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 .
Claims 59-78 are currently pending.
Claims 59-67 were previously allowed.
Claims 68 and 74 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to claims 68 and 74 have support in the original specification and have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 68-78 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 68, 69, 73, 74, 77 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “network function” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “function” or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function:
For example, on page 2 of the specification, line 2, “network function” is defined as “Network Function (NFs) such as AMF, SMF, PCF”; page 5, lines 20-24 recites “first network function may comprise a network function for network data analytics, NWDAF”; “second network function may comprise a network function for storing subscription data, UDR”; page 5 lines 27-28 recites “third network function may comprise a network function for access and mobility management, AFM”; page 5, lines 33-34 “third network function may comprise a network function for session management, SMF”.
The boundaries of the claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims 68, 69, 73, 74, 77 and 78 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”, or “function”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”, or “function”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “first network function” and “third network function” in claims 68 and 69; “second network function” in claim 73; “second network function” and “third network function” in claim 74; “a network function” in claim 77; and “first network function” in claim 78.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 59-67 are allowed.
The prior art does not either alone or in combination teach or suggest “registering at the first network function information relating to an analytic, wherein the information relating to the analytic comprises information identifying a user equipment (UE), information identifying the analytic, and at least one analytic criterion that is associated with the analytic” combined with “responsive to the UE meeting the at least one analytic criterion, communicating from the third network function to the first network function a request that data collection be activated for the analytic; and activating data collection for the analytic at the first network function”.
Each of claims 60-67 depend from claim 59 and are allowable for at least these reasons.
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 68-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Internation Pat. Pub. WO2019032968 to Hongkun Li et al. (hereinafter Li) in view of 3GPP TS 23.288 V16.2.0 (2019-12) (hereinafter 23.288) .
Regarding claim 68, Li in view of S2 teaches A method of activating data collection for an analytic at a first network function, (Li para. [0177] teaches a network data analytics function NWDA with analytics capability)
the method comprising:
registering, at the first network function, information relating to an analytic, wherein the information relating to the analytic comprises information identifying a user equipment (UE), information identifying the analytic, and at least one analytic criterion that is associated with the analytic; (Li teaches in para. [0169]-[0170] a request message sent to the NWDA for subscribing including “network data analytics” which may include QoS parameters “directed toward a particular UE or IP address”. Further, Li teaches in para. [0174] that the QoS information mapped to “criterion” may be useful where packet delay needs to be kept to a minimum triggering a change from a UPF that is farther to a UPF that is closer to the UE. Therefore the information related to the analytic identifies a UE and a criterion.
Li Fig. 19 illustrates the registration via subscription request:
PNG
media_image1.png
696
1039
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving, at the first network function, from a third network function, a request that data collection be activated; (Li teaches in para. [0135] that the NWDA may receive configuration commands from the NEF “directing it to begin collecting certain types of information or generating certain types of analytics information”.)
and
activating, at the first network function, data collection for the analytic. (Li teaches in para. [0135] –[0142] that the NWDA activates data collection by subscribing to events, for example, in para. [0142] Li teaches subscribing to the UPF to identify whether the total number of UEs supported crosses a threshold. Likewise, in para. [0147] Li teaches that when a subscribed event takes place, the NWDA is able to analyze data for different levels, “per UE.”)
Li does NOT specifically teach registering with information identifying a UE, although it is implicit.
In the same field of endeavor, 23.288 teaches “registering … with information identifying a UE”; (23.288 teaches in section 6.1.3 that consumers of Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription or Nnwdaf_AnalyticsInfo service which is part of an analytics registration shown in Fig. 6.1.1.2-1 on page 10 shown below, is described on page 12, and includes a list of Analytics IDs including the “target of analytics reporting” that indicates “entities such as specific UEs, a group of UE(s) or any UE (i.e. all UEs)”).
PNG
media_image2.png
270
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Li with 23.288 to teach activation of data collection for an analytic. Each of LI and 23.288 teach wireless communications and analytics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine 23.288 with Li to specifics for NWDA registration and data collection and follow the 3GPP specification for Procedures for Data Collection outlined in Section 6.2 of 23.288 which “permits NWDAF to retrieve data from various sources (e.g. NF such as AMF, SMF, PCF, AF) as a basis of the computation of network analytics.”
Regarding claim 69, Li in view of 23.288 teaches The method of claim 68 as stated.
Li does NOT teach wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the third network function, a request that data collection be deactivated for the analytic; and deactivating data collection for the analytic.
However, in the same field of endeavor 3GPP 5G wireless communications, 23.288 teaches receiving, from the third network function, a request that data collection be deactivated for the analytic; (23.288 teaches as shown in Fig. 6.1.2-1 that the NEF can unsubscribe from analytics:
PNG
media_image2.png
270
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
and
deactivating data collection for the analytic. (23.288 teaches in Section 6.1.1.2 “Analytics subscribe/unsubscribe by Afs via NEF on page 10. Likewise, on page 17, “Procedure for Data Collection from AF via NEF” teaches that when the NWDAF cancels subscription to data collection in AF via NEF “Nnef_EventExposure_Unsubscribe service operation takes place which deactivates data collection for the subscribed analytic.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Li with 23.288 to teach activation of data collection for an analytic. Each of LI and 23.288 teach wireless communications and analytics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine 23.288 with Li to specifics for NWDA registration and data collection and follow the 3GPP specification for Procedures for Data Collection outlined in Section 6.2 of 23.288 which “permits NWDAF to retrieve data from various sources (e.g. NF such as AMF, SMF, PCF, AF) as a basis of the computation of network analytics.”
Regarding claim 70, Li teaches The method of claim 68, wherein the request that data collection be activated for the analytic further comprises the information relating to the analytic. (Li teaches para. [0170] that when subscribing to the NWDA, which Examiner interprets as “the request” that data collection for an SCS subscribing to the NWDA may be a combination of events and information known only to the NWDA from different entities, such as tracking UEs in a geographic area a location information from an AMF. Therefore, upon activating data collection includes information known to the NWDA relating to the analytic.)
Regarding claim 71, Li teaches The method of claim 68, wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises a location identifier. (Li teaches in para. [0170] that the location information to which the NWDA subscribes comes from AMF, which includes “tracking area or registration area”)
However, Li does NOT specifically identify the location information as a “location identifier”.
In the same field of endeavor, 23.288 teaches on page 21, section 6. 4 “Observed Service experience related network data analytics” in Table 6.4.1-1 that the information for the area of interest includes a “set of TAIs” which is a location identifier:
PNG
media_image3.png
450
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Li with 23.288 to teach activation of data collection for an analytic. Each of LI and 23.288 teach wireless communications and analytics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine 23.288 with Li to specifics for NWDA registration and data collection and follow the 3GPP specification for Procedures for Data Collection outlined in Section 6.2 of 23.288 which “permits NWDAF to retrieve data from various sources (e.g. NF such as AMF, SMF, PCF, AF) as a basis of the computation of network analytics.”
Claims 72 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of 23.288 further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20200358670 claiming priority to Korean Pat. App. 10-2019-00563305 filed May 7, 2019 to Soohwan Lee and Myung Ki Shin (hereinafter Lee/priority document 305) .
Regarding claim 72 Li does NOT teach The method of claim 68, wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises an application identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises an application identifier. (Lee priority document teaches in para. [0010] that a network function “sends an request/subscribe (Analytics ID =Service Experience, Analytics Filter information = (Application ID, time window, S-NSSAI, DNN, Area of Interest)) to NWDAF by invoking a Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe.” Thus, the registration request for subscription includes an application identifier as the analytic criterion.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Lee with Li. Each of Lee and Li are in the field of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee with Li in order to align the input of a network function subscription with the output of NWDAF analytics for estimated service experience and analytics in a certain area as taught in Lee paras. [0004]-[0005].
Regarding claim 73, Li in view of 23.288 teaches The method of claim 68. Li does NOT specifically teach wherein the method further comprises: communicating the information relating to the analytic to a second network function.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches communicating the information relating to the analytic to a second network function. (Lee teaches in priority document 305 in para. [0011] – [0012] that the NWDAF subscribes service data from AF in Table 6.4.2-1 invoking Naf_EventExposure_Subscribe service (Event ID = Service Data, Event Filter information = Application ID, Target of subscription = Any UE) as defined in TS 23.502. Likewise, the NWDAF subscribes for network data from 5GC NFs in Table 6.4.2-2 by invoking the same service. This is illustrated in priority document 305, Figure 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
491
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Lee with Li. Each of Lee and Li are in the field of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee with Li in order to align the input of a network function subscription with the output of NWDAF analytics for estimated service experience and analytics in a certain area as taught in Lee paras. [0004]-[0005].
Claims 74, 77 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Pat. Pub. WO2020066890 to Toshiyuki Tamura et al. (hereinafter Tamura) in view of 23.288.
Regarding claim 74, Tamura teaches A method of operation of a second network function, the method comprising:
registering at the second network function, information relating to an analytic, wherein the information relating to the analytic comprises information identifying a user equipment (UE), information identifying the analytic, and at least one criterion that is associated with the analytic; (Tamura teaches in Fig. 3 a registration procedure between UE 30, AMF 71 and UDM 75. Tamura teaches in paras. [0023] – [0026] that the registration includes in the Registration Request message a UE analytics report capability for a UE analytics report subscription sent by the UDM/UDR to the AMF 71. )
receiving at the second network function, from a third network function, initiation information corresponding to the UE; (Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification states that “initiation information” comprises a UE identifier in lines 24-25 on page 11. Tamura teaches in para. [0030] that the AMF builds the UE analytics parameter status information for the UDM/UDR. Likewise, para. [0127] teaches that the UDM/UDR stores user consent for UE analytics data collection as subscription information, including AF User Consent Provision (UE_ID, UE analytics consent bitmap). The AMF as third network function shown in Fig. 3:
PNG
media_image5.png
656
877
media_image5.png
Greyscale
communicating by the second network function, to the third network function, at least a part of the information relating to the analytic, wherein the at least a part of the information relating to the analytic comprises the at least one analytic criterion.(Tamura teaches in Fig. 2 above that the second network function the UDM 75 communicates with the AMF to provide analytics information to be collected in step 3:
PNG
media_image6.png
642
917
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Although Tamura teaches communicating by the second network function, to the third network function, at least a part of the information relating to the analytic, Tamura does not clearly and specifically teach wherein the at least a part of the information relating to the analytic comprises the at least one analytic criterion.
In the same field of endeavor, 23.288 teaches wherein the at least a part of the information relating to the analytic comprises the at least one analytic criterion. (23.288 teaches in Table 6.4.1-1 that analytics request/subscription information includes an Analytics ID that identifies the analytic, and analytics filter information that includes criterion associated with the analytic and the target of the analytics reporting UE_ID which identifies the UE.
PNG
media_image3.png
450
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The information in Table 6.4.1-1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Tamura with 23.288. Each of Tamura and 23.288 teach wireless communications and analytics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine 23.288 with Tamura to specifics registration and subscriptions between network functions and follow the 3GPP specification for Procedures for Data Collection outlined in Section 6.2 and Analytics Filter information of Section 6.4 of 23.288.
Regarding claim 77, teach The method of claim 74, wherein the step of registering the information relating to the analytic comprises:
receiving, from a network function for network exposure (NEF), the information relating to the analytic; (Tamura teaches in para. [0068] that UE analytics information collection is based on network exposure functionality (NEF) via the UDM/UDR mapped to the second network function, as part of solution 2 illustrated in figure 2, see above.)
registering the information relating to the analytic. (Tamura teaches registering the information relating to the analytic in Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 78, Tamura teaches The method of claim 74, wherein the step of registering the information relating to the analytic comprises:
receiving from a first network function the information relating to the analytic; (Tamura teaches in Fig. 1 that part of the registration procedure includes a first network function mapped to AMF providing information relating to the analytic to the second network function mapped to a UDM in step 2:
PNG
media_image7.png
679
952
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and
registering the information relating to the analytic (Tamura teaches registration ACCEPT message in step 4 in Fig. 1 shown above.)
Claims 75 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Tamura in view of 23.288, further in view of Lee priority document 305.
Regarding claim 75, Tamura in view of 23.288 teaches The method of claim 74 as stated.
Tamura does NOT teach wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises a location identifier.
However, in the analogous art of 3GPP 5G wireless communications, Lee teaches wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises a location identifier. (Lee priority document 305 teaches on page 10-8 that a network function “restricts analytic area by indicating Area of Interest in its analytics subscription” so that an NWDAF can properly generate analytics for the correct area requested. Likewise, Lee para. [0010] teaches that the network function sends an analytics subscription request as “Analytics ID = Service Experience, Analytics Filter information = (Application ID, time window, S-NSSAI, DNN, Area of Interest) to NWDAF by invoking Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe.)
Although Lee teaches Analytics Filter information including area of interest, Lee does not include a location identifier in the area of interest specifically.
In the same field of endeavor, 23.288 teaches “location identifier”. (23.288 teaches Analytics Filter information on page 21 that the “area of interest” includes a “set of TAIs” as defined in TS 23.501 and that a consumer (NF) of the analytics shall indicate in the request or subscription the information:
PNG
media_image3.png
450
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Tamura with Lee to teach a location identifier. Each of Tamura and Lee are in the field of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Tamura in order to align the input of a network function subscription with the output of analytics in a certain area as taught in Lee paras. [0004]-[0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Tamura with 23.288 to teach a location identifier. Each of Tamura and 23.288 teach wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Tamura with 23.288 and Lee in order to follow specifics on registration and subscriptions between network functions and follow the 3GPP specification for Procedures for Data Collection outlined in Section 6.2 and Analytics Filter information of Section 6.4 of 23.288.
Regarding claim 76, Tamura in view of 23.288 teaches The method of claim 74 as stated.
Tamura does NOT teach wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises an application identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the at least one analytic criterion comprises an application identifier. (Lee priority document 305 teaches in para. [0010] teaches that the network function sends an analytics subscription request as “Analytics ID = Service Experience, Analytics Filter information = (Application ID, time window, S-NSSAI, DNN, Area of Interest) to NWDAF by invoking Nnwdaf_AnalyticsSubscription_Subscribe.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Tamura with Lee to teach a location identifier. Each of Tamura and Lee are in the field of wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Tamura in order to align the input of a network function subscription with the output of analytics in a certain area as taught in Lee paras. [0004]-[0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights