Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
The failure of the combination of Nayak and Lee to teach or suggest each and every element of claim 21 renders moot the obviousness rejection of claim 21. Therefore, claim 21 is not obvious over Nayak in view of Lee. In the rejection, the Office Action states that, "Nayak writes, 'Further, the method includes receiving, by the NSACF apparatus, a number of UEs per slice update request message from the first AMF apparatus to decrease the count of quota during a planned AMF removal at the first AMF apparatus' (paragraph 0032)" and specifically admits that Nayak fails to teach or suggest the elements of, "create a second entry in the list of devices registered with the network slice based at least in part on the first request, wherein the second entry associates the device identity with a second identity of the second AMF" (Office Action, pages 3-4). That is, the Office Action alleges that Nayak teaches an NSACF receiving a second entry, but acknowledges that the NSACF does not create the second entry. The Office Action then alleges that the secondary reference, Lee, cures the defects of Nayak
The examiner calls attention to the references of NAYAK and LEE. LEE writes, “In operation S1024, the first AMF 1001 may transmit the UE context of the UE 1000 to the second AMF 1002. The UE context may include first allowed NSSAI (old allowed NSSAI) assigned to the UE 1000 by the first AMF 1001 in operation S1018. In operation S1026, the second AMF 1002 may assign second allowed NSSAI (new allowed NSSAI) to the UE 1000, and a registration accept message of operation S1026 may include the second allowed NSSAI” (column 17, lines 49-57). LEE indicates the first NSSAI (Network Slice Selection Assistance Information), the old allowed NSSAI, is assigned from the first AMF and that the second AMF may assign a second NSSAI, new allowed NSSAI, to the UE. Therefore, the first and second AMF provide old and new information to the UE. NAYAK writes, “The NSACF apparatus (200) has maintained the UE IDs for corresponding UE1-UE4 tagged to the old AMF apparatus. At S302, the AMF is planned for removal. At S303a and S303b, the new AMF apparatus (100b) sends a Nnsacf_NumberofUEsPerSliceAvailibilityCheckAndUpdate_request to the NSACF apparatus (200). At S304a and S304b, the NSACF apparatus (200) sends the Nnsacf_NumberofUEsPerSliceAvailibilityCheckAndUpdate_response to the new AMF apparatus (100b). But, the NSACF apparatus (200) does not aware removal of the old AMF apparatus (100a). Hence, as per the existing procedures, the NSACF apparatus (200) create an entry for the first UE by tagging to the new AMF apparatus (100b) and keep the existing entry of the old AMF apparatus (100a)” (paragraph 0094). NAYAK indicates the NSACF apparatus maintains a list of UE IDs for UE1-UE4 that are tagged to the old AMF apparatus (i.e. first AMF). If the old AMF is planned for removal, the NSACF apparatus creates an entry for the first UE that is tagged to the new AMF apparatus (i.e. second AMF). NAYAK specifies that NSACF apparatus both creates the new entry for the new AMF apparatus and keeps the existing entry for the old AMF apparatus.
Therefore, the arguments are found to be not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 21 remain. Likewise, the rejections of the dependent claims persist.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-27, 29-35, and 37 -40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK et al. (US 20240244507 A1, hereinafter, "NAYAK") in view of LEE et al. (US 12219468 B2, hereinafter, "LEE").
Regarding claim 21, NAYAK teaches a network slice admission control function (NSACF) in a
mobile communication network (paragraph 0141; figure 9d, NSACF apparatus: 200), comprising:
at least one memory (paragraph 0141; figure 9d, memory: 230);
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (paragraph 0141; figure 9d,
processor: 210) and configured to cause the NSACF to:
store a list of devices registered with a network slice, the list comprising a first entry of a
device identity associated with a first access management function (AMF) identity of a first AMF;
NAYAK writes, “In order to enforce these attributes, the 3GPP Rel-17 defines a functional entity
“Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF)” which monitors and controls the number of User
Equipments (UEs) registered to a network slice. The NSACF is configured with the maximum number of
UEs per network slice and is expected to be consulted (by AMF) while admitting a UE to the network”
(paragraph 0010). NAYAK continues, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls
(i.e. increases or decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not
exceed the maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also
maintains a list of UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control” (paragraph
0011). NAYAK adds, “Further, the method includes sending, by the first AMF apparatus, a number of UEs
per slice update request message to the NSACF apparatus to decrease the count of the quota, wherein
the number of UEs per slice update request message comprises the list of identities of the plurality of
UEs. Further, the method includes receiving, by the first AMF apparatus, a number of UEs per slice
update response message from the NSACF apparatus confirming decrease in the count and the quota is
available for other UEs, wherein the number of UEs per slice update response message comprises the
list of identities of the plurality of UEs” (paragraph 0024). NAYAK indicates the NSACF monitors and
controls the number of UEs registered to the network slice and maintains a list of UE IDs registered with
a network slice that is subject to admission control. NAYAK states the first AMF sends a number of UEs
per slice update request message to the NSACF that comprises the list of identities of the plurality of
UEs.
receive, from the first AMF, a second request comprising an indication to decrease the
number of devices registered with the network slice;
NAYAK writes, “Further, the method includes receiving, by the NSACF apparatus, a number of UEs per
slice update request message from the first AMF apparatus to decrease the count of the quota during a
planned AMF removal at the first AMF apparatus” (paragraph 0032).
and remove the first entry of the device identity associated with the first AMF identity of the first AMF from the list of devices registered with the network slice in response to receiving the second request and based at least in part on the indication to decrease the number of devices registered with the network slice included in the second request from the first AMF.
NAYAK writes, “The number of UEs per slice update request message comprises the list of identities of
the plurality of UEs. Further, the method includes decreasing, by the NSACF apparatus, the count by
removing entries of the plurality of UEs based on the list of identities provided in the number of UEs per
slice update request message” (paragraph 0028). NAYAK adds, “UEs per slice update request message (paragraph 0028). Further, the NSACF apparatus (200) is configured to remove entries corresponding to the first UE and the second UE (300b) registered at the first AMF apparatus (100a). Further, the NSACF apparatus (200) is configured to associate the entries corresponding to the first UE and the second UE (300b) previously registered at the first AMF apparatus (100a) to the second AMF apparatus (100b) without increasing the count” (paragraph 0124). NAYAK continues, “Further, the NSACF apparatus (200) is configured to detect the count the UEs registered at the first AMF apparatus (100a) and is already associated with the second AMF apparatus (100b) and send the number of UEs per slice availability check and update response message to the second AMF apparatus (100b) without increasing in the count, wherein the number of UEs per slice update response message comprises a list of identities of the at least one UE” (paragraph 0125).
NAYAK fails to explicitly fully disclose information regarding, “create a second entry in the list of
devices registered with the network slice based at least in part on the first request, wherein the
second entry associates the device identity with a second AMF identity of the second AMF;”
However, in analogous art, LEE teaches in conjunction with NAYAK create a second entry in the list of devices registered with the network slice based at least in part on the first request, wherein the second entry associates the device identity with a second AMF identity of the second AMF;
LEE writes, “In operation S1024, the first AMF 1001 may transmit the UE context of the UE 1000 to the
second AMF 1002. The UE context may include first allowed NSSAI (old allowed NSSAI) assigned to the
UE 1000 by the first AMF 1001 in operation S1018. In operation S1026, the second AMF 1002 may assign
second allowed NSSAI (new allowed NSSAI) to the UE 1000, and a registration accept message of
operation S1026 may include the second allowed NSSAI” (column 17, lines 49-57). LEE indicates the first NSSAI (Network Slice Selection Assistance Information), the old allowed NSSAI, is assigned from the first AMF and that the second AMF may assign a second NSSAI, new allowed NSSAI, to the UE. Therefore, the first and second AMF provide old and new information to the UE. NAYAK writes, “The NSACF apparatus (200) has maintained the UE IDs for corresponding UE1-UE4 tagged to the old AMF apparatus. At S302, the AMF is planned for removal. At S303a and S303b, the new AMF apparatus (100b) sends a Nnsacf_NumberofUEsPerSliceAvailibilityCheckAndUpdate_request to the NSACF apparatus (200). At S304a and S304b, the NSACF apparatus (200) sends the Nnsacf_NumberofUEsPerSliceAvailibilityCheckAndUpdate_response to the new AMF apparatus (100b). But, the NSACF apparatus (200) does not aware removal of the old AMF apparatus (100a). Hence, as per the existing procedures, the NSACF apparatus (200) create an entry for the first UE by tagging to the new AMF apparatus (100b) and keep the existing entry of the old AMF apparatus (100a)” (paragraph 0094). NAYAK indicates the NSACF apparatus maintains a list of UE IDs for UE1-UE4 that are tagged to the old AMF apparatus (i.e. first AMF). If the old AMF is planned for removal, the NSACF apparatus creates an entry for the first UE that is tagged to the new AMF apparatus (i.e. second AMF). NAYAK specifies that NSACF apparatus both creates the new entry for the new AMF apparatus and keeps the existing entry for the old AMF apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of NAYAK to include aspects described by
LEE that “elates to a method and an apparatus for managing a network slice in a wireless communication system or a mobile communication system. More particularly, the disclosure relates to a
method performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) for managing a network slice
in a wireless communication system.” LEE provides the motivation for modification stating, “In addition,
for improvement in frequency efficiency and the system network, the techniques have been developed
for the 6G communication systems, such as a full duplex technique for enabling uplink transmission and
downlink transmission to simultaneously use the same frequency resource at the same time, a network
technique using a satellite, a high-altitude platform station (HAPS), or the like, in an integrated manner,
a network architecture improvement technique for supporting mobile base stations, etc. and enabling
optimization, automation, or the like, of network operations, a dynamic spectrum-sharing technique
through collision avoidance based on prediction of spectrum usage, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based
communication technique for realizing system optimization by using AI from a designing stage and
internalizing an end-to-end AI support function, and a next-generation distributed-computing technique
for realizing complex services beyond the limit of terminal calculation capacities by using ultra-high-
performance communication and computing resources (mobile edge computing (MEC), clouds, or the
like) over the network. Moreover, it has been continually attempted to further enhance the connectivity
between devices, optimize networks, facilitate softwarization of network entities, and increase the
openness of wireless communication, through designing of new protocols to be used in the 6G
communication systems, materializing hardware-based security environments, and developing
techniques related to developments of mechanisms for a safe use of data and a method of maintaining
privacy” (column 2, lines 7-37).
Regarding claim 22, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
Additionally, NAYAK teaches store a current quantity of devices registered with the network
slice;
NAYAK writes, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls (i.e. increases or
decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not exceed the
maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also maintains a list of
UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control. When the current number of
UEs registered with a network slice is to be increased, the NSACF first checks whether the UE identity is
already in the list of UEs registered with that the network slice and if not, it checks whether the
maximum number of UEs per network slice for that network slice has already been reached” (paragraph
0011). NAYAK indicates the NSACF also maintains a list of UE IDs registered with a network slice that is
subject to admission control and checks whether the maximum number of UEs per network slice for the
network slice has already been reached. Therefore, the current quantity of devices registered with the
network slice must be known and stored from the list of UEs.
determine whether the device identity is registered with the network slice in response to the
first request;
NAYAK writes, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls (i.e. increases or
decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not exceed the
maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also maintains a list of
UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control. When the current number of
UEs registered with a network slice is to be increased, the NSACF first checks whether the UE identity is
already in the list of UEs registered with that the network slice and if not, it checks whether the
maximum number of UEs per network slice for that network slice has already been reached” (paragraph
0011). NAYAK indicates the NSACF also maintains a list of UE IDs registered with a network slice.
and maintain the current quantity of devices registered with the network slice based at least
in part on the device identity being already registered with the network slice.
NAYAK writes, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls (i.e. increases or
decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not exceed the
maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also maintains a list of
UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control. When the current number of
UEs registered with a network slice is to be increased, the NSACF first checks whether the UE identity is
already in the list of UEs registered with that the network slice and if not, it checks whether the
maximum number of UEs per network slice for that network slice has already been reached” (paragraph
0011).
Regarding claim 23, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
Additionally, NAYAK teaches store a current quantity of devices registered with the network
slice;
NAYAK writes, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls (i.e. increases or
decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not exceed the
maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also maintains a list of
UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control. When the current number of
UEs registered with a network slice is to be increased, the NSACF first checks whether the UE identity is
already in the list of UEs registered with that the network slice and if not, it checks whether the
maximum number of UEs per network slice for that network slice has already been reached” (paragraph
0011). NAYAK indicates the NSACF also maintains a list of UE IDs registered with a network slice that is
subject to admission control and checks whether the maximum number of UEs per network slice for the
network slice has already been reached. Therefore, the current quantity of devices registered with the
network slice must be known and stored from the list of UEs.
Additionally, LEE teaches determine, in response to the second request, that the device identity is registered with the network slice via the second AMF;
LEE writes, “In operation S1028, the second AMF 1002 may transmit a slice update request message to
the NSACF 302. The slice update request message may include at least one of the S-NSSAI, the UE ID, an
AN of the UE 1000, or an indicator indicating that it is needed to reduce the number of registered UEs”
(column 18, lines 4-9).
and maintain the current quantity of devices registered with the network slice based at least
in part on the second entry.
LEE writes, “In operation S1030, the NSACF 302 may update the number of currently registered UEs,
based on the information received in operation S1028. For example, the NSACF 302 may determine that
the UE 1000 may not further use the S-NSSAI, may delete the corresponding UE ID from the list of
current registered UE IDs for the S-NSSAI, and may reduce the number of current UEs by one” (column
18, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 24, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
Additionally, NAYAK teaches store a current quantity of devices registered with the network slice;
NAYAK writes, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls (i.e. increases or decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not exceed the maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also maintains a list of UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control. When the current number of UEs registered with a network slice is to be increased, the NSACF first checks whether the UE identity is already in the list of UEs registered with that the network slice and if not, it checks whether the maximum number of UEs per network slice for that network slice has already been reached” (paragraph 0011).
Additionally, LEE teaches transmit, based on the first request, a response to the second AMF
indicating a result of the first request;
LEE writes, “In operation S1024, the first AMF 1001 may transmit the UE context of the UE 1000 to the
second AMF 1002. The UE context may include first allowed NSSAI (old allowed NSSAI) assigned to the
UE 1000 by the first AMF 1001 in operation S1018. In operation S1026, the second AMF 1002 may assign
second allowed NSSAI (new allowed NSSAI) to the UE 1000, and a registration accept message of
operation S1026 may include the second allowed NSSAI” (column 17, lines 49-57).
and maintain the current quantity of devices registered with the network slice based at least
in part on the response.
LEE writes, “The second AMF 1002 may compare the first allowed NSSAI received in operation S1024
with the second allowed NSSAI assigned by the second AMF 1002. When there is S-NSSAI, which is
included in the first allowed NSSAI, but is not included in the second allowed NSSI, and the S-NSSAI is
subject to NSAC, the second AMF 1002 may perform operation S1028” (column 17, lines 58-64).
Regarding claim 25, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
Additionally, NAYAK teaches create the second entry prior to a reception of the second
request;
NAYAK writes, “The method of claim 18, wherein in case of a second request message, from a second
AMF entity, to increase the total number of UEs registered per slice for a first UE among the plurality of
the UEs registered by the first AMF entity, the total number of UEs registered per slice is not increased,
and a first identifier of the first AMF entity for the first UE is replaced with a second identifier of the
second AMF entity” (claim 19).
and maintain the first entry prior to the reception of the second request.
NAYAK writes, “Hence, as per the existing procedures, the NSACF apparatus (200) create an entry for the
first UE by tagging to the new AMF apparatus (100b) and keep the existing entry of the old AMF
apparatus (100a)” (paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 26, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
Additionally, NAYAK teaches determine a registration status of a device corresponding to the
device identity in response to the first request;
NAYAK writes, “As specified in the 3GPP TS 23.501 (Rel-17), the NSACF controls (i.e. increases or
decreases) the current number of UEs registered for a network slice so that it does not exceed the
maximum number of UEs allowed to register with that network slice. The NSACF also maintains a list of
UE IDs registered with a network slice that is subject to admission control. When the current number of
UEs registered with a network slice is to be increased, the NSACF first checks whether the UE identity is
already in the list of UEs registered with that the network slice and if not, it checks whether the
maximum number of UEs per network slice for that network slice has already been reached” (paragraph
0011). NAYAK indicates that the NSACF maintains a list of UE IDs registered with a network slice, and
that the NSACF consults the list based on requests.
and create the second entry based at least in part on that the device being already registered
with the network slice.
NAYAK writes, “The method of claim 18, wherein in case of a second request message, from a second
AMF entity, to increase the total number of UEs registered per slice for a first UE among the plurality of
the UEs registered by the first AMF entity, the total number of UEs registered per slice is not increased,
and a first identifier of the first AMF entity for the first UE is replaced with a second identifier of the
second AMF entity” (claim 19). NAYAK indicates a second AMF creates a second identifier that replaces
the first identifier that was already registered with the network slice by the first AMF.
Regarding claim 27, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
Additionally, NAYAK teaches transmit, based on the second request, a reply to the first AMF
indicating a result of the second request;
NAYAK writes, “The method of claim 18, wherein in case of a second request message, from a second
AMF entity, to increase the total number of UEs registered per slice for a first UE among the plurality of
the UEs registered by the first AMF entity, the total number of UEs registered per slice is not increased,
and a first identifier of the first AMF entity for the first UE is replaced with a second identifier of the
second AMF entity” (claim 19). NAYAK indicates a second request. Though NAYAK indicates the second
request is from a second AMF, the request may also originate with first AMF, in which the reply to the
request will be received by the first AMF.
Additionally, LEE teaches and remove the first entry from the list of devices registered with the
network slice without decreasing a current quantity of devices registered with the network slice.
LEE writes, “Alternatively, when the number of registered UEs is counted based on the number of UEs,
the NSACF 302 may check whether or not the UE ID and the AN received in operation S814 are included
in the UE ID list managed by the NSACF 302. When the UE ID and the AN received in operation S814 are
included in the UE ID list managed by the NSACF 302, the NSACF 302 may delete the corresponding AN
from the UE ID list managed by the NFSAC 302. However, when different ANs are registered via the
same UE ID, the NSACF 302 may not decrease the number of registered UEs and may intactly maintain
the number of registered UEs. For example, when the same UE ID simultaneously accesses the 3GPP AN
and the N3GPP AN, the NSACF 302 may delete the AN received in operation S 814 from the UE ID list
managed by the NSACF 302, but the UE may still access the network through the other AN, and thus, the
UE ID may not be deleted from the UE ID list, and the number of registered UEs may not be decreased
and may be intactly maintained” (column 16, lines 19-37).
Claims 29-35 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 21-27 that have already
been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 21-27. Claims 29-35
are rejected under the same rational as claims 21-27.
Claims 37-40 are memory claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 21-24 that have already
been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 21-24. Claims 37-40
are rejected under the same rational as claims 21-24.
Claim(s) 28 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK and LEE as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of DUBESSET et al. (US 20200245236 A1, hereinafter, "DUBESSET").
Regarding claim 28, NAYAK and LEE teach the NSACF of claim 21, wherein the at least one
processor is configured to cause the NSACF to:
NAYAK and LEE fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “store an AMF identity of a
latest AMF requesting to register a respective device with the network slice;” and “and determine, in
response to the first request, whether a latest registration update for a device corresponding to the
device identity was performed by the second AMF based at least in part on the stored AMF identity.”
However, in analogous art, DUBESSET teaches store an AMF identity of a latest AMF requesting
to register a respective device with the network slice;
DUBESSET writes, “According to a sixth step, the first AMF sends a ‘Registration Accept’ confirmation of
registration message to the client equipment via the access network; the client equipment then
registers the identity of the first AMF, (for example the GUAMI, described hereinabove). It will be noted
that an analogous procedure is described in Section 4.2.2.2.2 of document TS 23.502, as well as in
Section 8.2.7.1 and Annex C of document TS 24.501 (transmission and registration of the ‘5G-GUTI’,
which contains at one and the same time an identifier of the AMF and a temporary identifier of the
client equipment). However, in the present embodiment, the ‘Registration Accept’ message is enriched
with the identity of another AMF, termed ‘second AMF’, of the AMF Set, selected by the first AMF for
this client equipment; this identity of the second AMF can be advantageously inserted by the first AMF
into a field dedicated to the implementation of the present invention of the ‘Registration Accept’
message; the client equipment also registers the identity of the second AMF (for example its GUAMI)”
(paragraph 0114).
and determine, in response to the first request, whether a latest registration update for a
device corresponding to the device identity was performed by the second AMF based at least in part
on the stored AMF identity.
DUBESSET writes, “The transfer of a group of client equipments to a new AMF is then effected by
modifying the association between the GUAMI and the “AMF name”: the GUAMI corresponding to the
group of client equipments to be transferred, previously associated with the first AMF, becomes
associated with a second AMF” (paragraph 0014)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of NAYAK and LEE to include aspects
described by DUBESSET that “relates to a method for toggling a management device in a
telecommunications network, in particular a telecommunications network comprising a mobile network
of fifth generation (5G) such as defined by the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).” DUBESSET
provides the motivation for modification stating, “By virtue of these arrangements, the advantages of
the toggling according to the invention will be safeguarded if the first management device goes off-
service after this initial sharing or this initial synchronization” (paragraph 0026). DUBESSET adds, "By
virtue of these arrangements, the advantages of the toggling according to the invention are obtained
while minimizing the number of information exchanges in the network" (paragraph 0028).
Claim 36 is a memory claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 28 that has already been
rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 28. Claim 36 is rejected
under the same rational as claim 28.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled by the applicant, respectfully.
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 CHRISTOPHER A REYES whose telephone number is (703)756-4558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EDT.
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, KHALED KASSIM can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/Christopher A. Reyes/Examiner, Art Unit 2475 6/13/2026
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights