DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to the Application/Control Number: 18/632,372 filed on 04/11/2024.
Claims Status
2. This office action is based upon claims received on 04/11/2024 (starting page 49 – see Statement of Substance of Interview), which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
-Claims 1-16 are pending.
-Claims 1-5, 9-13 are rejected.
-Claims 6-8, 14-16 are objected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
5. Acknowledgment is made of a 371 of PCT/IB2019/059396, filed 11/01/2019.
6. Acknowledgment is made of a DIV of 17/289,556 filed 04/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Statement of Substance of Interview
8. An examiner interview was initiated on 01/02/2026 with applicant’s representative Kathryn Juffa Reg. No. 65,688 to obtain clarity on claims filed by applicant, where this application subject to consideration, currently has a claims document (Doc code CLM) listing what appears to be two sets of claims with overlapping claim numbers, first claims 1-38 and again after a title listing claims starting page 49, claims 1- 16.
Applicant’s representative indicated that subject matter on pages 41-48 are not part of the claims and are supposedly part of the specification, and that applicant would pursue to correct this representation.
Furthermore, applicant’s representative clarified that claims to be examined for this application are listed starting page 49 under title claims, as claims 1-16.
Subject to applicant’s clarification, this office action is based upon claims 1-16 received on 04/11/2024 starting page 49 and ending page 51.
Claim Objections
9. Claim 1, 2, 5-8, 9, 10, 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. Claims 1, 9 both recite “data packets using a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping” and dependent claims 2, 10 both recite “data packets using the new mapping”. To avoid any questions raised pertaining to antecedence, two separate recitations of “data packets” in claims 1, 9 and claim 2, 10 are interpreted as being different instances of “data packets” associated with either “a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping” or “the new mapping” respectively.
Furthermore dependent claims 5-8 and dependent claims 13-16 each reference recitation “the data packets”, where a same interpretation is utilized associating “the data packets” to either “the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping” or “the new mapping” respectively to avoid any questions raised on antecedence as noted above for claims 1, 9 and claims 2, 10.
Should applicant contend otherwise and to avoid any issues, applicant is requested to review and address questions raised and verify applicant’s objective for the referred to claim language. Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
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.
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.
11. Claims 1-5, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et. al (US 20190349805 A1), i.e. “CHENG” in view of You et al. (US 20200314695 A1), i.e. “You”.
Regarding 1. CHENG teaches: A method performed by a wireless device (CHENG – FIG. 5 & ¶0056 […] handling an update on QoS flow to DRB mapping; ¶0064 […] UE stores the configured QoS flow to DRB mapping rule for the QoS flow (step S505); FIG. 8 & ¶0091 […] a UE configured with three QoS flows is being handed over from a source gNB to a target gNB ; ¶0092 […] the second QoS flow was previously mapped to the second DRB, but once the handover is completed, the second QoS flow is mapped to the first DRB; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 5 & ¶0064 step 505 applied to per FIG. 8 & ¶0092 i.e. once the handover is completed, the second QoS flow is mapped to the first DRB reads on: A method , where the mapping of the flows applies to per ¶0091 i.e. a UE reads on: performed by a wireless device where the UE is configured with three QoS flows including the second QOS flow),
the method comprising: sending data packets using a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping (CHENG FIG. 8 ¶0094 […] the second QoS flow, the transmissions of the first, second, and third packets before the completion of the handover have all failed, and after the completion of the handover, these three packets (which are also called outstanding PDUs) are retransmitted on the old DRB (i.e., DRB2) according to the stored QoS flow to DRB mapping rule, while other pending packets (denoted as F2-4 and F2-5 in FIG. 8) are to be transmitted on the new DRB (i.e., DRB1). In particular, after the outstanding packets are successfully delivered to the target gNB, the SDAP entity of the UE further sends an end-marker control PDU (denoted as EM in FIG. 8) on the second DRB; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0094 i.e. and after the completion of the handover, these three packets (which are also called outstanding PDUs) are retransmitted reads on: the method comprising: sending data packets on the old DRB (i.e., DRB2) according to the stored QoS flow to DRB mapping rule reads on: using a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping where the old DRB2 to Flow2 mapping exists prior to remapping depicted in the second QOS flow to the first DRB);
receiving a new mapping (CHENG FIG. 5 & FIG. 8 & ¶0060 […] UL QoS flow to DRB mapping rule for the QoS flow may be configured by the RRC layer when reconfiguration of the UL QoS flow to DRB mapping rule for the QoS flow is requested by the cellular station via RRC signaling; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: as applied to per ¶0060 i.e. reconfiguration of the UL QoS flow to DRB mapping rule for the QoS flow is requested by the cellular station via RRC signaling reads on: receiving a new mapping );
and sending a Service Data Application Protocol (SDAP) end marker, the SDAP end marker indicating that the wireless device is applying the new mapping (Cheng- FIG. 8 & ¶0094 see above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0094 i.e. after the outstanding packets are successfully delivered to the target gNB, the SDAP entity of the UE further sends an end-marker control PDU (denoted as EM in FIG. 8) reads on: and sending a Service Data Application Protocol (SDAP) end marker on the second DRB. Furthermore per ¶0094 i.e. after completion of handover, these three packets (which are also called outstanding PDUs) are retransmitted on the old DRB (i.e., DRB2) according to the stored QoS flow to DRB mapping rule, and the EM sent, prior to i.e. other pending packets (denoted as F2-4 and F2-5 in FIG. 8) are to be transmitted on the new DRB (i.e., DRB1) as depicted i.e. the EM occurs prior to the second Flow being remapped to DRB1 reads on: the SDAP end marker indicating that the wireless device is applying the new mapping ).
CHENG (i.e. in a single embodiment of FIG. 8) does appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (Note: see italicized portions): receiving a new mapping;
You which also teaches: A method (You FIG. 4 & ¶0024 […] a method for remapping a QoS flow; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. a method reads on: A method )
performed by a wireless device (You FIG. 4 & ¶See above; ¶0025 At 401, after a first device determines that a first QoS flow needs to be remapped from a first DRB to a second DRB, an SDAP entity of the first device determines a first data packet. The first data packet is the end data packet sent on the first DRB, in the first QoS flow; ¶0026 […] the first device is a base station or a terminal; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0025 step 401 performed by per ¶0026 i.e. the first device is i.e. a terminal reads on: performed by a wireless device),
the method comprising: sending data using a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping (You FIG. 4 & ¶0024 See above; ¶0025 See above; ¶0026 See above; ¶0028 […] At 402, after the SDAP entity of the first device determines that transmission of the first data packet in the first QoS flow is completed on the first DRB, the first QoS flow is mapped to the second DRB, and data packets following the first data packet in the first QoS flow are transmitted on the second DRB ; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: where per ¶0028 i.e. data packets following the first data packet indicates transmission or data packets after the end data packet on the first DRB, per ¶0025 i.e. At 401, The first data packet is the end data packet sent on the first DRB, in the first QoS flow reads on: the method comprising: sending data packets using a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping , with at least sending of packets prior to the end data packet on the first DRB to QoS flow mapping being implied);
furthermore (i.e. specific to this rejection) You teaches: receiving a new mapping (You FIG. 4 & ¶0024 See above; ¶0025 See above; ¶0026 See above; ¶0027 […] the first device determines that the first QoS flow needs to be remapped from the first DRB to the second DRB based on an obtained mapping relationship between the first QoS flow and the second DRB. Here, the mapping relationship between the first QoS flow and the second DRB is determined based on QoS of the first QoS flow or based on an RRC signaling; ¶0028 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0027 i.e. an obtained mapping relationship , where i.e. the mapping relationship between the first QoS flow and the second DRB is determined based on i.e. an RRC signaling reads on: receiving a new mapping );
and sending a Service Data Application Protocol (SDAP) end marker, the SDAP end marker indicating that the wireless device is applying the new mapping (You FIG. 4 & ¶0024 See above; ¶0025 See above; ¶0026 See above; ¶0027 See above; ¶0028 See above; ¶0035 […] After the SDAP entity of the first device determines that transmission of the first data packet in the first Qos is completed on the first DRB, the first QoS flow is mapped to the second DRB, and data packets following the first data packet in the first QoS flow are transmitted on the second DRB; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0025 i.e. after a first device determines that a first QoS flow needs to be remapped from a first DRB to a second DRB, i.e. an SDAP entity of the first device determines a first data packet. The first data packet is the end data packet sent on the first DRB, in the first QoS flow reads on: and sending a Service Data Application Protocol (SDAP) end marker . Furthermore per ¶0035 i.e. After the SDAP entity of the first device determines that transmission of the first data packet in the first Qos is completed on the first DRB reads on: the SDAP end marker indicating, the first QoS flow is mapped to the second DRB, and data packets following the first data packet in the first QoS flow are transmitted on the second DRB reads on: that the wireless device is applying the new mapping ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of CHENG with teachings of You, since You enables embodiments that can ensure that data of the QoS flow is transmitted without interruption and packet loss during remapping (You - ¶0035).
Regarding Claim 2. CHENG in view of You teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore CHENG teaches: further comprising: after sending the SDAP end marker, sending data packets using the new mapping (Cheng- per ¶0094 See Claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: i.e. after the outstanding packets are successfully delivered to the target gNB, the SDAP entity of the UE further sends an end-marker control PDU (denoted as EM in FIG. 8) on the second DRB. Furthermore per ¶0094 i.e. after completion of handover, these three packets (which are also called outstanding PDUs) are retransmitted on the old DRB (i.e., DRB2) according to the stored QoS flow to DRB mapping rule, and the EM sent, prior to i.e. other pending packets (denoted as F2-4 and F2-5 in FIG. 8) are to be transmitted on the new DRB (i.e., DRB1) as depicted i.e. the EM occurs prior to the second Flow being remapped to DRB1 reads on: further comprising: after sending the SDAP end marker, sending data packets using the new mapping).
Regarding Claim 3. CHENG in view of You teaches: The method of claim 1,
furthermore CHENG teaches: further comprising: performing a handover from a source base station to a target base station while remapping from the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping to the new mapping is ongoing (Cheng FIG. 8 & ¶009 See claim 1; ¶0092 See claim 1; ¶0084 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0091 i.e. UE configured with three QoS flows is being handed over from a source gNB to a target gNB reads on: further comprising: performing a handover from a source base station to a target base station . Furthermore ¶0092 i.e. the second QoS flow was previously mapped to the second DRB, i.e. but once the handover is completed, the second QoS flow is mapped to the first DRB reads on: while remapping from the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping to the new mapping per ¶0094 i.e. For the second QoS flow, the transmissions of the first, second, and third packets before the completion of the handover have all failed, and after the completion of the handover, i.e. these three packets (which are also called outstanding PDUs) are retransmitted on the old DRB (i.e., DRB2) according to the stored QoS flow to DRB mapping rule, while other pending packets (denoted as F2-4 and F2-5 in FIG. 8) are to be transmitted on the new DRB (i.e., DRB1) i.e. the remapping from old DRB to new DRB is ongoing even after completion of the handover reads on: is ongoing)
Regarding Claim 4. CHENG in view of You teaches: The method of claim 3,
furthermore CHENG teaches: wherein the new mapping is received from the source base station (CHENG FIG. 5 & ¶0057 […]an update on QoS flow to DRB mapping is applied to and executed by a UE (e.g., the UE 110) communicatively connected to a cellular station; ¶0060 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: as applied to per ¶0060 i.e. reconfiguration of the UL QoS flow to DRB mapping rule for the QoS flow is requested by the cellular station via RRC signaling reads on: wherein the new mapping is received from the source base station to which the UE is connected )
and the SDAP end marker is sent to the target base station (Cheng- FIG. 8 & ¶0094 see above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0094 i.e. after the outstanding packets are successfully delivered to the target gNB, the SDAP entity of the UE further sends an end-marker control PDU (denoted as EM in FIG. 8) depicted to the target base station reads on: and the SDAP end marker is sent to the target base station).
Regarding Claim 5. CHENG in view of You teaches: The method of claim 4,
furthermore CHENG teaches: further comprising: prior to sending the SDAP end marker to the target base station, sending the data packets to the target base station using the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping (CHENG - ¶0094 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0094 i.e. after the outstanding packets are successfully delivered to the target gNB, the SDAP entity of the UE further sends an end-marker control PDU (denoted as EM in FIG. 8) on the second DRB reads on: further comprising: prior to sending the SDAP end marker to the target base station, i.e. after the outstanding packets are successfully delivered to the target gNB or as depicted in FIG. 8 F2-1 to F 2-3 transmitted to Target i.e. these three packets (which are also called outstanding PDUs) are retransmitted on the old DRB (i.e., DRB2) according to the stored QoS flow to DRB mapping rule reads on: sending the data packets to the target base station );
and after sending the SDAP end market to the target base station, sending the data packets to the target base station using the new mapping (CHENG - ¶0094 See claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 8 after sending EM on old DRB2 as depicted per FIG. 8 reads on: and after sending the SDAP end market to the target base station depicting F2-5 and F2-4 sent on DRB1 to target and per ¶0094 i.e. while other pending packets (denoted as F2-4 and F2-5 in FIG. 8) are to be transmitted on the new DRB (i.e., DRB1) depicted after remapping of Flow 2 reads on: sending the data packets to the target base station using the new mapping ).
Regarding Claim 9. CHENG teaches: A wireless device (CHENG – FIG. 5 & ¶0056 See claim 1; FIG. 8 & ¶0091 see Claim 1 ; ¶0092 see Claim 1; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 5 & ¶0064 step 505 applied to per FIG. 8 & ¶0092 i.e. once the handover is completed, the second QoS flow is mapped to the first DRB reads on: A method , where the mapping of the flows applies to per ¶0091 i.e. a UE reads on: performed by a wireless device where the UE is configured with three QoS flows including the second QOS flow),
the wireless device comprising: power supply circuitry configured to supply power to the wireless device; and processing circuitry (CHENG FIG. 2 & ¶0038 The controller 20 may be a general-purpose processor, a Micro Control Unit (MCU), an application processor, a Digital Signal Processor ; ¶0045 […] the UE 110 may include more components, such as a power supply, and/or a Global Positioning System (GPS) device, wherein the power supply may be a mobile/replaceable battery providing power to all the other components of the UE 110; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0045 i.e. include more components, such as a power supply reads on: the wireless device comprising: power supply circuitry configured to supply power to the wireless device; Furthermore per ¶0038 i.e. controller 20 reads on: and processing circuitry ),
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 9 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 9. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) the processing circuitry configured to: send data packets using a first Quality of Service-flow (QoS-flow) to Data Radio Bearer (DRB) mapping; receive a new mapping; and send a Service Data Application Protocol (SDAP) end marker, the SDAP end marker indicating that the wireless device is applying the new mapping (See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 9 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 9. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 10. CHENG in view of You teaches: The wireless device of claim 9,
(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 10 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 10. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) the processing circuitry further configured to: after sending the SDAP end marker, send data packets using the new mapping(See the rejection of Claim 2, Claim 10 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 2, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 2 applies similarly to Claim 10. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 11. CHENG in view of You teaches: The wireless device of claim 9,
(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 11 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 11. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) the processing circuitry further configured to: perform a handover from a source base station to a target base station while remapping from the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping to the new mapping is ongoing(See the rejection of Claim 3, Claim 11 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 3, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 3 applies similarly to Claim 11. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 12. CHENG in view of You teaches: The wireless device of claim 11,
(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 12 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 12. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) wherein the new mapping is received from the source base station and the SDAP end marker is sent to the target base station(See the rejection of Claim 4, Claim 12 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 4, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 4 applies similarly to Claim 12. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 13. CHENG in view of You teaches: The wireless device of claim 12, (See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 13 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 13. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate) the processing circuitry further configured to: prior to sending the SDAP end marker to the target base station, send the data packets to the target base station using the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping; and after sending the SDAP end market to the target base station, send the data packets to the target base station using the new mapping(See the rejection of Claim 5, Claim 13 recites similar and parallel features to Claim 5, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 5 applies similarly to Claim 13. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable contingent upon or subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) that the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as presented by applicant and referenced herein,
(2) that all independent claims were amended with similar, identical and parallel features and amendments in the independent claims representing identical features were submitted in a formal response,
(3) that the claim limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations,
(4) that all pending issues associated with the claims including:
(a) clarifying applicable issues related with claim objections under minor informalities and 112 (b) rejections,
(b) issues related with the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, including the independent claims,
are all acceptably resolved, and do not result in a case where, given the scope of any applicant claimed amendments and/or arguments, examination would require would require further consideration and search.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6. The method of claim 3, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the new mapping is received from the source base station and the SDAP end marker is sent to the source base station”.
Regarding Claim 7. The method of claim 6, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “further comprising: prior to sending the SDAP end marker to the source base station, sending the data packets to the source base station using the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping; and after sending the SDAP end marker to the source base station and after completing the handover, sending the data packets to the target base station using the new mapping”.
Regarding Claim 8. The method of claim 7, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “further comprising: after sending the SDAP end marker to the source base station and prior to completing the handover, sending the data packets to the source base station using the new mapping”.
Regarding Claim 14. The wireless device of claim 11, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the new mapping is received from the source base station and the SDAP end marker is sent to the source base station”.
Regarding Claim 15. The wireless device of claim 14, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “the processing circuitry further configured to: prior to sending the SDAP end marker to the source base station, send the data packets to the source base station using the first QoS-flow to DRB mapping; and after sending the SDAP end marker to the source base station and after completing the handover, send the data packets to the target base station using the new mapping”.
Regarding Claim 16. The wireless device of claim 15, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “the processing circuitry further configured to: after sending the SDAP end marker to the source base station and prior to completing the handover, send the data packets to the source base station using the new mapping”.
Please note: The examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALICK A SOHRAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4347. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fri 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on (571) 272-7884. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/M.A.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2414
03/07/2026
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414