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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to APPLICANT ARGUMENTS/REMARKS entered on September 17, 2025 for patent application 18/697,376 filed on March 29, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites “provisioning a user equipment with a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) that indicates use of the application specific data network name (AS-DNN) for the traffic description indicated by the application server in the request (emphasis added by Examiner).” The use of the word “with” makes it unclear if the user equipment already has a URSP. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0235542).
As to claim 1, Li discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor ("at least one processor," para [0008]); and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from an application server having a co-located or integrated micro-user plane function (UPF), a request to use the micro-user plane function (UPF) for an application (“the NEF [network exposure function] may allocate a multicasting address or identifier and/or an anycasting address or identifier for the group and provide the address(s) or identifier(s) to the AF [application function] when the NEF responds to the AF for the request,” para [0100]; “the path selection functionality of the SMF is split into a separate function, which may be referred to as a Path Selection Function (PSF). The PSF can serve multiple SMFs and therefore perform UP path (re)selection jointly for the correlated PDU sessions that are served by those SMFs, e.g. by selecting a common UPF and/or a common DNAI for the PDU sessions. The PSF functionality may be offered or implemented by an existing Control Plane (CP) function, e.g. PCF, NEF, NRF, UDM, UDR, NWDAF, AMF, NSSF, or by a special type of SMF, e.g. a master SMF. or by an independent function. When it is integrated within another CP function, the interaction between the PSF and that CP function described in this description becomes an internal process of that CP function,” para [0101]); based on information included in the request, determining an application specific data network name (AS-DNN) (“Application Function (AF) 322 represents the non-data plane (also referred to as the non-user plane) functionality of an application deployed within a network operator domain and within a- 3GPP compliant network. The AF 322 interacts with other core network functions through a service based Naf interface, and may access network capability exposure information, as well as provide application information for use in decisions such as traffic routing. The AF 322 can also interact with functions such as the PCF 316 to provide application specific input into policy and policy enforcement decisions,” para [0055]; “The AF request may have information to identify the traffic. The traffic can be identified in the AF request by either a DNN and possibly slicing information (S-NSSAI) or an AF-Service-Identifier,” para [0073]); and provisioning a session management node with the micro-user plane function (UPF) information associated with the application specific data network name (AS-DNN) ("At the time of PDU session establishment, the SMF 310 typically provides one or more QoS Profiles to the (R)AN node 302. These QoS Profiles contain QoS parameters for controlling the forwarding of packets having various QoS requirements. Example QoS parameters that may be included in a QoS Profile may include: 5G QoS Identifier (5QI), Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), Reflective QoS Attribute (RQA), Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR), Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFABR), and Notification Control parameters," para [0059]).
As to claim 2, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the information in the request comprises at least one of: a traffic description indicating traffic for which micro-user plane function (UPF) is to be used; an application server associated micro-user plane function (UPF) identifier (ID); an application identifier (ID) for the application; or micro-user plane function (UPF) information ("The AF request may have information to identify the traffic. The traffic can be identified in the AF request by either a DNN and possibly slicing information (S-NSSAI) or an AF-Service-Identifier," para [0073]).
As to claim 3, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the provisioning of the session management node comprises at least one of: transmitting the information included in the request and the determined application specific data network name (AS-DNN) to the session management node; or formulating a micro-user plane function (UPF) profile based on the information included in the request and sending the micro-user plane function (UPF) profile to a network repository for discovery by the session management node (“A Network Repository Function (NRF) 318, provides network service discovery functionality. The NRF 318 may be specific to the Public Land Mobility Network (PLMN) or network operator, with which it is associated. The service discovery functionality can allow network functions and UEs connected to the network to determine where and how to access existing network functions, and may present the service based interface Nnrf," para [0051]; "At the time of PDU session establishment, the SMF 310 typically provides one or more QoS Profiles to the (R)AN node 302. These QoS Profiles contain QoS parameters for controlling the forwarding of packets having various QoS
requirements. Example QoS parameters that may be included in a QoS Profile may include: 5G QoS Identifier (5QI), Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP), Reflective QoS Attribute (RQA), Guaranteed Flow Bit Rate (GFBR), Maximum Flow Bit Rate (MFABR), and
Notification Control parameters,” para [0059]).
As to claim 6, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and further the limitations wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: when a protocol data unit (PDU) session has already been setup for the application specific data network name (AS-DNN) when the request is received, updating the provisioning of the session management node with the micro-user plane function (UPF), and initiating a protocol data unit (PDU) session modification to relocate the protocol data unit (PDU) session anchor (PSA) according to the micro-user plane function (UPF) identified by an identifier (ID) provided in the request are not positively required, as they need not be performed in a situation where a protocol data unit (PDU) session has not already been setup for the application specific data network name (AS-DNN).
As to claim 7, Li discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (para [0008]); and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from a network node, information for a micro-user plane function (UPF) and an application specific data network name (AS-DNN) associated with the micro-user plane function (para [0100]-[0101]); receiving, from a user equipment, a request for protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment indicating the application specific data network name (AS-DNN) (para [0055], [0073]); and selecting the micro-user plane function (UPF) as a protocol data unit (POU) session anchor (PSA) based on the application specific data network name (AS-DNN) in the information received from the network node (para [0059]).
As to claim 8, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the receiving comprises discovering a profile of the micro-user plane function (UPF) from a network repository (para [0051]).
As to claim 9, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the network node comprises at least one of a 5th generation system (SGS) node, a policy control node, a unified data management node or network exposure node (“FIG. 3 illustrates a service-based architecture 300 for a 5G or Next Generation Core Network (5SGCN/NGCN/NCN). This illustration depicts logical connections between nodes and functions, and its illustrated connections should not be interpreted as direct physical connections. ED (or UE) 102 forms a radio access network connection with a (Radio) Access Network ((R)AN) node 302 (which may, for example, be an gNodeB (gNB)), which is connected to a User Plane (UP) Function (UPF) 304 such as a UP Gateway over a network interface providing a defined interface such as an N3 interface," para [0045]; "A Network Exposure Function (NEF) 314 can be deployed in the network to allow servers, functions and other entities such as those outside a trusted domain to have exposure to services and capabilities within the network. In one such example, an NEF 314 can act much like a proxy between an application server outside the illustrated network and network functions such as the Policy Control Function (PCF) 316, the SMF 310, the UDM 320, and the AMF 308, so that the external application server can provide information that may be of use in the setup of the parameters associated with a data session," para [0050]).
As to claim 10, Li discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (para [0008]); and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving a user equipment policy that indicates use of an application specific data network name (AS-DNN) for traffic indicated by a traffic description (para [0073]); and transmitting, to a network node, a request for protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment, wherein the protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request indicates the application specific data network name (AS-DNN), and wherein the application specific data network name (AS-DNN) is used for a micro-user plane function (UPF) selection for the indicated traffic by a core network node (para [0100]-[0101]).
As to claim 11, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: determining, based on the user equipment policy, whether a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request is required for the indicated traffic ("An aspect of the disclosure provides for a method for user equipment (UE) internet protocol (IP) address management. The method includes sending by an application function (AF), a request to a policy control function (PCF), the request including information identifying traffic and an indication that a UE IP address associated with the traffic should be preserved. The method further includes sending by the PCF, to a session management function (SMF) being responsible for managing a Protocol Data Unit (POU) session associated with the traffic, a policy and charging control (PCC) rule including the indication," para [0006]).
As to claim 12, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: mapping the traffic to a quality of service (QoS) flow in the protocol data unit (PDU) session that terminates at the micro-user plane function (UPF) ("Each GTP-U tunnel may support multiple POU sessions, and packet flows with multiple different QoS requirements. Packet flows within a GTP-U tunnel, such as tunnel 328, having the same QoS requirements may be grouped together as a QoS Flow, which may be identified by a given QFI. The QFI can therefore be used for queuing and prioritization of packet forwarding through the GTP-U tunnels 328 and 330," para [0058]).
As to claim 13, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the request to a session management node or function (para. [0101]).
As to claim 15, Li discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (para [0008]); and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform: transmitting a request to a 5th generation network node to use a micro-user plane function (UPF) for an application (para [0100]-[0101]), wherein the request comprises at least one of a traffic description indicating traffic for which micro-user plane function (UPF) ls to be used, an application server associated micro-user plane function (UPF) identifier (ID), an application identifier (ID) for the application, or micro-user plane function (UPF) information (para. [0073]), and wherein the apparatus comprises an application server having a co-located or integrated micro-user plane function (UPF) (para [0100]-[0101]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0235542) in view of Verma et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0106812).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the determined application specific data network name (AS-DNN) is used for micro-UPF selection by the session management node. However, in analogous art, Verma discloses that “the DNN may be used to: (1) select a SMF and UPF(s) for a PDU Session; or (2) determine policies to apply to this PDU Session (para. [0089]).” 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 Li to allow for the determined application specific data network name (AS-DNN) to be used for micro-UPF selection by the session management node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a technique well-known in the art to be applied.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0235542) in view of Huang-Fu (Pub. No.: US 2020/0359295).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the user equipment policy comprises a user equipment route selection policy (URSP). However, in analogous art, Huang-Fu discloses “an exemplary URSP matching process according to an embodiment of the disclosure. In the FIG. 2 example, when UE 101 triggers an application (e.g., a browser or an email client), an upper layer of the UE 101, such as the application layer 110, can trigger a URSP rule matching process (para. [0037]; see also figure 2 and paras. [0038]-[0048]).” 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 Li to allow for the user equipment policy to comprise a user equipment route selection policy (URSP). This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for policies well-known in the art to be used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 7:
Claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being allegedly indefinite. The Office Action alleged that "the use of the word 'with' makes it unclear if the user equipment already has a URSP." However, the apparatus of claim 5 is directed towards a network entity; thus, whether the UE already has a URSP is outside the scope of claim 5. Claim 5 is definite regardless of whether the UE already has a URSP; the network entity is provisioning the UE with a URSP. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Examiner’s response:
Examiner believes that Applicant misunderstands Examiner’s rationale for providing the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection in question. It is not “whether the UE already has a URSP is outside the scope of claim 5” that is at question, but rather the fact that the language of the claim makes it unclear what is being claimed.
That is, the claim can be read in two ways, based on the syntax of the claim language.
First, the claim can be read as “provisioning a user equipment [that currently does not have a URSP] with a user equipment route selection policy (URSP).” Meaning, user equipment does not have a URSP, and then a URSP is provisioned to said user equipment, and then said user equipment does have a URSP.
Second, the claim can be read as “provisioning a user equipment with a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) [said user equipment already has a URSP, and is thus being provisioned with something else].”
Thus, because it is unclear which scenario is being claimed, the claim is rendered vague and indefinite, and Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10:
Applicant respectfully submits that Li fails to disclose or suggest all of the elements of the claims. For example, Li fails to disclose or suggest, at least, AS-DNN, as recited in claims 1, 7, and 10.
Page 4 of the Office Action alleged that the above-mentioned claim element is disclosed by Li in paragraphs [0055] and [0073]:
“Application Function (AF) 322 represents the non-data plane (also referred to as the non-user plane) functionality of an application deployed within a network operator domain and within a 3GPP compliant network. The AF 322 interacts with other core network functions through a service based Naf interface, and may access network capability exposure information, as well as provide application information for use in decisions such as traffic routing. The AF 322 can also interact with functions such as the PCF 316 to provide application specific input into policy and policy enforcement decisions. It should be understood that in many situations the AF 322 does not provide network services to other NFs, and instead is often viewed as a consumer or user of services provided by other NFs. An application outside the 3GPP network, can perform many of the same functions as AF 322 through the use of NEF 314.
…
The AF request may have information to identify the traffic. The traffic can be identified in the AF request by either a DNN and possibly slicing information (S-NSSAI) or an AF-Service-Identifier. When the AF provides an AF-Service-Identifier i.e. an identifier of the service on behalf of which the AF is issuing the request, the 5G Core maps this identifier into a target DNN and slicing information (S-NSSAI). When the NEF processes the AF request the AF-Service-Identifier may be used to authorize the AF request. The traffic can be identified in the AF request by an application identifier or traffic filtering information (e.g. 5 Tuple). The application identifier refers to an application handling UP traffic and is used by the UPF to detect the traffic of the application (underlining added)
Although Li discloses a network operator domain, this network operator domain is
not an application specific data network name, as recited in the claims.
Examiner’s response:
Li discloses the concept of a DNN, and states that “traffic can be identified in the AF request by … a DNN (para. [0073]),” wherein the AF is an Application Function 322. As the DNN is included in a request from an Application Function, it is reasonable to describe such a DNN as an application specific DNN.
Examiner’s position is further buttressed by the fact that the term AS-DNN is not widely or commonly used in the art, as Examiner can find no other mention of the term outside of Applicant’s specification. Thus, Examiner maintains that the interpretation used in the Office Action is broad but reasonable.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12:
Applicant further submits that Li fails to disclose or suggest, at least, transmitting a
request to a 5G network node to use a micro-UPF for an application, as recited in claim 15.
Page 9 of the Office Action alleged that the above-mentioned claim element is
disclosed by Li in paragraphs [0100]-[0101]:
"Multicasting or anycasting address or identifier can be allocated by the SGCN for a group of UEs. The AF may request to establish a UE group. Such a request may be validated by the NEF and then forwarded to the UDM or UDR, where a UE group is established or UE group context is maintained according to the information in the AF request (e.g. group membership information-which UEs are in the group). The UDM or UDR may allocate a multicasting address or identifier and/or an anycasting address or identifier for the group and returns the address(es) or identifier(s) to the AF via the NEF as a response to the request. Alternatively, the NEF may allocate a multicasting address or identifier and/or an anycasting address or identifier for the group and provide the address(s) or identifier(s) to the AF when the NEF responds to the AF for the request; the NEF then stores the address(es) or identifier(s) and the association between the address(es) or identifier(s) and the UE group into the UDM or UDR. The AF provides the multicasting address or identifier and/or the anycasting address or identifier to the UEs, each of which then uses the address(es) or identifier(s) for multicasting or anycasting communication to the group.
Two alternative approaches are presented to jointly optimize the UP paths of correlated PDU sessions. In one approach, the path selection functionality of the SMF is split into a separate function, which may be referred to as a Path Selection Function (PSF). The PSF can serve multiple SMFs and therefore perform UP path (re)selection jointly for the correlated PDU sessions that are served by those SMFs, e.g. by selecting a common UPF and/or a common DNAI for the PDU sessions. The PSF functionality may be offered or implemented by an existing Control Plane (CP) function, e.g. PCF, NEF, NRF, UDM, UDR, NWDAF, AMF, NSSF, or by a special type of SMF, e.g. a master SMF, or by an independent function. When it is integrated within another CP function, the interaction between the PSF and that CP function described in this description becomes an internal process of that CP function.” (underlining added)
Li merely discloses an AF requesting to establish a UE group and a common UPF, rather than a transmitting a request to a 5G network node to use a micro-UPF for an application, as recited in the claims.
As explained in MPEP § 2131, "[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, since Li fails to disclose each and every element recited in claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15, Applicant respectfully requests that each of claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15 be allowed.
The Office Action included the following additional rejections:
" Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable
over Li in view of Verma (US 2020/0106812).
" Claim 14 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being allegedly unpatentable
over Li in view of Huang-Fu (US 2020/0359295).
The Office Action acknowledged that Li does not disclose the elements of claims 4 and 14. The Office Action cited Verman and Huang-Fu as allegedly curing these deficiencies. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite subject matter which is neither disclosed nor suggested by a combination of Li, Verman, and Huang-Fu, as discussed below.
Claim 4 depends upon claim 1, and claim 14 depends upon claim 10. As discussed above, Li fails to disclose or suggest all of the elements of claims 1 and 14. Verman and Huang-Fu fail to cure the deficiencies of Li because Verman and Huang-Fu also fails to disclose or suggest AS-DNN and transmitting a request to a 5G network node to use a micro-UPF for an application. Accordingly, the cited prior art, whether individually or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest all of the elements of claims 1 and 10. In addition, claims 4 and 14 should be allowed for at least their dependence upon claims 1 and 10, respectively, and for the specific elements recited therein.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite patent- eligible subject matter which is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited prior art. Applicant further submits that this subject matter is more than sufficient to render the claims unobvious to a person of skill in the art, and that the application is in compliance with U.S. patent practice. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that claims 1-15 be found allowable, and this application be passed to issuance.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s position appears to be that Applicant’s claims require using “micro-UPF,” while the term “micro-UPF” does not appear in the disclosure of Li, as Li only discusses “traditional” UPF.
While Examiner agrees that Li does not explicitly disclose the term “micro-UPF,” Examiner maintains that the disclosure of UPF in Li reads on what is described by Applicant as “micro-UPF.” Examiner will explain below.
Applicant discusses the benefits of a “micro-UPF” over a traditional UPF in paragraph [0095] of their specification, stating that “certain embodiments can eliminate the DN for 5GS connectivity between an application server and a mobile endpoint or UE by introducing micro-UPF PSAs that are co-located or integrated with fixed endpoint application servers.”
Thus, Applicant appears to be stating that at least one of the differences between a “micro-UPF” and a traditional UPF is that the “micro-UPF” is paired with a PSA (protocol data unit (PDU) session anchor) which are co-located with fixed endpoint application servers.
In figure 14A, Li describes a situation in which “the UE is moving from location X1 to location X2. At location X1, the efficient UP path (Path 1) connecting the UE and the application is established through the UPF1 (PSA1). As the UE moves to location X2, the UE moves closer (in terms of network topology) to UPF2. Accordingly, from a traffic engineering perspective, at location X2, it is more efficient to connect the UE to the AS through UPF 2 (e.g, through Path 3), rather than through UPF1. However, with SSC mode 1, at location X2 the UP path is maintained through the initial UPF1 (PSA1), e.g. due to the previously transmitted AF indication. That is, Path 2 is used for connecting the UE and the application, which is less efficient than Path 3 via the UPF2. With SSC mode 3, the ongoing traffic is migrated from Path 2 to Path 3 after the timer expires.”
This figure shows UPF1 co-located with PSA1.
Further, figure 14B, Li shows a first and a second UPF, UPF1 and UPF2, co-located with respective application servers, AS1 and AS2.
Thus, by Applicant’s own description, these UPFs in Li’s figure 14B meet Applicant’s requirements as being “micro-UPFs,” as they can be described as being “UPF PSAs that are co-located or integrated with fixed endpoint application servers.”
To buttress Examiner’s position, there appears to be no explicit definition in literature, industry standards or patent documents which describes exactly what is meant by a “micro-UPF,” and thus it is reasonable for Examiner to interpret the UPFs of Li as being “micro-UPFs,” seeing as they meet the requirements of what Applicant describes as a “micro-UPF.”
Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 December 10, 2025