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 .
Priority
It is noted that the present application is a 371 National Phase Patent Application of PCT/IB2022/053022, for which the 371(c) filing date is 03/31/2022. Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63/170,164, filed 04/02/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Claims 1, 5, 14-15, and 44 are Definite under 35 U.S.C. 112, filed 08/06/2026, with respect to claims 1, 5, 14-15, and 44 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC § 112 of Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 41-47 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Independent Claims 1, 14, and 15 are Patentable, filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues (Page 9):
"The Office Action concedes that SAW fails to disclose a "mobility registration update request; (ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of the plurality of lists of network slices," and cites to Luo to correct these deficiencies of SAW. (See Office Action, pgs. 8-9). However, Applicant respectfully submits that properly combining Luo with SAW fails to disclose or suggest a mobility registration update request comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device. Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that combining Luo with SAW to allegedly disclose such a feature would be based solely on improper hindsight analysis as the disclosure of any such features is found only in the present application and not found or even suggested in Luo and SAW."
Examiner Response:
With regard to applicant's argument that combining Luo with SAW fails to disclose or suggest "(ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device", the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As a result, Luo clearly shows this feature in combination with Saw and Tamura. For instance, Luo discloses ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device (paragraphs 78-79). In addition, Tamura teaches the message disclosed in Luo can be a mobility registration update request (paragraph 72). Finally, Saw teaches of receiving a mobility registration update request from a wireless device (Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1), the mobility registration update request (i) identifying one or more network slices that are requested to be registered by the wireless device (page 4, paragraph 2 after "note") and (ii) comprising (page 5, paragraph 8).
In order words, Saw teaches sending a message from a wireless device (i) identifying one or more network slices that are required to be registered by the wireless device and sends an NSSAI. Examiner is modifying Saw with Luo so that an identifier can be sent with NSSAI to a device, and finally to further clarify that the message sending by Luo can be a mobility registration update request.
Luo is not required to disclose UE to send an identifier, as Saw and Tamura discloses the feature of sending the message by the UE. Luo teaches a device that can sent a message with an identifier corresponding to a list, thus in combination teach the said limitation.
Applicant Argues (page 9, second paragraph):
"…However, as conceded by the Office Action, the Registration Request of SAW fails to comprise a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device. (See Office Action, pg. 8). For these features, the Office Action cites to Luo to correct these deficiencies of SAW."
Examiner Response:
The combination of Saw, Luo and Tamura discloses receiving a mobility registration update request from a wireless device, the mobility registration update request (i) identifying one or more network slices that are requested to be registered by the wireless device and (ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device.
Applicant Argues (Pages 9-10, citation starts from page 10 line 2):
"…However, the RRC message that is described to include the slice list is the RRC message sent from the first access network device to a terminal device. (See Luo, para. [0073]). This is not a message received by the first access network device from the terminal device. Accordingly, if SAW and Luo were to be combined (which Applicant does not concede is possible), then the combination would appear to describe that the Registration Accept, in step 9 of Figure 6.X.3.1-1, sent from the AMF to the UE would include the slice list. Combining SAW with Luo would fail to disclose or suggest that a core network function receives, from a wireless device, a mobility registration update request comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Luo with SAW fails to disclose or suggest "receiving a mobility registration update request from a wireless device, the mobility registration update request comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device," as recited by Claim 1."
Examiner Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner is not changing the message in Saw from a mobility registration request to Registration Accept message, the examiner is further modifying a message being sent by a UE (Saw, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1) can also have an identifier associated with NSSAI. Examiner is extracting a known concept taught in Luo of having an identifier corresponds to a list and then the device sent a message with an identifier to another device. The examiner further clarified the message is a mobility registration update request with a new reference Tamura.
Applicant Argues (Page 10-11):
"Additionally, the only teachings that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine SAW with Luo to allegedly disclose or suggest that a core network function receives, from a wireless device, a mobility registration update request comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device is the present application. Luo explicitly describes that the slice list corresponding to the first identifier is sent from the first access network device to the terminal device in a RRC message. Luo and SAW both fail to disclose or suggest that this information is included in a message sent from the terminal device or UE to the first access node or AMF. The only disclosure to teach any such feature is Applicant's own disclosure. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that any submission that the combination of SAW and Luo discloses or suggests "receiving a mobility registration update request from a wireless device, the mobility registration update request comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device," would be based on improper hindsight analysis."
Examiner Response:
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As a result, Saw, Luo, and Tamura teaches that a message can be sent by a device with an identifier corresponding to a list. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to implement identifier for a list such as an identifier for NSSAI in order to have increase efficiency on communication between UDM, AMF, and the UE and help UE to reduce power consumption, examiner also points to pages 12-13 of this office action for the motivation to combine Saw and Luo.
Applicant Argues (Page 11):
"While not cited to disclose or suggest these features of Claim 1, Applicant has thoroughly examined Tamura and SO, and respectfully submits that Tamura and SO fail to correct these deficiencies of SAW and Luo. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the prior art of record, either individually or in any proper combination, fails to disclose or suggest these features of amended Claim 1."
Examiner Answer:
See examiner answer above on how the combination of Saw, Luo and Tamura discloses receiving a mobility registration update request from a wireless device, the mobility registration update request (i) identifying one or more network slices that are requested to be registered by the wireless device and (ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously that is requested to be registered for the wireless device. The examiner did not rely on SO to teach the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 41-43, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWG2'140E (SA WG2 Meeting #140E S2-2005804) (IDS, 09/30/2023, 8 pages) in view of LUO (US-20220394608-A1) in further view of Tamura (US-20230276351-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, SAWG2'140E discloses a method of operating a core network function of a core network (Fig.6.X.3.1-1), comprising:
receiving a mobility registration update request (Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1) from a wireless device (Fig.6.X.3.1-1, UE),
the mobility registration update request (i) identifying one or more network slices that are requested to be registered by the wireless device (page 4, paragraph 2 after "note", "UE shall first initiate a mobility or periodic registration procedure with the network with the Requested NSSAI to include S-NSSAI-D." and page 5 paragraph 1, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1, "UE initiates initial Registration Request, and includes the support for the capability, "Support for simultaneous slice usage constraints"." and page 5, paragraph 8, "UE includes S-NSSAI-A, S-NSSAI-B, S-NSSAI-C in the Requested NSSAI list in Registration Request, as these three slices are allowed to be registered simultaneously as per the received slice compatibility information." (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1 of UE sending a registration request. Page 4 is to show the registration procedure to include network slices and can be multiple as indicated by page 5, par.8. Examiner notes Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1 does not disclose "mobility registration" but that will be mapped by a different prior art.));
and (ii) comprising (page 5, paragraph 8, "UE includes S-NSSAI-A, S-NSSAI-B, S-NSSAI-C in the Requested NSSAI list in Registration Request, as these three slices are allowed to be registered simultaneously as per the received slice compatibility information." (i.e., the list identifier will be addressed by LUO.));
receiving, from subscription data management, (page 5 paragraph 2-3, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:2,3, "AMF receives the subscribed NSSAI list from UDM." (i.e., UDM is equivalent to "subscription data management"))
and an identifier for the subscribed network slices that can be used simultaneously by the wireless device (page 3 under "Tags", paragraph 1, "Whether the network slices with same SST value" (i.e., "an identifier" is the Slice Service Type (SST). The message Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1 from the UE asks simultaneous slice to be registered so there for the UDM provides NSSAI list.));
generating information describing a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously by the wireless device (page 3, 6.X.2, lines 3-4, "AMF provides the UE with "Slice compatibility" information for each of the S-NSSAI which are part of the UE’s Configured NSSAI list. "Slice compatibility" information consists of:", and page 3, 6.X.2, lines 5-6, "1. List of other S-NSSAIs in the Configured NSSAI list the current S-NSSAI is allowed to simultaneously register with;" and page 3, 6.X.2, lines 7-9, "2. List of other S-NSSAIs in the Configured NSSAI list the current S-NSSAI is allowed to have simultaneous PDU sessions with…" and page 3, 6.X.2, lines 10-13, "3. List of other S-NSSAIs in the Configured NSSAI list the current S-NSSAI is allowed to have simultaneous active user plane resources for the established PDU sessions with." and page 3, 6.X.2, lines 14-15, "#1 and #2 are mandatory, while #3 is optional." (i.e., There are 3 lists and the third list being optional.));
and transmitting a response to the wireless device (Fig.6.X.3.1-1:7), the response indicating whether the one or more network slices have been registered and including the information describing the plurality of lists of network slices (page 5 paragraph 7, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:7, "AMF sends Registration Accept to the UE. AMF includes the Configured NSSAI, and the slice compatibility information for each Configured S-NSSAI." (i.e., AMF sending the registration accept to the UE.)),
each of the lists indicating a set of network slices that can be registered simultaneously by the wireless device ((page 5 paragraph 8, Fig.6.X.3.1-1, "Based on the received slice compatibility information, UE shall take a decision on which network slices to request registration as part of Requested NSSAI list. " (i.e., NSSAI list consist of S-NSSAIs.)).
However, SAWG2'140E does not disclose mobility registration update request; (ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of the plurality of lists of network slices.
LUO discloses (ii) comprising a list identifier associated with one of the plurality of lists of network slices (paragraph [0078], "The at least one first network slice may be understood as a network slice list (or a network slice set) supported by or corresponding to the first identifier…" and paragraph [0079], "The RRC message may include a slice list corresponding to the first identifier. Optionally, the RRC message may further include the first identifier. In other words, the RRC message may include a mapping relationship (or a correspondence) between the first identifier and the slice list…" (i.e., the slice list with an identifier. The slice list is understood as NSSAI and that is comprised of S-NSSAI. Examiner also points to par.96 Fig.3 for visual of slices.)).
SAWG2'140E and LUO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Affiliation to network, e.g. registration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SAWG2'140E to implement identifier for the list such as an identifier for NSSAI in order to have increase efficiency on communication between UDM, AMF, and the UE and help with UE to reduce power consumption (LUO, paragraph [0010], “to reduce a procedure in which the terminal device triggers an application for the information about the at least one first network slice corresponding to the first identifier, and help reduce the power consumption of the terminal device.”).
However, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura do not disclose mobility registration update request.
Tamura discloses mobility registration update request (paragraph [0072], “The UE 1 uses the initial registration to connect to the network (5GC) after power-on. The UE 1 uses the mobility registration update when it moves out of its current registration area (RA) or when it needs to update its capabilities or other parameters negotiated in the registration procedure.").
SAWG2’140E in view of LUO and Tamura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Affiliation to network, e.g. registration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SAWG2'140E to implement Tamura the message is a mobility registration update request as its obvious to try to obtain the list of slices to register would be done in either the register request as described in SAWG2’140E or when performing a mobility registration update request and the mobility update request reduce the amount of overhead as it does not require a full authentication process compare to registration request (Tamura, paragraph [0072], “The UE 1 uses the mobility registration update when it moves out of its current registration area (RA) or when it needs to update its capabilities or other parameters negotiated in the registration procedure.”).
Regarding Claim 2, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SAWG2'140E further discloses wherein the information describing the plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously comprises the (page 5 paragraph 2-3, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:2,3, "AMF receives the subscribed NSSAI list from UDM." (i.e., As mapped in claim 1, there are a plurality of lists that can be provided to the AMF which would then be provided to the UE.)).
LUO further discloses list identifiers (paragraph [0078], "The at least one first network slice may be understood as a network slice list (or a network slice set) supported by or corresponding to the first identifier…" and paragraph [0079], "The RRC message may include a slice list corresponding to the first identifier. Optionally, the RRC message may further include the first identifier. In other words, the RRC message may include a mapping relationship (or a correspondence) between the first identifier and the slice list…" (i.e., the slice list with an identifier.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 3, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SAWG2'140E further discloses wherein the information describing the plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously comprises the plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously (page 3, 6.X.2, line 5, line 3-4, "AMF provides the UE with "Slice compatibility" information for each of the S-NSSAI which are part of the UE’s Configured NSSAI list. "Slice compatibility" information consists of:" and page 3, 6.X.2, line 5, "List of other S-NSSAIs " (i.e., 6.X.2 provides 3 lists and each of the list has S-NSSAIs that can be registered simultaneously.)).
Regarding Claim 6, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Tamura further discloses wherein the mobility registration update request further identifies a network slice that the wireless device requests to register (paragraph [0067], “The Configured NSSAI includes at least one S-NSSAI, each of which is applicable to at least one PLMN.” and paragraph [0073], Fig.2, " In step 201, the UE 1 sends a Registration Request message to the AMF 2 via the AN 5. The Registration Request message includes Requested NSSAI. More specifically, if the AN 5 is an NG-RAN, the UE 1 sends a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Setup Complete message containing the Registration Request message to an AN node (e.g., gNB) in the AN 5. The UE 1 further includes the NSSAI (i.e., Requested NSSAI) for network slice selection in that RRC Setup Complete message as one of the AN parameters." (i.e., UE sending a NSSAI to register to which include S-NSSAI.)),
wherein the identified network slice is included in the one of the plurality of lists of network slices (paragraph [0067], “The Configured NSSAI includes at least one S-NSSAI, each of which is applicable to at least one PLMN.” (i.e., S-NSSAI are found in NSSAI.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SAWG2'140E further discloses wherein the information describing a plurality of lists of network slices that can be registered simultaneously by the wireless device identifies one or more additional configured network selection assistance information, NSSAI, that are configured for the wireless device (page 3, 6.X.2 High Level Desciption, line 5-6, "List of other S-NSSAIs in the Configured NSSAI list the current S-NSSAI is allowed to simultaneously register with;" (i.e., 6.X.2 shows the three list #1, #2, and #3. By providing list #1 with #2 and #3 it shows one or more of NSSAI that is configured for the UE.)),
wherein each of the one or more additional configured NSSAI indicates a set of network slices that are allowed to be used simultaneously with the requested network slice (page 3, 6.X.2, line 5-6, "List of other S-NSSAIs in the Configured NSSAI list the current S-NSSAI is allowed to simultaneously register with;" (i.e., NSSAI is composed of S-NSSAI.)).
Regarding Claim 11, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SAWG2'140E further discloses wherein the response (page 5 paragraph 7, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:7, "AMF sends Registration Accept to the UE…" (i.e., AMF responds to the initial request of Fig.6.X.3.1-1:1.)),
Tamura further discloses wherein the response comprises a mobility registration update response (paragraph [0072], “The UE 1 uses the initial registration to connect to the network (5GC) after power-on. The UE 1 uses the mobility registration update when it moves out of its current registration area (RA) or when it needs to update its capabilities or other parameters negotiated in the registration procedure." And paragraph [0074], “In step 202, in response to the Registration Request message, the AMF 2 sends a Registration Accept message to the UE 1 via the AN 5.” (i.e., AMF responds to the mobility request. Although does not explicitly state a mobility registration update response since Tamura discloses UE sending “mobility registration update” then the response is a mobility registration update response.)).
Regarding Claim 13, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SAWG2'140E further discloses wherein the core network function comprises an access and mobility management function, AMF (page 5 paragraph 2-3, Fig.6.X.3.1-1:2,3, "AMF receives the subscribed NSSAI list from UDM." (i.e., Fig.6.X.3.1-1 shows an AMF.)).
Regarding Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 41, which is similar in scope to claim 2, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 42, which is similar in scope to claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 43, which is similar in scope to claim 8, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 45, which is similar in scope to claim 13, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 47, which is similar in scope to claim 11, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWG2'140E (SA WG2 Meeting #140E S2-2005804) (IDS, 09/30/2023, 8 pages) in view of LUO (US-20220394608-A1) in view of Tamura (US-20230276351-A1) in further view of SO (US-20200107250-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura discloses all the limitation of claim 8.
However, SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura do not disclose wherein the response further comprises information identifying additional configured network slices for a serving network and a home network of the wireless device.
SO discloses wherein the response further comprises information identifying additional configured network slices for a serving network and a home network of the wireless device (paragraph [0044], "during the UE Registration with the serving PLMN…the serving VPLMN will then map the Subscribed S-NSSAI(s) configured by the HPLMN to the applicable S-NSSAI(s) configured by the serving VPLMN." and paragraph [0046], “the set of provisioned/configured S-NSSAI configured by the HPLMN… the corresponding mapping S-NSSAI(s) configured by the VPLMN” (i.e., Provide UE with S-NSSAI(s) that is configured by HPLMN.)).
SAWG2’140E in view of LUO in further view of Tamura and SO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Affiliation to network, e.g. registration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SAWG2'140E to implement the method of SO in order to provide consistent roaming with slices that similar to slices in HPLMN (SO, paragraph [0055], "in case of roaming, the UE's serving PLMN is the VPLMN, and hence, the UE, VPLMN and HPLMN are all required to support Coexistent Slicing Group in order to enable this feature.").
Regarding Claim 44, which is similar in scope to claim 9, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights