GPP network) to assign. Roeland discloses that the offload QCI (the “particular” QCI) is selected from this set of operator reserved values (see [0107]). See also [0109], for example, which indicates that some “semi-static mapping” may indicate which bearers can be moved (offloaded) or not. For example, in [0109], Roeland indicates that “QCI range a to b can be allocated to bearers that shouldn't be moved to WLAN 115, while QCI range a+n to b+n is set for those that can be moved”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici to provide a particular QCI value to the TWAN and based on the value of the QCI, to route traffic accordingly; that is, if the QCI equals the offload QCI (the “particular QCI value”), the traffic will be offloaded. The rationale for doing so would have been to simplify the implementation of the QCI routing by using unused QCI values as suggested by Roeland in [0107].
Regarding claims 2 and 14: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 13 as indicated above. Tomici also discloses that the TWAN includes a NAT element (see [0038], for example). As noted above, Tomici, modified by Roeland, discloses offloading the traffic when the QCI matches the offload QCIo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the NAT function of the TWAN of Tomici to perform the offloading when the QCI matches the QCIo and to thus implement the limitation when the determination is that the value of the second QCI equals the QCIo value, then performing routing by the TWAG of the default bearer traffic directly Network Access Translation (NAT) translated to an external network. The rationale for doing so would have been to utilize the existing NAT function to perform the offloading in an efficient manner.
Regarding claims 5 and 17: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 13 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations that a bearer QOS contains the second QCI value. However, Roeland discloses that the QCI can be assigned to particular bearers in at least [0108] and [0109], for example, which discusses “the QCI value of a bearer”, for example. Thus, the QCI value in the above combination is part of a bearer QoS. Therefore, Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 17.
Claims 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomici et al (US 2017/0231020) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0127964) in view of Roeland et al (US 2015/0319270) (herein “Roeland ’270”).
Regarding claim 7: Tomici discloses a system for Quality of Service (QoS) Class Identifier (QCI) based traffic-offload of Packet Data Network (PDN) traffic at a trusted Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) access gateway, comprising:
a Trusted Wireless Access Gateway (TWAG), including a processor coupled a memory (Tomici discloses a software implementation as indicated in [0097] and Figures 12C and 12D, for example), the TWAG in communication with an Access Point (AP) which is in wireless communication with a Wi-Fi device (see the “local IP/Internet services” connected to the TWAG in Figure 1 and the WLAN access points that are part of the WLAN 102 of Figure 1 as described in [0033], for example), the TWAG further including a first Network Address Translation (NAT) element (see the TWAG 120 of Figure 1, for example; as indicted in [0038], the TWAN supports a NAT function);
wherein a General Packet Radio Service Tunneling Protocol (GTP) tunnel is in communication with the TWAG (see the S2a GTP-U tunnel in Figure 1 as described in [0033], for example);
wherein a Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) is in communication with the GTP tunnel (see the PGW 110 of Figure 1, for example);
wherein an external network is in communication with the PGW and the TWAG (see the PDN 130 of Figure 2 (also shown in Figure 1 as operator’s IP services), for example); and
wherein the system, for an initial attachment of a User Equipment (UE) via a Trusted Wireless Access Network (TWAN) (see [0037], for example, which describes an initial attachment process for the UE with the TWAN) is configured to:
use, by a the TWAG, a first QoS profile including the first value while requesting default bearer creation with a PGW using a GTP V2 Create Session Request (see [0037], for example, which indicates that the TWAN (which includes a TWAG connected to the PGW) sends a “create session request” to the PGW including a QoS profile for the default bearer; as noted in [0047], the GTP protocol used includes GTP V2);
receive by the TWAG, from the PGW, a second QoS profile based on various parameters, the second QoS profile including a second value (see [0037], for example, which indicates that the PGW responds by sending a “create session response” including a second QoS profile (the EPS Bearer QoS, which is also referred to as an “appropriate” bearer QoS); this QoS is clearly based on one or more parameters).
Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
receive by the TWAN a QCI value in an Access Point Network (APN)-Configuration Attribute Value Pair (AVP); and
make, at the TWAG, a determination if the value of the second QCI, assigned by the PGW or a home subscriber server (HSS) and selected from a set of operator reserved values, equals a QCI offload (QCIo) value enforcing offload of traffic from the TWAN, and route traffic in accordance with the determination.
Tomici also does not explicitly describe the QoS values exchanged in [0037] as QCIs.
However, Roeland discloses a bearer QoS value as a QCI throughout; see [0102], for example. Roeland also discloses using a “particular QCI value” to indicate that traffic “should be offloaded” (see [0107], for example). That is, the traffic is “steered” or routed based on the value of the QCI being the same as the “particular” value. Clearly, this QCI and the corresponding attribute (offloading traffic) are provided in this example. Further, a determination must be made in accordance with this configuration to determine whether a QCI for traffic to be routed matches this offload or “particular” QCI value. Additionally, Roeland discloses in [0107] that the QCI value range is 255, of which 10 values are “standardized”. Of the remaining values, at least some are “assigned” by “the 3GPP network” (interpreted as operator); thus, the non-standardized QCI values that the 3GPP network assigns are interpreted as “operator reserved values” as they are reserved for the particular operator (such as a 3GPP network) to assign. Roeland discloses that the offload QCI (the “particular” QCI) is selected from this set of operator reserved values (see [0107]). See also [0109], for example, which indicates that some “semi-static mapping” may indicate which bearers can be moved (offloaded) or not. For example, in [0109], Roeland indicates that “QCI range a to b can be allocated to bearers that shouldn't be moved to WLAN 115, while QCI range a+n to b+n is set for those that can be moved”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici to provide a particular QCI value to the TWAN and based on the value of the QCI, to route traffic accordingly; that is, if the QCI equals the offload QCI (the “particular QCI value”), the traffic will be offloaded. The rationale for doing so would have been to simplify the implementation of the QCI routing by using unused QCI values as suggested by Roeland in [0107].
Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitation of the PGW including a second NAT element. However, this is known in the art. Consider Roeland ’270, which discloses “[m]any PGWs already today implement a NAT function” in [0097]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified, to include a NAT element in the PGW as suggested by Roeland ’270. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide additional functionality (such as the NAT element) within the PGW to minimize the expense for network operators when compared to adding the NAT functionality in a separate network element. The NAT function is useful for various purposes such as solving the confusion discussed in [0096] of Roeland ’270.
Regarding claim 8: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 7 as indicated above. Tomici also discloses that the TWAN includes a NAT element (see [0038], for example). As noted above, Tomici, modified by Roeland, discloses offloading the traffic when the QCI matches the offload QCIo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the NAT function of the TWAN of Tomici to perform the offloading when the QCI matches the QCIo and to thus implement the limitation when the determination is that the value of the second QCI equals the QCIo value, then route, by the TWAG, all the default bearer traffic directly Network Access Translation (NAT) translated to an external network. The rationale for doing so would have been to utilize the existing NAT function to perform the offloading in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 11: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 7 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations that a bearer QOS contains the second QCI value. However, Roeland discloses that the QCI can be assigned to particular bearers in at least [0108] and [0109], for example, which discusses “the QCI value of a bearer”, for example. Thus, the QCI value in the above combination is part of a bearer QoS. Therefore, Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomici et al (US 2017/0231020) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0127964) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0219480) (herein “Roeland ’480”).
Regarding claims 3 and 15: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 13 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein when the determination is that the value of the second QCI equals the QCIo value, then routing by the TWAG, when UE matches a dedicated bearer Traffic Flow Template (TFT), all the default bearer traffic to a dedicated bearer GTP tunnel. However, the use of a TFT to define filters for use in determining the traffic that is to be sent on a bearer. For example, Roeland ’480 discloses in [0008] the use of a TFT containing one or more filters. When the traffic matches the TFT, the traffic uses the corresponding bearer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified with the teaching of Roeland ’480 to further utilize a TFT to provide filtering to determine which bearer the traffic matching the offload QCI should use. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable granular control of the traffic routing.
Regarding claims 4 and 16: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 13 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein when the determination is that the value of the second QCI equals the QCIo value, then routing by the TWAG, when UE does not match dedicated bearer Traffic Flow Template (TFT), all the default bearer traffic to a default bearer GTP tunnel. However, the use of a TFT to define filters for use in determining the traffic that is to be sent on a bearer. For example, Roeland ’480 discloses in [0008] the use of a TFT containing one or more filters. When the traffic matches the TFT, the traffic uses the corresponding bearer. Roeland ’480 further discloses a default bearer may not have an explicitly TFT and thus handles traffic not matching other TFTs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified with the teaching of Roeland ’480 to further utilize a TFT to provide filtering to determine which bearer the traffic matching the offload QCI should use. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable granular control of the traffic routing.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomici et al (US 2017/0231020) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0127964) in view of Roeland et al (US 2015/0319270) (herein “Roeland ’270”) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0219480) (herein “Roeland ’480”).
Regarding claim 9: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 7 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein when the determination is that the value of the second QCI equals the QCIo value, then route, by the TWAG, when UE matches dedicated bearer Traffic Flow Template (TFT), all the default bearer traffic to a dedicated bearer GTP tunnel. However, the use of a TFT to define filters for use in determining the traffic that is to be sent on a bearer. For example, Roeland ’480 discloses in [0008] the use of a TFT containing one or more filters. When the traffic matches the TFT, the traffic uses the corresponding bearer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified with the teaching of Roeland ’480 to further utilize a TFT to provide filtering to determine which bearer the traffic matching the offload QCI should use. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable granular control of the traffic routing.
Regarding claim 10: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 7 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein when the determination is that the value of the second QCI equals the QCIo value, then route by the TWAG, when UE does not match dedicated bearer Traffic Flow Template (TFT), all the default bearer traffic to a default bearer GTP tunnel. However, the use of a TFT to define filters for use in determining the traffic that is to be sent on a bearer. For example, Roeland ’480 discloses in [0008] the use of a TFT containing one or more filters. When the traffic matches the TFT, the traffic uses the corresponding bearer. Roeland ’480 further discloses a default bearer may not have an explicitly TFT and thus handles traffic not matching other TFTs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified with the teaching of Roeland ’480 to further utilize a TFT to provide filtering to determine which bearer the traffic matching the offload QCI should use. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable granular control of the traffic routing.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomici et al (US 2017/0231020) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0127964) in view of Drevon et al (US 2016/0150439).
Regarding claims 6 and 18: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 13 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 6 and 18 of marking the offloaded traffic with the corresponding Differentiated Services (DiffServ) code points (DSCPs) value to have controlled traffic flow in an offloaded network. However, Drevon discloses the use of DSCP for marking QoS for IP traffic and mapping it to a QCI that is used as 3GPP QoS. See [0040], [0043], and [0056], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified, to mark the offloaded traffic with the corresponding DSCPs to transmit them over IP. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide a similar quality of service to the offloaded traffic as it would have had on the 3GPP network as suggested by Drevon.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomici et al (US 2017/0231020) in view of Roeland et al (US 2016/0127964) in view of Drevon et al (US 2016/0150439).
Regarding claim 12: Tomici, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 7 as indicated above. Tomici does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 12 of marking the offloaded traffic with the corresponding Differentiated Services (DiffServ) code points (DSCPs) value to have controlled traffic flow in an offloaded network. However, Drevon discloses the use of DSCP for marking QoS for IP traffic and mapping it to a QCI that is used as 3GPP QoS. See [0040], [0043], and [0056], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tomici, modified, to mark the offloaded traffic with the corresponding DSCPs to transmit them over IP. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide a similar quality of service to the offloaded traffic as it would have had on the 3GPP network as suggested by Drevon.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 August 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights