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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 1-2 of the remarks, the Applicant states that priority based upon an application filed in China on June 30, 2020, and as the PCT application was filed on March 16, 2021, is before the 12-month date of the initial Chinese application filing. This application is a 371 national phase entry of the PCT application, the priority chain back to the initial Chinese application filing in 2020 is valid. Examiner agrees with the Applicant, and removes the priority issues from this Office Action (“OA”).
In page 2 of the remarks, Applicant states that claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and claim the subject matter. Furthermore, claims 1-20 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant has amended the claims to remove the language that raised issues under U.S.C. 112. As a result, Examiner has withdrawn the rejections made in the previous OA on July 17, 2025.
In pages 2-3 of the remarks, Applicant states that claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109429277 A, citations from English translation titled "Foreign Reference" submitted on 07/10/2025), hereinafter Chen, in view of Wang (CN 109286567 A, citations from English translation titled "Foreign Reference" submitted on 07/10/2025), and further in view of Jin et al. (US 20190075512 A1), hereinafter Jin, and Ni et al. (US 20180332178 A1), hereinafter Ni. Independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite "the App Store Id indicates the application market from which the first application is obtained, which application market has been verified as valid by a core network after the core network has negotiated with the application market", and argues that the limitations are not taught by any of the prior art cited. Applicant cites that Ni does not teach any of these amended limitations, as while paragraphs [0065]-[0066] of Ni state an application can have a type and is downloaded from an app store, an application is the verified by the core network of Ni, not the application market itself, as the amended limitation recites. Furthermore, while Chen cites a URSP message, Applicant states that Chen sends a URSP message not from a network device, but is received from network device and sent by the terminal. This is in contrast to claims 1 and 11, reciting a URSP message being sent from the network device to UE.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. The limitation of “the App Store Id and App Id of the first application obtained by the UE when the UE downloaded and installed the first application from the application market” is taught in the cited prior art of Ni, with paragraph [0065] citing types and identifiers in application that include those that were downloaded from the same app store such as Google Play, and those that were made by the same developer, corresponding to an App Store Id and App Id of a first application when the application is installed from an application market. Furthermore, for the limitation of ‘which application market has been verified as valid by a core network after the core network has been negotiated with the application market’, while the cited prior art of Chen in view of Ni do not appear to teach said limitation, the prior art of Kovac (US 20210224390 A1) teaches the limitation in [0021] Fig. 1, public network 122 connects network security server 102 to other computerized devices, such as public or private network computers or smart phones. [0022] Public network smartphone attempts to install a new Android application, and the application must be checked by network security server 102. Request comes from app to a third-party app store such as Google Play, which is referenced by the network security server 102. As a request from an application goes to an app store such as Google Play through a network security server 102, calculating a hash of the application to determine maliciousness. As the app store is referenced by a network security server in Kovac, corresponds to an application market being verified as valid by a core network after core network negotiates with the app market. Finally, while Applicant states that Chen has a URSP message sent by the terminal, a second network slicing identification information is sent from a network side device to the terminal, which contains identifier information of a network sli9ce, and a relationship table between an APP and slicing identification information, as stated in page 3, lines 7-12. As a result, Examiner rejects claims 1-2, 6-10, 11-12, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chen in view of Ni and Kovac, and
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 11-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109429277 A, citations from English translation titled “Foreign Reference” submitted on 07/10/2025), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ni et al. (US 20180332178 A1), hereinafter Ni, and Kovác et al. (US 20210224390 A1), hereinafter Kovac.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses ‘an application data transmission system, comprising: a network device; and a user equipment (UE)’ ([Page 3, line 6] Present invention includes a system that contains a terminal corresponds to user equipment (UE), and network side device corresponds to the network device of the applicant. [Page 6, lines 56-57] Fig. 16 contains network device 200, and terminal 100.);
‘wherein the network device is configured to send a first message to the user equipment, wherein the first message comprises UE route selection policy (URSP) information, wherein the URSP information comprises an application store identifier (App Store Id), an application identifier (App Id), and slice parameter information, wherein the App Store Id identifies an application store, wherein the App Id identifies an application, and wherein the slice parameter information indicates a sliced network’ ([Page 3, lines 45-47] Terminal corresponds to user equipment (UE), network side device receives application initiated request from terminal corresponds to service request sending a first message to terminal, and first network slice identification information corresponds to the UE route selection policy (URSP) information. [Page 4, lines 45-47] Network slice mark information determines what network slice an application should utilize. [Page 10, lines 7-11] Fig. 4, steps 2 and 3, terminal initiates service via a first message, and can contain information such as the subscription information of the application, corresponding to App Store Id of the applicant. [Page 10, lines 37-42] Fig. 5, steps 4 and 5, a message is sent from a network side device to user equipment to update relationship between application and slice identification information, where the message from the network side device contains the identifiers to assist in updating the information on the UE, before establishing a connection to a network device. [Page 7, lines 29-32] A relation between an application and slice identification information are established in a mapping table, with the table contains identification of the application, and the slice identification information are used to determine a network slice. [Page 9, lines 17-33] Tables 1 and 2 display a relationship between the information between applications and slice identification information, and links the properties together. Info column can contain application information, such as subscription information and an application identifier. Table 3 displays a direct relationship between aspects of an application.);
‘wherein the UE comprises an application framework that is configured to match the App Store Id and App Id from the URSP information with an App Store Id and App Id of a first application to be run by the UE’ ([Page 10, lines 3-15] Fig. 4, step 1, terminal obtains corresponding slicing identification information for an App 1, corresponding to App Id of the Applicant. Step 3 of Fig. 4 states that App 1 subscription information is part of received identification information of the network slice service request of step 2, wherein the network side receives the identification information of an App 1, its respective subscription information, based on the App that is running on the UE. App 1 subscription information corresponds to the App Store Id of the Applicant. This process of Fig. 4 corresponds to an application framework of the Applicant. In step 4, when the subscription information for an app and the other information for an app 1 is the same, the process of Fig. 4 ends, corresponding to a determining of a matching between URSP information and a first application of Chen.);
‘wherein the UE is configured to run the first application, and is further configured to transmit data of the first application through the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information when the App Store Id and App Id of the first application match the App Store Id and App Id from the URSP information, and transmit the data of the first application through a non-sliced network when any one of the App Store Id or the App Id of the first application fails to match the App Store Id or App Id from the URSP information, respectively’ ([Page 7, lines 13-14] User equipment runs applications. [Page 2, lines 22-26] If network slice is allowed, data of application will run through the slice. [Page 10, lines 7-11] Initiating service, which is known as the first message in the applicant, can contain further information, such as subscription information of the application, corresponds to App Store Id of the applicant. [Page 7, lines 29-32] A relation between an application and slice identification information are established in a mapping table, with the table contains identification of the application, and the slice identification information are used to determine a network slice. [Page 9, lines 17-33] Tables 1 and 2 display a relationship between the information between applications and slice identification information, and links the properties together. Info column can contain application information, such as subscription information and an application identifier. Table 3 displays a direct relationship between aspects of an application. [Page 11, lines 9-25] Fig. 7, step 2, if app and slicing identification information is in a terminal check policy centre, corresponding to matching URSP and first application running on a UE device, goes to step 5, in which a terminal initiates a service request to obtain a network slice, and claim 3 also states that when an App corresponds to a network slice, it is accepted, and can connect to the network slice requested. [Page 11, lines 17-20] Likewise, in Fig. 7, in step 3, when not accepted, meaning that the matching is not successful, the process goes to step 4, in which a terminal connects to a pre-configured slice, which is described as a 'Default NSSAI', corresponding to connecting to a non-sliced network of the Applicant.);
Chen does not appear to fully teach, but Ni also teaches the limitations of ‘the App Store Id and App Id of the first application obtained by the UE when the UE downloaded and installed the first application from the application market’ ([0065] Types and identifiers in applications include applications that were downloaded from the same app store, and applications that were developed by the same developer or same type of developer, corresponding to an App Store Id and an App Id of an application, respectively.);
‘and wherein the App Store Id indicates the application market from which the first application is obtained’ ([0065] of Ni describes that an application can have a type, which can be classified by means of an irregular triggering by using a network instruction. Application types are described in paragraph [0066] of Ni such as an application being downloaded from an app store, and can be used in combination with other aspects of an application, corresponding to an App Store Id. [0065] Classification by means of a network instruction can also correspond to an application being verified as valid by a core network of the Applicant, as a network condition for limiting usage of an application stated in paragraph [0009] of Ni can be a network instruction.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chen, and Ni before them, to include Ni’s ‘and wherein the App Store Id indicates an application store or application market from which the first application is obtained, which has been verified as valid by a core network’ in Chen’s application data transmission system performing ‘wherein the network device is configured to send a first message to the user equipment, wherein the first message comprises UE route selection policy (URSP) information’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by having types of applications be utilized to limit usage of said applications, and they can be identified by various properties, such as by what the application is used for, or sources of an application, such as whether it is preinstalled or comes from an app store, or even same developers to group applications together, as taught by Ni [0011] and Ni [0066].
Chen in view of Ni do not appear to teach, but Kovac teaches the limitation of ‘which application market has been verified as valid by a core network after the core network has been negotiated with the application market’ ([0021] Fig. 1, public network 122 connects network security server 102 to other computerized devices, such as public or private network computers or smart phones. [0022] Public network smartphone attempts to install a new Android application, and the application must be checked by network security server 102. Request comes from app to a third-party app store such as Google Play, which is referenced by the network security server 102. In the event that a request is sent to an app store, network security server 102 receives and calculates a hash of an Android app via hash calculation module 118 to determine maliciousness of the app via a hash database 120. Request of an app to an app store referenced by network security server 102 corresponds to an application market being verified as valid by a core network after core network negotiates with the app market.);
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of ‘which application market has been verified as valid by a core network after the core network has been negotiated with the application market’ in an application data transmission system and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a ‘trusted’ app store for Android that only contains application that were screened using such methods, and are likely to not contain malware (Kovac [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein the user equipment is further configured to run a second application, and to transmit data of the second application through a non-sliced network, wherein the second application is not downloaded indicated by the App Store Id in the USRP information, and an App Id of the second application is the same as or different from the App Id in the URSP information’ ([Page 2, lines 22-25] If there is no allowed network slice to run through, run through the default NSSAI, which is non-sliced. [Page 7, lines 47-48] Network slicing identification information corresponds to the URSP information that would need to be sent to the network device. [Page 10, lines 8-12] Initiating a service, which corresponds to the first message in the applicant, can contain more information, such as the subscription information of the application. [Page 11, lines 41-50] Fig. 8, steps 2-5, wherein if the information is different for the APP subscription from what is expected, it could revert to the default network slice instead of the requested network slice.).
Chen does not appear to disclose, but Ni teaches ‘downloaded from the application market’ ([0065] Types and identifiers in applications include applications that were downloaded from the same app store.)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of ‘downloaded from the application market’ in an application data transmission system and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a ‘trusted’ app store for Android that only contains application that were screened using such methods, and are likely to not contain malware (Kovac [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein the URSP information further comprises indication information indicating that the URSP information comprises the App Store Id and the App Id’ ([Page 7, lines 29-32] A mapping relation table of APP and slicing identification information will allow a relation between the two objects to be established. [Page 9, lines 17-33] Table 1 and table 2 show the relationship between the information between applications and the information that links both an application and the network slice information index that corresponds to the application, while the info column can contain app information. Table 3 shows a more direct relationship between the application and the slice index information. [Page 10, lines 7-11] Terminal sends a message to network device initiating service, which is known as the first message in the applicant, can contain more information, such as the subscription information of the application, and the application identifier itself, as shown in the tables 1-3 of the message that is sent to the network device. The app subscription identifier corresponds to an App Store Id of the applicant.).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein the network device is further configured to send a second message to the user equipment, wherein the second message comprises allowed network slice selection assistance information (Allowed NSSAI) indicating that the user equipment is allowed to transmit a sliced network set, and wherein the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information is disposed in the sliced network set’ ([Page 9, lines 6-8] Sending of customized information to the network side in Chen corresponds to the second message sent from the user equipment to the network device of the applicant, and passing the customized network policy via notification corresponds to the NSSAI that has to be allowed by the network operator. [Page 9, lines 11-12] The slice parameter information is added to and comprised in the sliced network set when the customized slice is allowed, and the sliced network set is transmitted from the network to user equipment to store a relation between an application and network slice.).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein the user equipment is further configured to send, to the network device, a registration message used to register with and access the network device; or the user equipment is further configured to send, to the network device, a service update message used to indicate that a service in the user equipment is updated’ ([Page 2, lines 22-24] Registering successfully corresponds to sending the registration message to access the network device.).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen also discloses the limitation of ‘wherein the App Id is an application package name of the application’ ([Page 9, lines 11-12] Where the application identification is mapped to the network slice parameter information that is requested. [Page 9, lines 17-33] Table 1 and table 2 show the relationship between the information between applications and the information that links both an application, such as the name of the application, and the network slice information index that corresponds to the application, while the info column can contain app information. Table 3 shows a more direct relationship between the application and the slice index information).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen does not appear to disclose, but Ni teaches ‘wherein the application market is a platform which makes one or more applications available for download and installation on the UE’ ([0065] Types and identifiers in applications include applications that were downloaded from the same app store, the app store allowing for applications to be downloaded to a user device.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of ‘wherein the application market is a platform which makes one or more applications available for download and installation on the UE’ in an application data transmission system and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a ‘trusted’ app store for Android that only contains application that were screened using such methods and after installing applications to a user device, and are likely to not contain malware (Kovac [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach similar limitations that are also present in independent claim 1 above. Chen also discloses ‘user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor’ ([Page 5, lines 7-9] Terminal, also known as user equipment (UE), contains a processor for executing a software module stored in memory.);
‘and a non-transitory computer readable memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores program instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the program instructions including instructions for’ ([Page 15, lines 19-26] Storage medium is stated to include read-only memory, a hard disk, compact disc, which correspond to non-transitory storage mediums of the applicant. [Page 5, lines 7-9] Terminal includes processor, coupled with memory, and the memory includes software code to be executed by a processor.).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 10 above.
Claims 3-5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Ni and Kovac as applied to claims 1-2, 6-10, 11-12, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 109286567 A, citations from English translation titled “Foreign Reference” submitted on 07/10/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen does not appear to disclose, but Wang teaches the limitation of ‘wherein the user equipment is further configured to transmit, based on a PDU session, in response to the PDU session corresponding to the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information being established between the user equipment and the network device, the data of the first application over the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information’ ([Page 5, line 45-47] Where the UE routes through the URSP based on what network slice it has to use according the URSP rules, and routes the data via a PDU session once the PDU session has been established. [Page 6, lines 22-23] Operation identification symbol is used to classify the type of data that is coming from a first application to a network device.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chen, Wang and Jin before them, to include Wang’s ‘wherein the user equipment is further configured to transmit, based on a PDU session, in response to the PDU session corresponding to the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information being established between the user equipment and the network device, the data of the first application over the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information’ in Chen’s application data transmission system performing ‘wherein the network device is configured to send a first message to the user equipment, wherein the first message comprises UE route selection policy (URSP) information’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by utilizing the URSP in order to determine how a user equipment device on how to route data from an application to a network device, and establishes a communication to the network device to provide a smoother experience for customers, as taught by Wang [Page 5, lines 45-48].
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen does not appear to disclose, but Wang teaches the limitation of ‘wherein the user equipment is configured to perform, in response to a PDU session corresponding to the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information not being established between the user equipment and the network device: establishing the PDU session with the network device based on the slice parameter information’ ([Page 5, line 45-47] Triggering of a new PDU session is done if there is no established connection between the user equipment and the network device.);
‘and transmitting, based on the PDU session, the data of the first application over the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information’ ([Page 6, lines 22-23] Where the traffic differentiation symbol is used to classify the type of data that is coming from a first application to a network device.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chen, Wang and Jin before them, to include Wang’s ‘wherein the user equipment is configured to perform, in response to a PDU session corresponding to the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information not being established between the user equipment and the network device: establishing the PDU session with the network device based on the slice parameter information’ and ‘transmitting, based on the PDU session, the data of the first application over the sliced network indicated by the slice parameter information’ in Chen’s application data transmission system performing ‘wherein the network device is configured to send a first message to the user equipment, wherein the first message comprises UE route selection policy (URSP) information’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by utilizing the URSP in order to determine how a user equipment device on how to route data from an application to a network device, and establishes a communication to the network device to provide a smoother experience for customers, as taught by Wang [Page 5, lines 45-48].
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the system of claim 1 as recited above. Chen does not appear to disclose, but Wang teaches the limitation of ‘wherein the URSP information further comprises an operating system identifier (OS Id) used to identify an operating system, and wherein an OS Id of an operating system of the user equipment is the same as the OS Id in the URSP information’ ([Page 8, line 21-22] Operating system identification OSld is utilized for identifying an operating system running on the terminal, and OSId is included in an application identifier. [Page 8, lines 28-36] OSld in this instance is used to see what operating system that system is running and match accordingly, which is part of the application identifier.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Chen, Wang and Jin before them, to include Wang’s ‘wherein the URSP information further comprises an operating system identifier (OS Id) used to identify an operating system, and wherein an OS Id of an operating system of the user equipment is the same as the OS Id in the URSP information’ in Chen’s application data transmission system performing ‘wherein the network device is configured to send a first message to the user equipment, wherein the first message comprises UE route selection policy (URSP) information’. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to increase efficiency by having an operating system be identified such that it would make it easier for an operator of a network device to establish a connection between a user equipment device and a network device in regards to an application's communication with the network device, as taught by Wang [Page 8, lines 19-24].
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac in view of Wang discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac in view of Wang discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Ni and Kovac teach the user equipment of claim 11 as recited above. Chen in view of Ni and Kovac in view of Wang discloses similar limitations that are also present in claim 5 above.
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 TOMMY MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM ET.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624 on Monday thru Friday, 7AM-7PM ET. 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.
/T.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496 /JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496