DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection previously presented. Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are still pending on the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 and 18-20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-12 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-20220167114-A1, Published: 2022-05-26) hereinafter Patel in view of Saghir et al. (US-20250088852-A1, EFD: 2023-09-11) hereinafter Saghir.
Regarding Claims 1, 18 and 21, Patel discloses a computer-implemented method, system and non-transitory computer storage medium comprising: determining a user equipment (UE) location of a UE (Patel, Fig. 5, Par.10; device-centric techniques are used for acquiring location information of an end device to compare against the applicable geo-fencing), wherein a UE type of the UE is fixed wireless access (FWA) (Patel, Fig. 5, par. 10; establishing geo-fencing for a designated service location for an FWA device); and based on geofencing logic applied to the UE location, the UE type, and a UE identifier of the UE, allowing or denying a connection of the UE to a telecommunications network (Patel, Fig. 5, par. 60; When it is determined that FWA device 120 is operating within the applicable geo-fencing (block 550—NO), MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may grant the request, for example, by completing the attach or registration procedures, enabling the requested network service(s), and process 500 may return to block 530 to wait for further requests from UE device 134 via FWA device 120. Alternatively, when it is determined that FWA device 120 is operating beyond the applicable geo-fencing (block 550—YES), MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may deny the request and/or disable the requested network service(s) or throttle data service to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 570) and may issue instructions to control network access to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 580)), instant applications defines a UE type as an FWA, see fig. 5, step 506, par. 68 of the instant application.
Patel does not explicitly disclose a geofencing logic applied based on a UE identifier, however, in analogous art, Saghir et al. discloses a system for inter radio access technology handover, which teaches granting or denying access to a wireless network (Saghir et al., figs .5A-6C, par. 46; base station 113-1 determines (at 416) whether a handover of UE 101 from base station 109 to base station 113-1 should be allowed or not allowed). based on different UE conditions, such as a UE identifier and a UE type (Saghir et al. par. 27; The access polices for RANs 105 may include access lists or other suitable indicators of UEs that are authorized to access particular RANs 105. For example, the RAN access policies may include an indication that a first group of UEs (e.g., UE_Group_A) is authorized to access RAN_A (e.g., an association between UE_Group_A and RAN_A), an indication that a second group of UEs (e.g., UE_Group_B) is authorized to access RAN_B, and an indication that a third group of UEs (e.g., UE_Group_C) is authorized to access RAN_C. As noted above, such association information may include indications that respective groups of UEs are on an access list that is associated with respective RAN identifiers (e.g., CSG identifiers). Although discussed herein as “UE_Group_A,” “UE_Group_B,” etc., the access lists or indications of authorized UEs may be denoted in some other suitable manner, such as values or ranges of values for UE identifiers (e.g., International Mobile Station Equipment Identity (“IMEI”) values, Subscription Permanent Identifier (“SUPI”) values, Globally Unique Temporary Identifier (“GUTI”) values, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (“IMSI”) values, etc.), types or categories of UEs (e.g., “first responder,” “enterprise,” “IoT device,” etc.), or the like).
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine Patel’s teachings granting network access based on geofencing of FWA with Saghir’s methods for allowing or denying network access based on different UE’s conditions to enhance Network handover and enhance networks access based on restriction of UE identifiers or lists.
Regarding Claims 2 and 22, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach, the computer-implemented method and non-transitory storage computer storage medium according to claims 1 and 21, wherein the determining includes receiving, by a base station of the telecommunications network, a timing advance signal from the UE (Patel, Par. 23; RAN 140 may include a 4G base station 150 (e.g., an evolved Node B (eNB)) and a 5G base station 160 (e.g., a next generation Node B (gNB)). 4G base station 150 and 5G base station 160 may each include one or multiple cells that include devices and/or components configured to enable radio communication with FWA devices 120), and the allowing or denying includes evaluating, with the geofencing logic, the timing advance signal to determine whether the UE is within a geofence where telecommunications network access is permitted for the UE (Patel, Fig. 5, par. 60; When it is determined that FWA device 120 is operating within the applicable geo-fencing (block 550—NO), MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may grant the request, for example, by completing the attach or registration procedures, enabling the requested network service(s), and process 500 may return to block 530 to wait for further requests from UE device 134 via FWA device 120. Alternatively, when it is determined that FWA device 120 is operating beyond the applicable geo-fencing (block 550—YES), MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may deny the request and/or disable the requested network service(s) or throttle data service to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 570) and may issue instructions to control network access to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 580)).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 3 and 23, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach, the computer-implemented method and non-transitory storage computer storage medium according to claims 1 and 21, wherein the determining includes determining, with a global positioning system (GPS) sensor of the UE, the UE location, and the method further comprises providing the UE location to the telecommunications network (Patel, par. 56; Geo-fencing may be provisioned for the FWA services to control the customer's access to network services based on the designated service location (block 520). In some implementations, provisioning system 180 and/or one or more network nodes of core network 145 may provision the geo-fencing to correspond to a geographic location of varying granularity corresponding to, for example, GPS data obtained for FWA device 120, secure user plane location (SUPL) data obtained for FWA device 120, LTE positioning protocol annex (LPPa) data obtained for FWA device 120, etc).
Regarding Claims 4 and 24, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach, the computer-implemented method and non-transitory storage computer storage medium according to claims 1 and 21, wherein the determining includes determining that an Internet Protocol (IP) address (Patel, par. 20; RAN 140 may establish or may be incorporated into a PDN connection between FWA device 120 and PDN 170 via one or more access point names (APNs). For example, RAN 140 may establish an Internet Protocol (IP) connection between FWA device 120 and PDN 170.) of the UE has changed and determining a change to the UE location based on determining that the IP address of the UE has changed (Patel, par. 58; In response to the network service-related request, one or more nodes in core network 145, such as MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340), may determine a location of FWA device 120 (block 540). As an example, MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) and/or HSS 270 (or UDM 350) may use one or multiple types of data and/or one or multiple procedures to determine a location from which the network service-related request was sent)
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining permission of a user of the UE to track the UE location (Patel, par. 37; HSS 270 may store subscription profiles that include authentication, access, and/or authorization information. Each subscription profile may include information identifying FWA device 120, authentication and/or authorization information for FWA device 120, services enabled and/or authorized for FWA device 120, device group membership information for FWA device 120, and/or other types of information associated with FWA device 120) Examiner notes, it is implied by Patel the location determination is object to consent of the user (Patel, par. 77; the collection, storage and use of such information may be subject to consent of the individual to such activity, for example, through well known “opt-in” or “opt-out” processes as may be appropriate for the situation and type of information) analogous to obtaining permission from the user to track the UE, and the determining includes determining the UE location using a restricted UE location tracking mechanism (Patel, par. 19; UE device 134 may correspond to an embedded wireless device that communicates wirelessly with like devices over an M2M interface using MTC and/or another type of M2M communication … such devices may include a health monitoring device (e.g., a blood pressure monitoring device, a blood glucose monitoring device, etc.), an asset tracking device (e.g., a system monitoring the geographic location of a fleet of vehicles, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the UE includes a client application, and the client application performs the determining and either informs the telecommunications network of the UE location, the UE type, and the UE identifier or performs the allowing or denying itself (Patel, Fig. 7, par. 68; FWA system 190 may send the whitelist to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 via an application programming interface (API) (signal 770). Additionally, or alternatively, OMA-DM 710 may send the whitelist to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (signal 780). UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 may store the whitelist (block 790). Subsequently, when UE device 134 connects to RAN 140 via FWA device 120, UE device 134 may consult the whitelist to determine whether the network connection is to a whitelisted eNB 150 (or gNB 160) and thus within the applicable geo-fencing, or not, in which case the network connection may be disabled or redirected).
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the allowing or denying comprises a core network node of the telecommunications network providing instructions to a base station of the telecommunications network to detach or de-register from the UE (Patel, par. 42; SMF 340 may perform session establishment, session modification, and/or session release, perform IP address allocation and management, perform Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) functions, perform selection and control of UPF 330, configure traffic steering at UPF 330 to guide the traffic to the correct destinations, terminate interfaces toward one or more node functions of core network 145, perform lawful intercepts, charge data collection, support charging interfaces, control and coordinate of charging data collection, terminate session management parts of NAS messages, perform downlink data notification, manage roaming functionality, and/or perform other types of control plane processes for managing user plane data).
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining is performed by the UE, a base station of the telecommunications network, or both (Patel, par. 58; In response to the network service-related request, one or more nodes in core network 145, such as MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340), may determine a location of FWA device 120 (block 540). As an example, MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) and/or HSS 270 (or UDM 350) may use one or multiple types of data and/or one or multiple procedures to determine a location from which the network service-related request was sent).
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the geofencing logic defines or utilizes a geofence, and the geofence is specific to a base station, a cell site, a group of cell sites, or a tracking area code (Patel, par. 11; The geo-fencing may correspond to a geographic location associated with a tracking area that is identified by a Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) that may include a PLMN ID and a Tracking Area Code (TAC)).
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the system of claim 18, wherein the UE location is determined based on a timing advance signal, on a global positioning system (GPS) sensor of the UE (Patel, par. 56; Geo-fencing may be provisioned for the FWA services to control the customer's access to network services based on the designated service location (block 520). In some implementations, provisioning system 180 and/or one or more network nodes of core network 145 may provision the geo-fencing to correspond to a geographic location of varying granularity corresponding to, for example, GPS data obtained for FWA device 120, secure user plane location (SUPL) data obtained for FWA device 120, LTE positioning protocol annex (LPPa) data obtained for FWA device 120, etc), on an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the UE (Patel, par. 20; RAN 140 may establish or may be incorporated into a PDN connection between FWA device 120 and PDN 170 via one or more access point names (APNs). For example, RAN 140 may establish an Internet Protocol (IP) connection between FWA device 120 and PDN 170.), on user permission from a user of the UE (Patel, par. 77; the collection, storage and use of such information may be subject to consent of the individual to such activity, for example, through well known “opt-in” or “opt-out” processes as may be appropriate for the situation and type of information), on a restricted UE location tracking mechanism (Patel, par. 19; UE device 134 may correspond to an embedded wireless device that communicates wirelessly with like devices over an M2M interface using MTC and/or another type of M2M communication … such devices may include a health monitoring device (e.g., a blood pressure monitoring device, a blood glucose monitoring device, etc.), an asset tracking device (e.g., a system monitoring the geographic location of a fleet of vehicles, etc.)), or on an allow list of a base station of the telecommunications network (Patel, par, 63; MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may check with HSS 270 (or UDM 350) to determine whether the eNB 150 (or gNB 160) is listed in the corresponding whitelist (signal 630)).
Regarding Claim 20, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the system of claim 18, wherein the allowing or denying are performed by geofencing logic that defines or utilizes a geofence, and the geofence is specific to a base station, a cell site, a group of cell sites, or a tracking area code (Patel, par. 11; The geo-fencing may correspond to a geographic location associated with a tracking area that is identified by a Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) that may include a PLMN ID and a Tracking Area Code (TAC)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-20220167114-A1, Published: 2022-05-26) hereinafter Patel in view of Saghir et al. (US-20250088852-A1, EFD: 2023-09-11) hereinafter Saghir and further in view of Waishampayan et al. (US-20220391933-A1, published: 2022-12-08) hereinafter Waishampayan.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the method of claim 1 wherein the determining includes gathering searching and browsing histories of the UE, performing a stochastic analysis on the searching and browsing histories, and determining either the UE location or whether the UE location has changed (Patel par. 58; one or more nodes in core network 145, such as MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340), may determine a location of FWA device 120 (block 540). As an example, MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) and/or HSS 270 (or UDM 350) may use one or multiple types of data and/or one or multiple procedures to determine a location from which the network service-related request was sent).
Patel does not explicitly teach a method performing a stochastic analysis on the searching and browsing histories, and determining either the UE location or whether the UE location has changed.
However, Waishampayan discloses a method to determine the location of different computing devices in a network using anonymous browser data (Waishampayan, par. 48; At 408, the computing device may determine location data associated with the browser session. For example, the data received from the browser session may include the location data, as described herein) in addition to installing cookies to track the position of the UE when using the browser (Waishampayan, par. 145; When the user opts-in to location tracking, the computing device may install, at 1510 a tracker (e.g., a cookie) in the browser application on the user computing device. The cookie may be configured to enable the computing device to retrieve geo-location data from the user computing device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Patel teachings for locating a FWA device in a network with Saghir’s methods for allowing and denying network access based on UE characteristics and Waishampayan’s method to located devices using browsing data to enhance the quality of service by improving the location determination of UEs.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-20220167114-A1, published: 2022-05-26) hereinafter Patel in view of Saghir et al. (US-20250088852-A1, EFD: 2023-09-11) hereinafter Saghir and further in view of Ward et al. (US-8150421-B2, published: 2012-04-03) hereinafter Ward.
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Patel and Saghir teach the method of claim 1 wherein the allowing or denying comprises denying the connection of the UE based on the UE type, regardless of the UE location (Patel, fig. 5, par. 60; when it is determined that FWA device 120 is operating beyond the applicable geo-fencing (block 550—YES), MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may deny the request and/or disable the requested network service(s) or throttle data service to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 570) and may issue instructions to control network access to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 580)) see also Saghir figs. 7-8.
The combination of Patel and Saghir does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the allowing or denying comprises denying the connection regardless of the UE location. However, Ward discloses a system and method to locate a UE using time difference of arrival and stablish geofences to manage service to the device in the network regardless of location (Ward, par. 212; the LDP, a location-aware device with radio communications to an external server with a database of service parameters and rules for use, can be used to grant, limit or deny service on the basis of not only location within a service area, but also on the basis of time, velocity, or altitude for a variety of electronic devices such as cell phones, PDAs, radar detectors, or other interactive systems. Time includes both time-of-day and also periods of time so duration of a service can be limited) see also Saghir fig. 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Patel teachings for locating a FWA device in a network with Saghir’s methods for allowing and denying network access based on UE characteristics and Ward’s method to manage service based on geofence data to enhance the quality of service of a telecommunication network.
Regarding Claim 13, Patel discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the allowing or denying includes allowing the connection of the UE to the telecommunications network for a limited time and, after the limited time, detaching from or deregistering the UE, and the computer-implemented method further comprises informing a user of the UE that the connection is allowed for the limited time (Patel, fig. 5, par. 60; when it is determined that FWA device 120 is operating beyond the applicable geo-fencing (block 550—YES), MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may deny the request and/or disable the requested network service(s) or throttle data service to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 570) and may issue instructions to control network access to UE device 134 and/or FWA device 120 (block 580)) see also Patel par. 36 and Saghir figs. 7-8
The combination of Patel and Saghir does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein allowing the connection of the UE to the telecommunications network for a limited time and, after the limited time, detaching from or deregistering the UE, and the computer-implemented method further comprises informing a user of the UE that the connection is allowed for the limited time.
However, Ward discloses a system and method to locate a UE using time difference of arrival and stablish geofences to manage service to the device in the network regardless of location including the basis of time (Ward, par. 212; the LDP, a location-aware device with radio communications to an external server with a database of service parameters and rules for use, can be used to grant, limit or deny service on the basis of not only location within a service area, but also on the basis of time, velocity, or altitude for a variety of electronic devices such as cell phones, PDAs, radar detectors, or other interactive systems. Time includes both time-of-day and also periods of time so duration of a service can be limited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Patel teachings for locating a FWA device in a network with Saghir’s methods for allowing and denying network access based on UE characteristics and Ward’s method to manage service based on geofence data to enhance the quality of service of a telecommunication network.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-20220167114-A1, published: 2022-05-26) hereinafter Patel in view of Saghir et al. (US-20250088852-A1, EFD: 2023-09-11) hereinafter Saghir and further in view of Davydov et al. (US-10264397-B2, published: 2019-04-16) hereinafter Davydov.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Patel and Saghir discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining includes using multiple mechanisms to determine the UE location (Patel, par. 58; In response to the network service-related request, one or more nodes in core network 145, such as MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340), may determine a location of FWA device) and the geofence logic (Patel, par. 29; FWA device system 190 may provide information relating to one or multiple geo-fencing parameters to UE device 134 and UE device 134 may use the information for establishing network connections via FWA device 120) uses a hierarchy of the multiple mechanisms to select a result of one of the multiple mechanisms as the UE location (Patel, par. 59; The location information for FWA device 120 may be compared to geo-fencing parameters established for FWA device 120 and a determination made as to whether FWA device 120 is operating outside of the geo-fencing (block 550). As an example, MME 250 (or AMF 320/SMF 340) may compare GPS data, SUPL data, LPPa data, cell ID data, eCGI data, and/or TAC data, to geographic parameters for the established geo-fencing defined in the subscriber profile associated with FWA 120.). Examiner notes, the comparison of the location information with the stablished geofencing parameters can inherently lead to choose the best result (hierarchy) of the UE location based on the proximity to the geofence or equipment thereof.
The combination of Patel and Saghir does not explicitly disclose a method to select the position of the UE based on hierarchy, however, Davydov discloses the use of a rank indicator based on the measurement of downlink signal interference (Davidov, par. 23; The CSI report can include a channel quality indicator (CQI), a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a precoding type indicator (PTI), and/or rank indication (RI) reporting type).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Patel teachings for locating a FWA device in a network with Saghir’s methods for allowing and denying network access based on UE characteristics and Davydov system to determine the location of a UE in a cellular network to use CSI or ranking indications to enhance the position determination of a UE in a network.
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123
Other Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steben et al. (US-11792282-B1), System And Method For Determining Device Location And Providing Access Authorization, 2023. In the various embodiments, systems and methods are disclosed for determining the location of User Equipment (UE) in a network and for authorizing access to content based on said location. An aspect of the present disclosure is a method including receiving, by a Content Authorization Function (CAF), a request to provide a UE type of a UE and a physical location associated with the UE, the request including a UE Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the UE; querying, by the CAF, a Network Function (NF), to provide the UE type and associated physical location, the query including the UE IP address; receiving, by the CAF from the NF, the UE type and associated physical location; and transmitting the UE type and associated physical location.
Manolakos et al. (US-20220091221-A1), Relative Location Reporting For UE Based Positioning, 2022. A user equipment (UE) reports its own position using reference location information messages and relative location information messages. An example method performed by a first UE includes determining a first location of the first UE based on positioning measurements, transmitting a reference location information message indicating the first location, determining one or more subsequent locations of the first UE based on subsequent positioning measurements, and transmitting one or more relative location information messages, each of the one or more relative location information messages indicating a subsequent location for the UE based on relative information with respect to the first location
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 MARIO R CAMPERO MIRAMONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 0600 - 1600.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MARIO R CAMPERO MIRAMONTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights