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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–10 and 12–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite because the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “the second field set comprises a first field and a second field, and the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI comprises only the second field in the second field set.” It is unclear whether “only” means that the first NLRI comprises only the second field and no other fields—which would conflict with the preceding requirement that the first NLRI comprise the first field set and the first indication information—or whether “only” means that, as between the recited first and second fields of the second field set, the first NLRI comprises the second field but not the first field. Moreover, because the second field set “comprises” the first and second fields and therefore may include additional fields, it is unclear whether the limitation excludes any such additional fields from the first NLRI. Accordingly, the scope of claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 2 further recites “the first indication information indicates, in a bit mapping manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field; or the first indication information indicates, in an enumeration manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field.” This language does not resolve the ambiguity of claim 1 because it remains unclear whether the first NLRI comprises only the second field in its entirety, only the second field as between the recited first and second fields, or only the second field from among every field potentially included in the second field set.
Claims 3–9 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and do not resolve the ambiguity discussed above. Therefore, claims 3–9 are indefinite for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Independent claim 10 similarly recites “the second field set comprises a first field and a second field, and the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI comprises only the second field in the second field set.” For the reasons explained with respect to claim 1, it is unclear whether “only” excludes the first field, every other field of the second field set, or every other field of the first NLRI, including the expressly recited first field set and first indication information. Accordingly, the scope of claim 10 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 12 further recites “obtaining the first route when the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI further comprises only the second field in the second field set.” This language does not resolve the ambiguity concerning the scope of “only.”
Claim 12 is additionally indefinite because it recites two mutually inconsistent alternatives when considered in view of claim 10. Claim 10 requires that the first indication information indicate that the first NLRI comprises the second field in the second field set. Claim 12 nevertheless recites, as one alternative, “obtaining the first route when the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI does not comprise the second field set.” It is unclear how the first NLRI can satisfy claim 10 by comprising the second field in the second field set while also satisfying the recited alternative of claim 12 by not comprising the second field set. Consequently, the metes and bounds of claim 12 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 13 recites “the first indication information indicates, in a bit mapping manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field; or the first indication information indicates, in an enumeration manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field.” For the reasons explained with respect to claim 2, it remains unclear what other fields are excluded by “only.”
Claims 14–18 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 10 and do not resolve the ambiguity discussed above. Therefore, claims 14–18 are indefinite for at least the same reason as claim 10.
Independent claim 19 recites “the second field set comprises a first field and a second field, and the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI comprises only the second field in the second field set.” For the reasons explained with respect to claims 1 and 10, it is unclear which fields are excluded by “only,” and the scope of claim 19 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 20 further recites “the first indication information indicates, in a bit mapping manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field; or the first indication information indicates, in an enumeration manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field.” This language does not resolve the ambiguity because it remains unclear whether “only” excludes merely the recited first field, all other fields in the second field set, or all other fields in the first NLRI.
Claim 21 depends from claim 19 and does not resolve the ambiguity discussed above. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite for at least the same reason as claim 19.
The ambiguity may be resolved by replacing each occurrence of “comprises only the second field” with language consistent with the specification, such as:
“does not comprise the first field in the second field set and comprises the second field in the second field set.”
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4,10, 12–15, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al. (US 2014/0086253 A1) in view of Li (US 2016/0112255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yong teaches “[a] method, performed by a first communication apparatus, wherein the method comprises.” Yong discloses network elements, including a network virtualization edge (NVE) or overlay virtual gateway (OVG), configured to perform BGP control-plane operations, including joining an overlay virtual network, advertising supported routes and corresponding encapsulation types, obtaining routes and encapsulation information advertised by other network elements, and maintaining forwarding information based thereon (Yong, ¶¶ 12–13, 27–28, 45–47, 53–54).
Yong further teaches “obtaining a border gateway protocol (BGP) message, wherein the BGP message comprises first network layer reachability information (NLRI) that is for advertising a first route.” Yong discloses obtaining or generating a BGP Update message 1400 for transmission to a BGP peer. BGP Update message 1400 advertises feasible routes and includes a variable-sized MP_REACH_NLRI field 1420 (Yong, ¶ 65; Fig. 14).
Yong further teaches “the first NLRI comprises a first field set and first indication information, the first field set carries necessary routing information of the first route.” Yong discloses that MP_REACH_NLRI field 1420 includes an address-family-identifier field 1431, a subsequent-address-family-identifier field 1432, a next-hop-address-length field 1433, a next-hop-network-address field 1434, and an NLRI field 1435. These fields carry information identifying the address family, route type, next-hop length, next-hop address, and advertised route and therefore constitute a first field set carrying routing information necessary to advertise and process the route (Yong, ¶ 65; Fig. 14). Yong further discloses type and length information associated with its TLV and sub-TLV structures for identifying the type and length of the corresponding encoded information (Yong, ¶¶ 61–65; Figs. 11–14).
Yong further teaches “wherein each field in a second field set carries optional routing information of the first route.” Yong discloses that NLRI field 1435 may include an optional transitive tunnel-encapsulation attribute TLV 1440 associated with the advertised route. The tunnel-encapsulation attribute may comprise an encapsulation sub-TLV 1441, a protocol-type sub-TLV 1442, and a color sub-TLV 1443, which respectively carry the supported encapsulation type, the type of payload to be encapsulated, and color information associated with the tunnel for the advertised route (Yong, ¶¶ 65–66; Fig. 14).
Yong further teaches “and sending the BGP message to a second communication apparatus.” Yong discloses sending BGP Update messages to BGP peers to advertise feasible routes and supported tunnel-encapsulation types to other NVEs or OVGs in the overlay virtual network (Yong, ¶¶ 12–13, 47, 53–54, 65–66).
Yong does not expressly teach “the second field set comprises a first field and a second field, and the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI comprises only the second field in the second field set,” reasonably interpreted in light of the specification as requiring indication information identifying that a first optional-routing-information field is absent and a second optional-routing-information field is present.
Li teaches this missing subject matter. Li discloses a BGP-based virtual private network in which a PE device generates and sends a BGP Update message containing NLRI to a BGP neighbor. The NLRI includes route-identifying information, including a route-type field, a route-distinguisher field, and an originator-IP-address field (Li, ¶¶ 95–104).
Li further discloses a second field set comprising a first optional address field and a second optional address field. The first address field carries the IP address of an active root PE device protected by the transmitting PE device, while the second address field carries the IP address of an active leaf PE device protected by the transmitting PE device. Li expressly characterizes both address fields as optional fields within the NLRI (Li, ¶¶ 105–107; Table 2).
Li further discloses first indication information comprising a first indication field and a second indication field. The first indication field indicates whether the NLRI carries the first optional address field, and the second indication field indicates whether the NLRI carries the second optional address field (Li, ¶¶ 105–107). A value of 1 in the first indication field indicates that the NLRI carries the first address field, while a value of 0 indicates that the NLRI does not carry the first address field. Correspondingly, a value of 1 in the second indication field indicates that the NLRI carries the second address field, while a value of 0 indicates that the NLRI does not carry the second address field (Li, ¶ 107).
Accordingly, when the first indication field has a value indicating that the first address field is absent and the second indication field has a value indicating that the second address field is present, Li’s indication information indicates that the NLRI comprises the second optional field but not the first optional field. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Li’s two indication fields collectively constitute the claimed “first indication information,” and its first and second optional address fields constitute the claimed first and second fields of the second field set.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Li’s field-specific presence indications into Yong’s BGP NLRI. Yong and Li both concern communicating route-related information to BGP peers through BGP Update messages containing NLRI. Employing Li’s indication fields in Yong’s NLRI would have predictably enabled a receiving BGP peer to determine which conditionally applicable routing-information fields were included, correctly parse the included optional information, and avoid transmitting optional fields that were not applicable to the advertised route. Such a modification would have involved applying Li’s known field-presence signaling technique to Yong’s known BGP route-advertisement message according to its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Li further teaches the first indication information comprises a plurality of bits, and the first indication information indicates, in a bit mapping manner, that the first NLRI comprises only the second field. In particular, Li describes a first indication field E and a second indication field E associated respectively with two optional address fields. Each indication field uses a binary value: “1” indicates that the corresponding optional field is carried, and “0” indicates that the corresponding optional field is not carried. Thus, the two indication fields collectively constitute a plurality of bits that provide a bit mapping of the optional fields present in the NLRI. A first bit value of zero and a second bit value of one indicate that the NLRI omits the first optional field and includes only the second optional field among the two optional fields. Li ¶¶ 105–107 and Table 2. Because claim 2 recites the bit-mapping and enumeration implementations in the alternative, Li’s teaching of the bit-mapping implementation is sufficient.
Regarding claim 3, Yong further teaches the BGP message comprises a plurality of pieces of NLRI, the plurality of pieces of NLRI comprise the first NLRI and second NLRI, and the BGP message further comprises a common information field and a plurality of dedicated information fields corresponding to the plurality of pieces of NLRI respectively, wherein the common information field carries same information of the plurality of pieces of NLRI, each of the plurality of dedicated information fields carries information other than the same information of each of the plurality of pieces of NLRI. Yong teaches a BGP Update message containing an MP_REACH_NLRI attribute that advertises feasible routes. The MP_REACH_NLRI attribute includes common AFI, SAFI, next-hop-length, and next-hop-address fields, followed by an NLRI field carrying the individual advertised routes. The AFI, SAFI, and next-hop information applies commonly to the plurality of NLRIs, while each individual NLRI contains information dedicated to its corresponding route. Yong ¶ 65 and Fig. 14; see also Yong’s express incorporation of RFC 4760.
Regarding claim 4, Yong further teaches the BGP message comprises third NLRI, wherein the third NLRI comprises the common information field and the dedicated information fields, and the plurality of pieces of NLRI are a plurality of pieces of sub-NLRI in the third NLRI. In Yong’s MP_REACH_NLRI structure, the overall MP_REACH_NLRI attribute constitutes the claimed third NLRI and includes both the common AFI/SAFI/next-hop fields and the NLRI field containing the multiple route-specific NLRIs. The individually encoded routes within the NLRI field constitute the claimed sub-NLRIs. Yong ¶ 65 and Fig. 14.
Claim 10 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 from the complementary perspective of the receiving communication apparatus. In particular, claim 10 recites receiving the BGP message and obtaining the advertised route based on the message, instead of obtaining and sending the message. Yong teaches BGP peers receiving route advertisements and using the advertised routing information. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Li further teaches parsing the BGP message to obtain the first field set and the first indication information; obtaining the first route when the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI does not comprise the second field set, wherein the first route comprises routing information carried in each field in the first field set; or obtaining the first route when the first indication information indicates that the first NLRI comprises only the second field in the second field set, wherein the first route comprises routing information carried in each field in the first field set and routing information carried in the second field. Li teaches that a receiving PE determines, from the binary values in the first and second indication fields E, whether the associated optional address fields are carried in the received NLRI. The receiver consequently parses and obtains the route using the required NLRI fields together with whichever optional fields the indication values identify as present. A value indicating that neither optional field is carried corresponds to obtaining the route from the required fields without the second field set; values indicating that the first optional field is absent and the second optional field is present correspond to obtaining the route from the required fields and only the second optional field (Li, ¶¶ 105–107 and Table 2).
Claim 13 recites substantially the same indication-information alternatives as claim 2, but from the receiving-apparatus perspective. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 2.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same common-information-field and dedicated-information-field arrangement as claim 3, but depends from receiving-method claim 10. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 3.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same third-NLRI and sub-NLRI arrangement as claim 4, but depends from receiving-method claim 14. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 4.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 in communication-apparatus form, including a processor and memory that enable the apparatus to obtain and send the recited BGP message. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 1. Implementing Yong and Li’s BGP operations using a processor executing instructions stored in memory would have been a conventional and predictable implementation.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same bit-mapping and enumeration alternatives as claim 2 in communication-apparatus form. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 2.
Claim 21 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 in communication-apparatus form, including wherein the BGP message comprises a plurality of pieces of NLRI, the plurality of pieces of NLRI comprise the first NLRI and second NLRI, and the BGP message further comprises a common information field and a plurality of dedicated information fields corresponding to the plurality of pieces of NLRI respectively, wherein the common information field carries same information of the plurality of pieces of NLRI, each of the plurality of dedicated information fields carries information other than the same information of each of the plurality of pieces of NLRI. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 3. Yong’s MP_REACH_NLRI attribute includes common AFI, SAFI, next-hop-length, and next-hop-address information applicable to the advertised NLRIs and individual NLRI encodings containing route-specific information (Yong, ¶ 65 and Fig. 14).
Claims 5–9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yong in view of Li, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brissette et al. (US 2018/0375763 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yong and Li does not specifically disclose wherein the first route is a first Ethernet virtual private network (EVPN) route, and the first NLRI is a first EVPN NLRI. However, Brissette teaches advertising EVPN routes through MP-BGP, including EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement Routes and EVPN IP Prefix Routes, such that the advertised route is an EVPN route and the corresponding NLRI is an EVPN NLRI (Brissette, ¶¶ 83–84 and 92–93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Li’s field-presence indication mechanism to the EVPN NLRIs taught by Brissette when implementing Yong’s BGP route-advertisement system. The motivation would have been to identify which optional EVPN fields are present, permit the omission of fields that are unnecessary for a particular route, and reduce signaling overhead while enabling the receiving BGP peer to parse the advertised EVPN NLRI properly.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yong and Li does not specifically disclose wherein an encoding format of the first EVPN NLRI is different from an encoding format of an EVPN NLRI defined in Request for Comments (RFC) 7432. However, Brissette teaches an SRv6-enhanced EVPN encoding in which an EVPN route is advertised with SRv6 information, including an SRv6-VPN SID TLV, and conventional MPLS-label fields may be populated with an implicit-null value. Brissette’s SRv6-enhanced encoding therefore differs from the MPLS-based EVPN encoding defined in RFC 7432 (Brissette, ¶¶ 74–82 and 84–85; Figs. 3A–4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Brissette’s modified EVPN encoding in the BGP route-advertisement system of Yong and Li to support an SRv6 underlay and convey SRv6 forwarding information using BGP EVPN signaling.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yong and Li does not specifically disclose wherein the first EVPN route is a compressed MAC/IP advertisement route, the optional routing information comprises an Ethernet segment identifier and an Ethernet tag identifier. However, Brissette teaches an EVPN Type-2 MAC/IP Advertisement Route encoded with, inter alia, a Route Distinguisher, an Ethernet Segment Identifier, an Ethernet Tag ID, MAC-address information, IP-address information, and MPLS-label information (Brissette, ¶¶ 83–84). Li further teaches selectively omitting optional NLRI fields and using indication bits to identify which optional fields are present (Li, ¶¶ 105–107 and Table 2). Applying Li’s selective-field encoding to Brissette’s MAC/IP Advertisement Route produces a shortened or “compressed” MAC/IP Advertisement Route in which the Ethernet Segment Identifier and Ethernet Tag ID are optional routing information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Li’s field-presence indication mechanism to Brissette’s MAC/IP Advertisement Route to permit unnecessary fields to be omitted, reduce the size of the BGP advertisement, and enable the receiving apparatus to identify and parse the optional fields that remain.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yong and Li does not specifically disclose wherein the optional routing information further comprises a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) label2. However, Brissette teaches that its EVPN Type-2 MAC/IP Advertisement Route includes MPLS Label-1 and MPLS Label-2, with MPLS Label-2 occupying zero or three octets (Brissette, ¶ 84). Thus, Brissette teaches MPLS Label2 as a field that may be absent or present in the advertised EVPN NLRI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Brissette’s MPLS Label2 among the optional routing-information fields governed by Li’s indication information. Doing so would permit the advertising apparatus to omit Label2 when it is unnecessary and would enable the receiving apparatus to determine whether Label2 is present and parse the EVPN NLRI accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yong and Li does not specifically disclose wherein the first EVPN route is a compressed IP prefix route, the optional routing information comprises an Ethernet segment identifier, an Ethernet tag identifier, and a gateway IP address. However, Brissette teaches an EVPN Type-5 IP Prefix Route used to advertise IP-prefix reachability through MP-BGP. Brissette further teaches that the Type-5 route encoding includes a Route Distinguisher, an Ethernet Segment Identifier, an Ethernet Tag ID, an IP Prefix Length, an IP Prefix, a gateway address, and an MPLS label (Brissette, ¶¶ 92–93). Li further teaches selectively omitting optional NLRI fields and providing indication information identifying the optional fields present (Li, ¶¶ 105–107 and Table 2). Applying Li’s selective-field encoding to Brissette’s Type-5 route produces a shortened or “compressed” IP Prefix Route in which the Ethernet Segment Identifier, Ethernet Tag ID, and gateway IP address constitute optional routing information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Li’s field-presence indication mechanism to Brissette’s IP Prefix Route to omit fields that are unnecessary in a particular advertisement, reduce BGP signaling overhead, and allow the receiving apparatus to determine which optional Type-5 fields are present.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same EVPN-route and EVPN-NLRI limitations as claim 5, but depends from receiving-method claim 10. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 5.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same EVPN-NLRI encoding-format limitation as claim 6, but depends from receiving-method claim 16. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons set forth regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yong and Li does not specifically disclose wherein the first EVPN NLRI comprises a route type field, and the first EVPN route indicated by the route type field comprises: a compressed media access control/internet protocol advertisement route; a compressed IP prefix route; a compressed Ethernet auto-discovery route; a compressed inclusive multicast Ethernet tag route; or a compressed Ethernet segment route. However, Brissette teaches EVPN NLRIs having route-type fields identifying, among other alternatives, a Type-2 MAC/IP Advertisement Route and a Type-5 IP Prefix Route (Brissette, ¶¶ 83–84 and 92–93). Li teaches selectively omitting optional NLRI fields and providing indication information identifying the fields that remain. Applying Li’s selective-field encoding to either Brissette’s Type-2 route or Type-5 route produces the claimed compressed route. Because the listed route types are recited in the alternative, teaching either the compressed MAC/IP Advertisement Route or the compressed IP Prefix Route satisfies claim 18.
It would have been obvious to apply Li’s field-presence indication mechanism to Brissette’s EVPN route types to omit unnecessary fields, reduce the size of the route advertisement, and enable the receiver to identify and parse the remaining fields.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights