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 .
This Action is in response to Applicant’s After Final amendment filed on July 18, 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
On figure 2, replace “CONNECTION/RESGISTRATION” with --
CONNECTION/REGISTRATION-- in block 212; and
On figure 8, replace “accdcess” with --access-- in step 804.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. If a response to the present Office Action fails to include proper drawing corrections, corrected drawings or arguments therefor, the response can be held NON-RESPONSIVE and/or the application could be ABANDONED since the objections/corrections to the drawings are no longer held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1 line 7, insert --and from-- before “U.S.”;
On page 2 line 22, replace “initial NAS message to” with --an initial NAS message to
the-- after “send”;
On page 2 line 25, insert --and-- after “load”;
On page 6 line 32, replace “260” with --280-- after “stack” in order to match what is
shown in figure 2;
On page 8 line 33, replace “i.e.,” with --, i.e.,-- after “context”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 2, 7, and 12 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references to Yang et al. (US 2024/0179524 A1) and Deng et al. (US 2023/0232357 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited references follow.
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 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2024/0179524 A1) in view of Deng et al. (US 2023/0232357 A1).
Consider claim 1, Yang et al. disclose a method performed by a terminal/UE supporting
first access and second access, wherein the first access and the second access are different ones of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access (Abstract, ¶¶ [0008] and [0093]-[0096]) comprising:
storing multiple records of 5GS non-access stratum (NAS) security contexts for one or more PLMNs by a user equipment (UE) (USIM supports multiple records of NAS security context storage for multiple registration, including EF5GS3GPPNSC and EF5GSN3GPPNSC files, each expanded from one record to two records of security context storage (¶¶ [0004]-[0005]). A first file of the terminal is used to store the security context of the first access, a second file is used to store the security context of the second access, the first file includes a first record and a second record, and the second file includes a third record and a fourth record (¶ [0011]). A first security context in the first record corresponds to a first PLMN and that a second security context in the second record corresponds to a second PLMN (¶¶ [0012]-[0013]). Therefore, Yang et al. teach storing multiple records of 5GS NAS security contexts for one or more PLMNs by a UE), wherein the UE is being de-registered from a first PLMN over a first access and a second access, wherein the UE has valid 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN stored for the first access and for the second access (a security context of first access and a security context of second access when the first access of the terminal and the second access of the terminal enter a deregistered state (Abstract and ¶¶ [0008] and [0093]-[0105]). A first security context in the first record corresponds to a first PLMN, a fourth security context in the fourth record corresponds to the first PLMN, and the first access has been registered with the first PLMN (¶ [0012]). Storing the first security context in the first record and storing the fourth security context in the fourth record, where the first PLMN is a PLMN with which the first access is registered and is successfully registered last time before the first access enters the deregistered state (¶ [0014]). Thus, Yang et al. teach the UE being de-registered from a first PLMN over first and second access and having stored 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN for both access types);
performing a registration to the first PLMN over the first access, wherein the UE marks the 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN as invalid for the first access and as invalid for the second access (When first access enters a first state from the deregistered state, and second access is in the deregistered state or null state, the UE reads the security context of the first access and the security context of the second access from the storage unit, and identifies the security context of the first access and the security context of the second access stored in the storage unit as invalid (¶ [0044]; See also ¶¶ [0166]-[0175]). Yang et al., therefore, teach marking stored security contexts invalid when the UE leaves the deregistered state, such as when registration is performed);
being de-registered from a second PLMN over the second access, wherein the UE has valid 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN stored for the first access and for the second access (A second security context in the second record corresponds to a second PLMN, a third security context in the third record corresponds to the second PLMN, and the second access has been registered with the second PLMN (¶ [0013]). Also disclose are examples in which the UE stores security contexts for different PLMNs over different access types, including a security context of 3GPP access of PLMN #2 in record 2 of EF5GS3GPPNSC and a security context of non-3GPP access of PLMN #2 in record 1 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶¶ [0118]-[0121] and Table 1). Yang et al., therefore, teach stored 5GS NAS security contexts of a second PLMN for first and second access);
remain de-registered from the second PLMN over the second access while the UE is registered to the first PLMN over the first access, wherein the UE maintains the stored 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN as valid for the first access and as valid for the second access (Yang et al. teach multiple PLMN-specific records for different access types, including records corresponding to a first PLMN and a second PLMN (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0113]-[0121] and Table 1).
However, Yang et al. does not expressly disclose that the invalidated security contexts are selected on a PLMN-specific basis such that the first PLMN’s contexts for both access types are marked invalid and maintaining a second PLMN’s stored contexts as valid while registering to a first PLMN.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng et al. teach: storing a PLMN identifier with a NAS security context and selecting/managing the NAS security context based on the PLMN identifier (Abstract and ¶¶ [0009]-[0011]), that each PLMN corresponds to one PLMN identifier, and that a file corresponding to the PLMN identifier may store both a 3GPP NAS security context and a non-3GPP NAS security context of that PLMN (¶ [0014]), that the terminal stores NAS security contexts with PLMN identifiers and can maintain NAS security contexts corresponding to different PLMNs separately (¶¶ [0009]-[0014]) and setting a stored NAS security context and PLMN identifier to valid (¶ [0013]). Deng et al. also teach the reason and mechanism for maintaining NAS security contexts on a PLMN-specific basis when they explain that without PLMN-specific context management, a terminal may use a NAS security context corresponding to a different PLMN, causing verification failure and primary authentication, which results in extra signaling overhead (¶¶ [0003]-[0004]). Deng et al. also teach storing the PLMN identifier with the NAS security context so that the terminal selects the NAS security context established with the PLMN to which the terminal intends to register (¶ [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang et al.’s multiple-record 5GS NAS security context storage and invalidation procedure using Deng et al.’s PLMN-specific storage/selection teachings so that registering to the first PLMN invalidates the first PLMN’s NAS security contexts while maintaining the second PLMN’s stored NAS security contexts valid. The motivation is to avoid incorrect invalidation or use of a NAS security context for a different PLMN, thereby avoiding unnecessary primary authentication, reducing signaling overhead, and preserving service continuity as taught by Deng et al. (¶¶ [0003]-[0014]).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. further disclose wherein the UE manages a first record and a second record for the first access, and wherein the UE also manages a first record and a second record for the second access (Yang et al. disclose that a first file of the terminal is used to store the security context of the first access and includes a first record and a second record, and that a second file of the terminal is used to store the security context of the second access and includes a third record and a fourth record (¶ [0011]) and they further explain, in the USIM example, that EF5GS3GPPNSC includes record 1 and record 2 and EF5GSN3GPPNSC also includes record 1 and record 2 (¶ [0108])).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 3 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. also disclose wherein the 5GS NAS security context of the first PLMN for the first access is stored in the first record for the first access, and the 5GS NAS security context of the first PLMN for the second access is stored in the second record for the second access (Yang et al. disclose that a first security context in the first record corresponds to a first PLMN, a fourth security context in the fourth record corresponds to the first PLMN, and the first access has been registered with the first PLMN (¶ [0012]). In Yang et al.’s USIM example, when the 3GPP access is registered with PLMN #1, the security context of the 3GPP access of PLMN #1 is stored in record 1 of EF5GS3GPPNSC, and the security context of the non-3GPP access of PLMN #1 is stored in record 2 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶ [0113]). Accordingly, Yang et al. teach the first PLMN’s first-access 5GS NAS security context being stored in the first record for the first access and the first PLMN’s second-access 5GS NAS security context being stored in the second record for the second access).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 3 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. further disclose wherein the 5GS NAS security context of the second PLMN for the second access is stored in the first record for the second access, and the 5GS NAS security context of the second PLMN for the first access is stored in the second record for the first access (Yang et al. disclose that a second security context in the second record corresponds to a second PLMN, a third security context in the third record corresponds to the second PLMN, and the second access has been registered with the second PLMN (¶ [0013]). In Yang et al.’s USIM example, when the non-3GPP access is registered with PLMN #2, the security context of the 3GPP access of PLMN #2 is stored in record 2 of EF5GS3GPPNSC, and the security context of the non-3GPP access of PLMN #2 is stored in record 1 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶¶ [0118]-[0121]). Accordingly, Yang et al. teach the second PLMN’s second-access 5GS NAS security context being stored in the first record for the second access and the second PLMN’s first-access 5GS NAS security context being stored in the second record for the first access).
Consider claim 6, Yang et al. disclose a communication apparatus/terminal
(corresponding to a UE - FIG. 5 and ¶¶ [0194]-[0196]) comprising:
multiple records for storing 5GS non-access stratum (NAS) security contexts for one or more PLMNs (Multiple records of NAS security context storage for multiple registration, including EF5GS3GPPNSC and EF5GSN3GPPNSC files expanded to two records (¶¶ [0004]-[0005]). A first file for storing a security context of first access and a second file for storing a security context of second access, where the first file includes a first record and a second record and the second file includes a third record and a fourth record (¶ [0011]). The records correspond to a first PLMN and a second PLMN (¶¶ [0012]-[0013]). Therefore, Yang et al. teach a UE comprising multiple records for storing 5GS NAS security contexts for one or more PLMNs), wherein the UE is being de-registered from a first PLMN over a first access and a second access, wherein the UE has valid 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN stored for the first access and for the second access (Yang et al. teach storing a security context of first access and a security context of second access when the first access and second access enter a deregistered state (Abstract and ¶¶ [0008], [0093]-[0105]), first-PLMN contexts in corresponding records for first and second access (¶¶ [0012], [0113]));
a registration circuit of the UE that performs a registration to the first PLMN over the first access (Processing circuitry, including a processing unit, processor, memory, and transceiver, configured to perform terminal procedures including security context update and registration-related operations (FIGS. 5-6, ¶¶ [0194]-[0196] and [0242]-[0248])), wherein the UE marks the 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN as invalid for the first access and as invalid for the second access (when first access enters a first state from the deregistered state, the UE reads the security context of the first access and the security context of the second access from storage and identifies the stored security contexts as invalid (¶ [0044] and ¶¶ [0166]-
[0175]));
wherein the UE is de-registered from a second PLMN over the second access, wherein the UE has valid 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN stored for the first access and for the second access (Yang et al. teach second-PLMN security contexts for different access types in its multiple-record framework, including a second security context in the second record corresponding to the second PLMN and a third security context in the third record corresponding to the second PLMN (¶ [0013]). Yang et al. further disclose storing PLMN #2 3GPP-access context in record 2 of EF5GS3GPPNSC and PLMN #2 non-3GPP-access context in record 1 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶¶ [0118]-[0121])).
While Yang et al. teach multiple records corresponding to different PLMNs and access types they do not expressly disclose that the UE maintains the stored 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN as valid for the first access and as valid for the second access when the UE is registered to the first PLMN over the first access.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng et al. disclose a terminal apparatus including at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the apparatus to send registration request messages, receive messages, and store PLMN-associated NAS security contexts (claims 16-20 and FIGS. 6-7) where NAS security contexts are stored with PLMN identifiers and selected/managed based on the PLMN identifier to avoid using an incorrect PLMN context (¶¶ [0003]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang et al.’s UE so that validity changes are applied per PLMN, maintaining the second PLMN’s valid contexts when the UE registers to the first PLMN, with the teachings of the Deng et al. because Deng et al. teach that PLMN-specific context management avoids verification failure, unnecessary primary authentication, and additional signaling overhead (see Deng, ¶¶ [0003]-[0010]).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 6 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. also disclose wherein the UE manages a first record and a second record for the first access,
and wherein the UE also manages a first record and a second record for the second access (Yang et al. disclose this limitation for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 3. In particular, Yang et al. disclose that the first file for the first access includes first and second records and that the second file for the second access includes third and fourth records (¶ [0011]). Yang et al. further disclose that EF5GS3GPPNSC includes record 1 and record 2 and EF5GSN3GPPNSC includes record 1 and record 2 (¶ [0108])).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 6 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. further disclose wherein the UE performs a registration to the second PLMN over the second access, wherein the UE marks the 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN as invalid for the second access and as invalid for the first access (Yang et al. disclose scenarios in which the second access is registered with a second PLMN and the second PLMN corresponds to security contexts stored in records for both first and second access (¶¶ [0013], [0118]-[0121]). Yang et al. further teach that when access leaves the deregistered state, the UE reads stored security contexts and identifies the stored contexts as invalid (¶ [0044]; ¶¶ [0166]-[0175]). To the extent Yang et al. do not expressly identify this invalidation operation as being performed specifically for the second PLMN across both access types, Deng et al. teach PLMN-specific NAS security context storage and management using PLMN identifiers (¶¶ [0010], [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang et al.’s invalidation upon registration/leaving deregistered state to the NAS security contexts associated with the second PLMN for both access types, as identified by Deng et al.’s PLMN-specific context association in order to avoid verification failure, unnecessary primary authentication, and additional signaling overhead.
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. further disclose wherein the UE marks 5GS security contexts in a first record of the first access for the first PLMN as invalid and the 5GS security contexts in a second record of the first access for the second PLMN as invalid, and marks the 5GS security contexts in the first record of the second access for the second PLMN as invalid and the 5GS security contexts in the second record of the second access for the first PLMN as invalid (Yang et al. teach the claimed record arrangement as they disclose that the first file includes a first record and a second record and the second file includes a third record and a fourth record (¶ [0011]). Yang et al. disclose that the first security context in the first record corresponds to the first PLMN and the fourth security context in the fourth record corresponds to the first PLMN (¶ [0012]). Yang et al. also disclose that the second security context in the second record corresponds to the second PLMN and the third security context in the third record corresponds to the second PLMN (¶ [0013]). In Yang et al.’s USIM example, the security context of 3GPP access of PLMN #1 is stored in record 1 of EF5GS3GPPNSC, the security context of non-3GPP access of PLMN #1 is stored in record 2 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC, the security context of 3GPP access of PLMN #2 is stored in record 2 of EF5GS3GPPNSC, and the security context of non-3GPP access of PLMN #2 is stored in record 1 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶¶ [0113], [0118]-[0121]; Table 1). Yang et al. further teach identifying stored security contexts as invalid when access leaves the deregistered state (¶ [0044] and ¶¶ [0166]-[0175]). In addition, Deng et al. teach PLMN-specific identification and
management of NAS security contexts based on PLMN identifiers (¶¶ [0010], [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang et al.’s invalid marking to each appropriate record corresponding to the first and second PLMNs in Yang et al.,’s record
arrangement using Deng et al.’s PLMN-specific context identification in order to avoid verification failure, unnecessary primary authentication, and additional signaling overhead.
Consider claim 11, Yang et al. disclose a method performed by a UE supporting first access and second access, where the first and second access are different ones of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access (Abstract and ¶¶ [0008], [0093]-[0096]) comprising:
storing multiple records of 5GS non-access stratum (NAS) security context for one or more PLMNs by a user equipment (UE) (Yang et al. disclose this limitation for the same reasons stated with respect to claim 1 as Yang et al. teach multiple records of NAS security context storage for multiple registration, including EF5GS3GPPNSC and EF5GSN3GPPNSC files with multiple records (¶¶ [0004]-[0005], [0011], [0108]), the records corresponding to first and second PLMNs (¶¶ [0012]-[0013]). Therefore, Yang et al. teach storing multiple records of 5GS NAS security context for one or more PLMNs by a UE), wherein the UE is being registered to a first PLMN over a first access, wherein the UE has marked 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN as invalid for the first access and as invalid for the second access (Yang et al. disclose a terminal having first access registered with a first PLMN (¶ [0012]). Yang et al. also teach that when first access leaves the deregistered state, the UE reads security contexts from storage and identifies the stored security contexts as invalid (¶ [0044] and ¶¶ [0166]-[0175]). Thus, Yang et al. teach that stored security contexts may be marked invalid in connection with registration/leaving deregistered state.);
performing de-registration from the first PLMN over the first access, wherein the UE marks the 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN as valid for the first access and as valid for the second access (Yang et al. teach storing security contexts when access enters a deregistered state (Abstract, ¶¶ [0008], [0093]-[0105], and [0132]-[0147]). Yang et al. further teach first-PLMN security contexts stored for first and second access in respective records (¶¶ [0012] and [0113]));
being registered to a second PLMN over the second access, wherein the UE has marked 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN as invalid for the first access and as invalid for the second access (Yang et al. teach that a second security context in the second record corresponds to a second PLMN, a third security context in the third record corresponds to the second PLMN, and second access has been registered with the second PLMN (¶ [0013]). Yang et al. further teach that stored security contexts are identified as invalid when access leaves the deregistered state/enters a first state (¶ [0044] and ¶¶ [0166]-[0175])); and
remain registered to the second PLMN over the second access, wherein the UE maintains the stored 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN as invalid for the first access and as invalid for the second access (Yang et al. teach that first and second access may correspond to different PLMNs and that corresponding security contexts are stored in separate records (¶¶ [0012]-[0013], [0113]-[0121]; Table 1)).
However, Yang et al. do not expressly state maintaining the second PLMN’s invalid status while marking the first PLMN’s contexts valid upon deregistration from the first PLMN.
In the same field of endeavor, Deng et al. teach associating NAS security contexts with PLMN identifiers and storing both 3GPP and non-3GPP NAS security contexts for a PLMN in a PLMN-associated file (¶¶ [0010], [0014]) and in response to a terminal deregistering from a first PLMN over a first access network, the terminal stores in a storage medium a first PLMN identifier and a first NAS security context established with the first PLMN (Abstract and ¶ [0009]). Deng et al. further teach setting the first NAS security context and first PLMN identifier to valid (¶ [0013]), that a PLMN-associated file may store both 3GPP and non-3GPP NAS security contexts of the PLMN (¶ [0014]), and PLMN-specific association of NAS security contexts using PLMN identifiers (¶¶ [0010], [0014]). Thus, overall, Deng et al. teach PLMN-specific storage, selection, and management of NAS security contexts using PLMN identifiers, and explains that such PLMN-specific handling avoids inconsistency between UE-stored and network-stored NAS security contexts and avoids unnecessary primary authentication and signaling overhead (¶¶ [0003]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to maintain, in Yang et al., the second PLMN’s stored NAS security contexts invalid while the UE remains registered to the second PLMN, even though the first PLMN’s contexts are marked valid upon deregistration from the first PLMN, because Deng et al. teach independent management of different PLMNs’ NAS security contexts to prevent unnecessary authentication and signaling overhead.
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 11 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. also disclose wherein the UE manages a first record and a second record for the first access, and wherein the UE also manages a first record and a second record for the second access (Yang et al. disclose this limitation for the same reasons stated with respect to claim 3 as they disclose that the first file for first access includes first and second records and that the second file for second access includes third and fourth records (¶ [0011]). Yang et al. further explain that EF5GS3GPPNSC includes record 1 and record 2 and EF5GSN3GPPNSC includes record 1 and record 2 (¶ [0108])).
Consider claim 14, and as applied to claim 13 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng
et al. further disclose wherein the 5GS NAS security context of the first PLMN for the first access is stored in the first record for the first access, and the 5GS NAS security context of the first PLMN for the second access is stored in the second record for the second access (Yang et al. disclose this limitation for the same reasons stated with respect to claim 4 as they teach that a first security context in the first record corresponds to the first PLMN and a fourth security context in the fourth record corresponds to the first PLMN (¶ [0012]). Yang et al. further teach that the security context of the 3GPP access of PLMN #1 is stored in record 1 of EF5GS3GPPNSC, and the security context of the non-3GPP access of PLMN #1 is stored in record 2 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶ [0113])).
Consider claim 15, and as applied to claim 13 above, Yang et al., as modified by Deng et al. also disclose wherein the 5GS NAS security context of the second PLMN for the second access is stored in the first record for the second access, and the 5GS NAS security context of the second PLMN for the first access is stored in the second record for the first access (Yang et al. disclose this limitation for the same reasons stated with respect to claim 5 as they teach that a second security context in the second record corresponds to the second PLMN and a third security context in the third record corresponds to the second PLMN (¶ [0013]). Yang et al. further teach that the security context of the 3GPP access of PLMN #2 is stored in record 2 of EF5GS3GPPNSC, and the security context of the non-3GPP access of PLMN #2 is stored in record 1 of EF5GSN3GPPNSC (¶¶ [0118]-[0121])).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights