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 .
Response to amendment
2. This is a Final Office action in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 08/28/2018.
3. Status of the claims:
• Claim 20 has been amended.
• No claims have been canceled.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to remarks/arguments
4. Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 09/18/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. On pages 1-4 of Applicant’s remarks dated 09/18/2025, the applicant states that the combination of references does not form a valid 103 rejection for the reasons below.
There is no teaching “the PDU session establishment request message
comprises a request for a maximum transmission unit (MTU) parameter for an
Ethernet or an Unstructured link in N1 mode and a request for an MTU parameter for a non-IP link in S1 mode” and “the establishment request message comprises an MTU for an Ethernet or an Unstructured link in N1 mode AND an MTU parameter for a non-IP link in S1 mode”. The Office Action provides NO references to indicating any teaching of the two MTU requests in the establishment request message.
6. In response to applicant’s remarks, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the current rejection of the claims is a prima facia obviousness type rejection depending upon the combination of multiple references rather than a single reference taken alone to teach the claim limitations. That is, the primary cited reference of Wafta discloses “maximum number of supported packet filters IE in the PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message if the UE supports more than 16 packet filters”, i.e., Wafta teaches maximum transmission unit (MTU) negotiation. The secondary cited reference of Oyman teaches multiple link types. Then, it would have been obvious that the combination would yield the claimed result. Having said that, while the references do not explicitly disclose both MTU parameters in the same message, it would have been obvious to include multiple MTU parameters in a session establishment request to support different link types.
Please see the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WAFTA (US 20230199605 A1) in view of Oyman et al. (US 12155701 B2).
Regarding claim 1, WAFTA discloses a method, comprising:
transmitting a PDU session establishment request message from a user equipment (UE) to establish a PDU session in N1 mode in a mobile communication network (WAFTA, para. 259: when the UE moves from NB-N1 mode to WB-N1 mode, the UE can then send the PDU Session Modification Request message to indicate that it supports more than 16 packet filters (if this is the case) by including the Maximum number of supported packet filters IE of the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION REQUEST message), wherein the PDU session establishment request message comprises a request for a maximum transmission unit (MTU) parameter for an Ethernet or an Unstructured link in N1 mode and a request for an MTU parameter for a non-IP link in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 104: during PDU session establishment procedure, the UE sends the Maximum number of supported packet filters IE in the PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message if the UE supports more than 16 packet filters. Moreover, paragraph 138 further discloses the PDU session type is “Ethernet” or “Unstructured”);
performing an intersystem change from N1 mode to S1 mode, wherein the PDU session is transferred to a corresponding PDN connection in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 117, 126: Upon inter-system change from N1 mode to S1 mode, the UE shall create the default EPS bearer context and the dedicated EPS bearer context(s) based on the parameters of the mapped EPS bearer contexts or the associations between QoS flow and mapped EPS bearer in the PDU session. The PDN type shall be set to “Ethernet” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet” and the UE and the network support Ethernet PDN type in S1 mode); and
sending non-IP packets over the PDN connection based on the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode of the PDN connection (WAFTA, para. 119-123: the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Unstructured”; the PDN type shall be set to “IPv4” if the PDU session type is “IPv4”; the PDN type shall be set to “IPv6” if the PDU session type is “IPv6”; the PDN type shall be set to “IPv4v6” if the PDU session type is “IPv4v6”; the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet”, and the UE, the network or both of them do not support Ethernet PDN type in S1 mode).
WAFTA does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving the MTU parameter for the Ethernet or Unstructured link in N1 mode and receiving the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode from the network.
In the same field of endeavor, Oyman discloses receiving the MTU parameter for the Ethernet or Unstructured link in N1 mode (Oyman, col 8, lines 9-10: Network to MS direction: receiving Ethernet Frame Payload MTU or Unstructured Link MTU from the network) and receiving the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode from the network (Oyman, col 7, line 64: Network to MS direction: receiving Non-IP Link MTU from the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA with the teaching of Oyman by using the above features such as receiving the MTU parameter for the Ethernet or Unstructured link in N1 mode and receiving the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode from the network as taught by Oyman. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and apparatus for improving cellular internet of things optimizations in a telecommunication network.
Regarding claim 2, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PDU session has an Ethernet or an Unstructured PDU session type in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 29, 114: Such PDU session has a PDU Session type of “Unstructured”).
Regarding claim 3, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding PDN connection has a non-IP PDN connection type in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 123: the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet”).
Regarding claim 4, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding PDN connection in S1 mode is configured with the MTU parameter for the non-IP link as requested during the PDU session establishment in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 10-11,106-109, 111: “For a PDN connection established when in S1 mode, after the first inter-system change from S1 mode to N1 mode, if the UE is operating in single-registration mode in the network supporting N26 interface, the PDU session is of “IPv4”, “IPv6”, “IPv4v6”, or “Ethernet” PDU session type. Additionally, WAFTA discloses the UE requests to transfer an existing PDN connection in the EPS of “IPv4”, “IPv6”, “IPv4v6” or “Ethernet” PDN type or of “Non-IP” PDN type mapping to “Ethernet” PDU session type).
Regarding claim 8, WAFTA discloses a method, comprising: transmitting a PDN connectivity request message from a user equipment (UE) to establish a PDN connection in S1 mode in a mobile communication network (WAFTA, para. 10: a method performed by a user equipment (UE) for managing a packet data network (PDN) connection, the method comprising: in case that the PDN connection is established in S1 mode, verifying if an associated PDU session is associated with a control plane only indication), wherein the PDN connectivity request message comprises a request for a maximum transmission unit (MTU) parameter for a non-IP link in S1 mode and a request for an MTU parameter for an Unstructured link in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 252: when the UE has a PDN connection that is first established in S1 mode, and the UE performs the first inter-system change from S1 mode to N1 mode, if the PDN connection was established as a Control plane only connection (i.e. the UE received the Control plane only indication IE in the in the ACTIVATE DEFAULT EPS BEARER CONTEXT REQUEST message), the UE shall not send the Maximum number of supported packet filters IE of the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION REQUEST message even if the UE supports more than 16 packet filters for this PDU session); performing an intersystem change from S1 mode to N1 mode, wherein the PDN connection is transferred to a corresponding PDU session in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 10: wherein the PDN connection is established after a first inter-system change from S1 mode to N1 mode; and supporting more than 16 packet filters for the PDU, wherein the PDU session is one of “IPv4”, “IPv6”, “IPv4v6”, or “Ethernet” PDU session type); and sending unstructured packets over the PDU session based on the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link of the PDU session in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 39, 30: if NEF PDU session is to be established for unstructured data type, the AMF includes Control plane only indication for the requested PDU session to the SMF).
WAFTA does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode and receiving the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link in N1 mode from the network.
In the same field of endeavor, Oyman discloses receiving the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode (Oyman, col 7, line 64: Network to MS direction: receiving Non-IP Link MTU from the network) and receiving the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link in N1 mode from the network (Oyman, col 8, lines 9-10: Network to MS direction: receiving Ethernet Frame Payload MTU or Unstructured Link MTU from the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA with the teaching of Oyman by using the above features such as receiving the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode and receiving the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link in N1 mode from the network as taught by Oyman. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and apparatus for improving cellular internet of things optimizations in a telecommunication network.
Regarding claim 9, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the PDN connection has a non-IP PDN connection type in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 123: the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet”).
Regarding claim 10, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the corresponding PDU session has a an Unstructured PDU session type in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 29, 114: Such PDU session has a PDU Session type of “Unstructured”).
Regarding claim 11, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the corresponding PDU session in N1 mode is configured with the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link as requested during the PDN connectivity procedure in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 138, 144: After inter-system change from N1 mode to S1 mode, the UE and the SMF shall maintain the PDU session type of the PDU session until the PDN connection corresponding to the PDU session is released if the UE supports non-IP PDN type and the PDU session type is “Ethernet” or “Unstructured”. WAFTA further discloses the maximum data rate per UE for user-plane integrity protection supported by the UE for uplink and the maximum data rate per UE for user-plane integrity protection supported by the UE for downlink).
Regarding claim 15, WAFTA discloses a User Equipment (UE), comprising: a session or connection handling circuit that establishes a PDU session in N1 mode or a PDN connection in S1 mode by sending a request message in a mobile communication network (WAFTA, para. 259: when the UE moves from NB-N1 mode to WB-N1 mode, the UE can then send the PDU Session Modification Request message to indicate that it supports more than 16 packet filters (if this is the case) by including the Maximum number of supported packet filters IE of the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION REQUEST message), wherein the request message comprises a request for a maximum transmission unit (MTU) parameter for an Unstructured link in N1 mode and a request for an MTU parameter for a non-IP link in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 104: during PDU session establishment procedure, the UE sends the Maximum number of supported packet filters IE in the PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message if the UE supports more than 16 packet filters. Moreover, paragraph 138 further discloses the PDU session type is “Ethernet” or “Unstructured”); an intersystem handling circuit that performs intersystem change from N1 mode to S1 mode or from S1 mode to N1 mode, wherein the PDU session is transferred to a corresponding PDN connection in S1 mode, or the PDN connection in S1 mode is transferred to a corresponding PDU session in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 117, 126: Upon inter-system change from N1 mode to S1 mode, the UE shall create the default EPS bearer context and the dedicated EPS bearer context(s) based on the parameters of the mapped EPS bearer contexts or the associations between QoS flow and mapped EPS bearer in the PDU session. The PDN type shall be set to “Ethernet” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet” and the UE and the network support Ethernet PDN type in S1 mode); and a transmitter that sends non-IP packets over the PDN connection based on the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode of the PDN connection, or otherwise sends unstructured packets over the PDU session based on the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link of the PDU session in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 119-123: the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Unstructured”; the PDN type shall be set to “IPv4” if the PDU session type is “IPv4”; the PDN type shall be set to “IPv6” if the PDU session type is “IPv6”; the PDN type shall be set to “IPv4v6” if the PDU session type is “IPv4v6”; the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet”, and the UE, the network or both of them do not support Ethernet PDN type in S1 mode).
WAFTA does not appear to explicitly disclose receives the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link in N1 mode and receives the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Oyman discloses receives the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link in N1 mode (Oyman, col 8, lines 9-10: Network to MS direction: receiving Ethernet Frame Payload MTU or Unstructured Link MTU from the network) and receives the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode (Oyman, col 7, line 64: Network to MS direction: receiving Non-IP Link MTU from the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA with the teaching of Oyman by using the above features such as receiving the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link in N1 mode and receives the MTU parameter for the non-IP link in S1 mode as taught by Oyman. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and apparatus for improving cellular internet of things optimizations in a telecommunication network.
Regarding claim 16, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the PDU session has an Unstructured PDU session type in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 29, 114: Such PDU session has a PDU Session type of “Unstructured”).
Regarding claim 17, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the corresponding PDN connection has a non-IP PDN connection type in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 123: the PDN type shall be set to “non-IP” if the PDU session type is “Ethernet”).
Regarding claim 18, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the corresponding PDN connection in S1 mode is configured with the MTU parameter for the non-IP link as requested during the PDU session establishment in N1 mode (WAFTA, para. 10-11,106-109, 111: “For a PDN connection established when in S1 mode, after the first inter-system change from S1 mode to N1 mode, if the UE is operating in single-registration mode in the network supporting N26 interface, the PDU session is of “IPv4”, “IPv6”, “IPv4v6”, or “Ethernet” PDU session type. Additionally, WAFTA discloses the UE requests to transfer an existing PDN connection in the EPS of “IPv4”, “IPv6”, “IPv4v6” or “Ethernet” PDN type or of “Non-IP” PDN type mapping to “Ethernet” PDU session type).
Regarding claim 19, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the corresponding PDU session in N1 mode is configured with the MTU parameter for the Unstructured link as requested during the PDN connectivity procedure in S1 mode (WAFTA, para. 138, 144: After inter-system change from N1 mode to S1 mode, the UE and the SMF shall maintain the PDU session type of the PDU session until the PDN connection corresponding to the PDU session is released if the UE supports non-IP PDN type and the PDU session type is “Ethernet” or “Unstructured”. WAFTA further discloses the maximum data rate per UE for user-plane integrity protection supported by the UE for uplink and the maximum data rate per UE for user-plane integrity protection supported by the UE for downlink).
12. Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WAFTA (US 20230199605 A1) in view of Oyman et al. (US 12155701 B2) and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20190068514 A1).
Regarding claim 5, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses further comprising: providing an Attention (AT) command by a modem to an Application Processor (AP) upon the intersystem change from N1 mode to S1 mode (Huang, Figs. 5, 6, 11, para. 45, 51: the modem sends a response back to the AP in response to the Attention (AT) command).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as providing an Attention (AT) command by a modem to an Application Processor (AP) as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Regarding claim 6, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 5, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the AT command is an unsolicited result code (URC) +CGEV indicating a change of a PDP type (WAFTA, para. 51-55: reporting MTU information by an MT using Unsolicited Result Code (URC) upon detecting MTU size change).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as the AT command is an unsolicited result code (URC) +CGEV indicating a change of a PDP type as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Regarding claim 7, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the AP sends a second AT command +CGCONTRDP to the modem to query for the changed PDP type (WAFTA, Figs. 5, 6, 11, para. 43, 45, 51: the AP sends an AT command +CGCONTRDP for acquiring a list of PDP context parameters including MTU size for the PDN connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as the AP sends a second AT command +CGCONTRDP to the modem to query for the changed PDP type as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Regarding claim 12, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 8, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses further comprising: providing an Attention (AT) command by a modem to an Application Processor (AP) upon the intersystem change from S1 mode to N1 mode (Huang, Figs. 5, 6, 11, para. 45, 51: the modem sends a response back to the AP in response to the Attention (AT) command).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as providing an Attention (AT) command by a modem to an Application Processor (AP) as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Regarding claim 13, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 12, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the AT command is an unsolicited result code (URC) +CGEV indicating a change of a PDP type (WAFTA, para. 51-55: reporting MTU information by an MT using Unsolicited Result Code (URC) upon detecting MTU size change).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as the AT command is an unsolicited result code (URC) +CGEV indicating a change of a PDP type as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Regarding claim 14, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the method of claim 13, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the AP sends a second AT command +CGCONTRDP to the modem to query for the changed PDP type (WAFTA, Figs. 5, 6, 11, para. 43, 45, 51: the AP sends an AT command +CGCONTRDP for acquiring a list of PDP context parameters including MTU size for the PDN connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as the AP sends a second AT command +CGCONTRDP to the modem to query for the changed PDP type as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Regarding claim 20, WAFTA as modified by Oyman discloses the UE of claim 15, but fails to teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses further comprising: a modem that sends an unsolicited result code (URC) +CGEV to indicate a change of a PDP type upon the intersystem change (WAFTA, para. 51-55: reporting MTU information by an MT using Unsolicited Result Code (URC) upon detecting MTU size change); and an Application Processor (AP) that sends a second AT command +CGCONTRDP to the modem to query for the changed PDP type in response to the URC (WAFTA, Figs. 5, 6, 11, para. 43, 45, 51: the AP sends an AT command +CGCONTRDP for acquiring a list of PDP context parameters including MTU size for the PDN connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of WAFTA as modified by Oyman with the teaching of Huang by using the above features such as sending an unsolicited result code (URC) +CGEV to indicate a change of a PDP type and sending by the AP a second AT command +CGCONTRDP to the modem to query for the changed PDP type as taught by Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for controlling maximum transmission unit (MTU) size reporting and discovery using AT commands.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN F VOLTAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-3953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:45 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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at (571)272-7969. 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.
/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466