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 filed April 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 16-17,19-24 and 26-37 remain pending in the application. Claims 18 and 25 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 12-16, filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-17,19-24 and 26-37 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wafta.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Taking Claim 30 as exemplary:
Claim 30 is directed to a user equipment (UE) however, “wherein the network function is configured to: transmit, to a second network function, a request for UE subscription data, wherein the request comprises a request to register for a disaster roaming service of the network; and receive, from the second network function, a response comprising subscription data to register the UE for the disaster roaming service of the network and disaster area information comprising a geographical area of the disaster area;” is directed to a network function, which appears to be preforming external actions to the UE. It is unclear whether those actions positively limit the UE or merely describe expected network behavior.
For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as intended use. If applicant intends it to limit the UE, applicant should positively and concretely recite a first network function node of the UE, for example.
Additionally, regarding Claims 16-17,19-24 and 26-37, “a geographical area of the disaster area” lacks proper antecedent basis for “the disaster area”. The examiner recommends amending to “a geographical area of [[the]] a disaster area”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-17, 19-24, 26-29 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 16-17, 19-24, 26-29 and 36-37 fall within a statutory category of machine.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 16-17, 19-24, 26-29 and 36-37 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 16:
receive a registration request message
determine, based on the request indication, that the registration request message is associated with the disaster roaming registration;
transmit a request for UE subscription data
(Additional elements appearing in bold analyzed in Steps 2A,2B below)
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise responding to a request with information related to a target, receiving a frequency and responding based on the frequency.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. receiving information, making a determination, then transmitting information). Examiner notes mental process includes mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. graphing, mapping, calculations).
Claim 23 contains the same process steps as claim 16, in method form.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 16 appear in bold and account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e. ‘user equipment’) defined generally and are mere generic entities such as “request” and “message” constitute mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitations, a processor and a memory, are generic computer components present in all computing devices and network functions.
“Network function implemented on a network device” is generic—no specific network architecture, device type, or technical configuration is described.
“Receive,” “determine,” “transmit,” and “receive” are generic communication and logic operations.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “request” and “message” without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The claim does not amount to significantly more because:
The claim does not specify the technical mechanism for determining, or provide details for how the steps are performed. The claim merely applies generic message routing and data retrieval logic to generic network components.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 19-20, 26-29
Dependent claims recite additional elements: registration area of claims 19 and 26, disaster condition of claims 20 and 27.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus, the claims are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 19-20, 26-29 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner suggests amending claim 16 and claim 23 to add technological improvements the applicant wishes to claim as their invention, such as how the AMF is able to determine the disaster information as shown in paragraphs 74 of the specification.
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.
Claims 16-17, 19-24, 26-29 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferdi et al. (US 20240205658 A1 Ferdi) in view of Chun et al. (US 20240205868 A1 and Chun hereinafter) and further in view of Wafta (US 20240147207 A1 and Wafta hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 16, Ferdi teaches a first network function implemented on a network device (“Each of the gNBs 180a, 180b, 180c may be associated with a particular cell (not shown) and may be configured to handle radio resource management decisions, handover decisions, scheduling of users in the UL and/or DL, support of network slicing, dual connectivity, interworking between NR and E-UTRA, routing of user plane data towards User Plane Function (UPF) 184a, 184b, routing of control plane information towards Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) i.e. the AMF being the first network function” see [0063] and Fig. 1D elements 182a and 182b), comprising:
at least one memory (“Examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs)” [0143]); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first network function to (“In addition, the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer readable medium for execution by a computer or processor… A processor in association with software may be used to implement configured to a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer.” [0143]):
receive a registration request message from a user equipment (UE) (“the WTRU i.e. the UE (Fig. 1D, element 102) may send, to the AMF 182 of PMLN A, a registration request”[0086]), wherein the registration request message comprises a request to register (“the WTRU i.e. the UE 102 may send, to the AMF 182 of PMLN A i.e. the first network , a registration request including information indicating a DIR indication (e.g., to indicate the WTRU 102 is a disaster inbound roamer (e.g., a WTRU 102 that is roaming from a PLMN that is experiencing a disaster/non-operational condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-2);
transmit, to a second network function, a request for UE subscription data, wherein the request comprises a request to register (“the AMF 182 of the PLMN A may send an authentication/registration request to an authentication service function (AUSF) and/or a unified data management (UDM) i.e. the UDM being the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. the second network (e.g., of the PLMN experiencing the disaster/non-operating condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-3); and
receive, from the second network function, a response comprising subscription data to register the UE for the disaster roaming service (“the AUSF/UDM 210 i.e. the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. the second network may send an authentication/registration response including the DIR indication and/or the CAG list of allowed CAGs i.e. the subscription data in the PLMN A. For example, during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5,)
Ferdi doesn’t explicitly teach
determine, based on the request
However, in a similar field of endeavor Chun teaches
determine, based on the request (“the method comprises performing a registration to a first public land mobile network (PLMN) via a first base station; receiving a disaster related message indicating that a disaster roaming service is provided”[0008, see also [0009-0012] for data provided within disaster message) is associated with the disaster roaming registration (“Check i.e. determine whether the UE is provided with disaster roaming service”, Fig.13 elements S1301, S1303 and S1305);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Ferdi with Chun. The motivation would be so disaster related message indicating that the disaster roaming service is provided., Chun at [0009].
Ferdi and Chun don’t explicitly teach
disaster area information comprising a geographical area of the disaster area.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wafta teaches
disaster area information comprising a geographical area of the disaster area (“a DC may be limited to a certain place and time. It is possible that the DC impacts one or more TAIs such as: the area covered by TAI #1 only, or TAI #2 only, or TAI #3 only; or the area covered by one or more TAIs e.g. TAI #1 and TAI #2 only, or TAI #2 and TAI #3 only, or TAI #1 and TAI #2 and TAI #3. Note that the above is just an example to illustrate the location where a DC may occur. Additionally, a TAI, or a set of TAI, may also correspond to a particular geographic area that can be e.g. a set of geographical coordinates, where this set may for example define a particular shape such as a triangle, rectangle, or any other polygon, etc. For example, the DC may span all the TAIs shown in FIG. 2 such that the DC may be composed of a set of 4 coordinate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) that define a rectangular shape that covers the cells that broadcast TAI #1 to TAI #3, associated with RANs 1, 2, 3 respectively.”[0058-0060] and Fig.2 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferdi-Chun with Wafta. The motivation would be so identifying whether a disaster roaming is available based on the disaster configuration information, Wafta at Abstract.
Regarding Claim 23, Ferdi in view of Chun and further in view of Wafta, hereinafter Ferdi-Chun-Wafta, teaches all the limitations of claim 16 in method form rather than device form. Further Ferdi discloses a device (“the disclosed embodiments contemplate any number of WTRUs, base stations, networks, and/or network elements. Each of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may be any type of device configured to operate and/or communicate in a wireless environment.”[0018]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 23.
Regarding Claim 17 and Claim 24, Ferdi-Chun-Wafta teaches all the limitations of claims 16 and 23, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the first network function comprises an access and mobility management function (AMF) (Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) i.e. the AMF being the first network function” see [0063] and Fig. 1D elements 182a and 182b) and/or the second network function comprises a unified data management (UDM) (“unified data management (UDM) i.e. the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. second network ...”[0086]).
Regarding Claim 19 and Claim 26, Ferdi-Chun-Wafta teaches all the limitations of claims 16 and 23, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first network function to determine a UE registration area (“For a CAG-only WTRU 102 that is accessing or is allowed to access one or more non-CAG cells in a PLMN (e.g., the PLMN A), the following issues may arise for the WTRU 102 including how a CAG-only WTRU 102 may access a non-CAG cell in the PLMN A.”[0098]).
Regarding Claim 20 and Claim 27 Ferdi-Chun-Wafta teaches all the limitations of claims 19 and 26, respectively, as discussed above. Further Wafta teaches
wherein the UE registration area comprises at least part of the geographical area of the disaster area(see Fig. 2 above; “The UE may determine to use a disaster roaming service if e.g. it is within an area describing a location where disaster roaming service is permitted. The UE may determine its position relative to the received location area using methods such as, but not limited to, GPS, etc”[0113]).
Regarding Claim 21 and Claim 28, Ferdi-Chun-Wafta teaches all the limitations of claims 21 and 26, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the UE registration area is determined based on the subscription data for the disaster roaming service (during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5, also see [0106]).
Regarding Claim 22 and 29, Ferdi-Chun-Wafta teaches all the limitations of claims 21 and 26, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first network function to transmit the UE registration area to the UE (“the AMF 182 i.e. the first network function of the PLMN A may send, to the WTRU 102, a WTRU configuration command including information indicating a CAG list of CAGs allowed for DIR i.e. the registration area for disaster roaming service in the PLMN A i.e. the first network.”[0088], Fig. 2 element 2-6).
Regarding Claim 36 and Claim 37, Ferdi-Wafta discloses all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above.
Ferdi and Chun don’t explicitly teach
wherein the subscription data comprises a registration area that includes some or all of the disaster area.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wafta teaches
wherein the subscription data comprises a registration area that includes some or all of the disaster area (see Fig. 2 below; “The AMF may also enforce the service information or requirements that were received from the UDM. For example, the AMF may: Accept or reject the UE's registration based on the location of the UE compared to a location information where the UE is allowed to use disaster roaming service. For example, the network accepts the registration if the UE is allowed to use disaster roaming service in a certain area, assuming a disaster condition has occurred in known area.”[0117-0118]).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferdi et al. (US 20240205658 A1 Ferdi) in view of Wafta (US 20240147207 A1 and Wafta hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 30, Ferdi teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory (Fig. 1B, elements 130 and 132); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (In addition, the processor 118 may access information from i.e. coupled to, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132.):
transmit a registration request message to a network function, wherein the registration request message comprises a request to register of a network[[and]] (“the WTRU i.e. the UE 102 may send, to the AMF 182 of PMLN A i.e. the first network , a registration request including information indicating a DIR indication (e.g., to indicate the WTRU 102 is a disaster inbound roamer (e.g., a WTRU 102 that is roaming from a PLMN that is experiencing a disaster/non-operational condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-2,
transmit, to a second network function, a request for UE subscription data, wherein the request comprises a request to register for a disaster roaming service of the network (“the AMF 182 of the PLMN A may send an authentication/registration request to an authentication service function (AUSF) and/or a unified data management (UDM) i.e. the UDM being the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. the second network (e.g., of the PLMN experiencing the disaster/non-operating condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-3); and
receive, from the second network function, a response comprising subscription data to register the UE for the disaster roaming service (“the AUSF/UDM 210 i.e. the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. the second network may send an authentication/registration response including the DIR indication and/or the CAG list of allowed CAGs i.e. the subscription data in the PLMN A. For example, during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5,)
receive a UE registration area from the network function, wherein the UE registration area is associated with the disaster roaming registration (“the AMF 182 i.e. the first network function of the PLMN A may send, to the WTRU 102, a WTRU configuration command including information indicating a CAG list of CAGs allowed for DIR i.e. the registration area for disaster roaming service in the PLMN A i.e. the first network.”[0088], Fig. 2 element 2-6); and in response to receiving the UE registration area, communicate with the network function and/or other UEs using the disaster roaming registration within the UE registration area (“The UDM may decide to perform UE parameters update anytime after the UE has been successfully authenticated and registered to the 5G system. The security procedure for the UE parameters update is shown in FIG. 5. The following describes the steps/processes shown.”[0144] and (“If the UDM has requested an acknowledgement from the UE and the UE has successfully verified and updated the UE Parameters Update Data provided by the UDM, then the UE shall send the UL NAS Transport message to the serving AMF. The UE shall generate the UPU-MAC-IUE as specified in Annex A.20 and include the generated UPU-MAC-IUE in a transparent container in the UL NAS Transport message.”[0150])).
Ferdi doesn’t explicitly teach
disaster area information comprising a geographical area of the disaster area.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wafta teaches
disaster area information comprising a geographical area of the disaster area (“a DC may be limited to a certain place and time. It is possible that the DC impacts one or more TAIs such as: the area covered by TAI #1 only, or TAI #2 only, or TAI #3 only; or the area covered by one or more TAIs e.g. TAI #1 and TAI #2 only, or TAI #2 and TAI #3 only, or TAI #1 and TAI #2 and TAI #3. Note that the above is just an example to illustrate the location where a DC may occur. Additionally, a TAI, or a set of TAI, may also correspond to a particular geographic area that can be e.g. a set of geographical coordinates, where this set may for example define a particular shape such as a triangle, rectangle, or any other polygon, etc. For example, the DC may span all the TAIs shown in FIG. 2 such that the DC may be composed of a set of 4 coordinate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) that define a rectangular shape that covers the cells that broadcast TAI #1 to TAI #3, associated with RANs 1, 2, 3 respectively.”[0058-0060] and Fig.2 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ferdi with Wafta. The motivation would be so identifying whether a disaster roaming is available based on the disaster configuration information, Wafta at Abstract.
Regarding Claim 31, Ferdi in view of Wafta, hereinafter Ferdi-Wafta, discloses all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the first network function comprises an access and mobility management function (AMF) (Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) i.e. the AMF being the first network function” see [0063] and Fig. 1D elements 182a and 182b).
Regarding Claim 32 and Claim 35, Ferdi-Wafta teaches all the limitations of claims 30, and 34, respectively, as discussed above. Further Wafta teaches
wherein the UE registration area comprises at least part of the geographical area of the disaster area(see Fig. 2 above; “The UE may determine to use a disaster roaming service if e.g. it is within an area describing a location where disaster roaming service is permitted. The UE may determine its position relative to the received location area using methods such as, but not limited to, GPS, etc”[0113]).
Regarding Claim 33, Ferdi discloses all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Further Ferdi discloses wherein the UE registration area is determined based on the subscription data for the disaster roaming service associated with the disaster roaming registration (during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR i.e. the disaster roaming registration, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5, also see [0106]).
Regarding Claim 34, Ferdi-Wafta suggests all the limitations of claim 30. Therefore, the rejection of claim 30 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 34.
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 Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647 /Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights