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
a. Claims 1-20 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
b. This is a first action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 07/12/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: undefined acronym. The acronym "ma" has not been defined in the claims. The first instance of this acronym should read "metro aggregator/aggregation (ma)". Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allan et al. US Pub 2006/0029032 (hereinafter “Allan”), in view of Miyabe US Pub 2012/0182876 (hereinafter “Miyabe”), and further in view of Lee US Pub 2004/0218542 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1
Allan discloses a method of determining persistent service paths (“System 10 also includes a route reflector such as a border gateway protocol ("BGP") route reflector. Route reflectors such as a BGP route reflector are known in the art and are used to propagate routing information among the devices in the network such as between customer edge devices 12, provider edge devices 14 and provider tandem 18.” [0027]) between provider edge devices (e.g. “PEa-e” in Fig. 1) and customer edge devices (e.g. “CE 12a-f” in Fig. 1), the method comprising:
Allan does not specifically teach identifying, by at least one processor of a device, a service identifier associated with a service provided by a communication network; identifying, by the at least one processor, based on the service identifier and traffic data of the communication network, one or more first adjacencies between provider edge devices, of the communication network, using a service indicated by the service identifier; identifying, by the at least one processor, based on the service identifier and traffic data of the communication network, one or more second adjacencies between the provider edge devices and customer edge devices using the service; and mapping, by the at least one processor, based on the one or more first adjacencies and the one or more second adjacencies, a persistent service path between a customer edge device of the customer edge devices and a provider edge device of the provider edge devices.
In an analogous art, Miyabe discloses identifying, by at least one processor (“an ingress processing unit to generate an encapsulated frame to be transmitted to another provider edge apparatus coupled to the another customer edge apparatus,” [0023] and “an egress processing unit to extract a frame to be forwarded to the specified customer edge apparatus from an encapsulated frame received from the another provider edge apparatus” [0024]) of a device (e.g. “customer edge apparatus CE#2”), a service identifier (“the customer edge apparatus CE#2 and the customer edge apparatus CE#3 is encapsulated, holds a service identifier (ISID) "X" and a backbone VLAN identifier (BVID) "Y".” [0082]) associated with a service provided by a communication network;
identifying, by the at least one processor (i.e. “ingress/egress processing unit”), based on the service identifier (i.e. “service identifier (ISID)”) and traffic data of the communication network (“to provide a service for transmitting a Media Access Control (MAC) frame to a customer via a provider network which employs Ethernet” [0003]), one or more first adjacencies between provider edge devices (e.g. “PE#1,2,3,4” in Fig. 1), of the communication network, using a service indicated by the service identifier (“The service frame, which is transmitted from the customer edge apparatus (e.g., CE#12 in FIG. 11) on a transmission side and addressed to another customer edge apparatus (e.g., CE#13), contains a payload (user data), a MAC source address (SA) and a MAC destination address (DA). The service frame is attached with a service instance identifier (ISID or I-SID) associated with the service and a backbone VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) identifier (BVID or B-VID) in the provider edge apparatus (which is called an ingress edge node, e.g., PE#12 in FIG. 11) located at an ingress of the provider network.” [0005]);
identifying, by the at least one processor (i.e. “ingress/egress processing unit”), based on the service identifier (i.e. “service identifier (ISID)”) and traffic data of the communication network (i.e. “transmitting a Media Access Control (MAC) frame”), one or more second adjacencies between the provider edge devices (e.g. “PE#1-4” in Fig. 1) and customer edge devices (e.g. “CE#1-3” in Fig. 1)using the service; and
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, to include Miyabe’s provider network and a provider edge apparatus, in order to determine the service identifiers corresponds to a group identifier indicating an access line group belonging the first access line and the second access line (Miyabe [Abstract]).
Allan and Miyabe do noy specifically teach mapping, by the at least one processor, based on the one or more first adjacencies and the one or more second adjacencies, a persistent service path between a customer edge device of the customer edge devices and a provider edge device of the provider edge devices.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses mapping, by the at least one processor, based on the one or more first adjacencies (i.e. “destination provider edge node”) and the one or more second adjacencies (i.e. “customer edge node”), a persistent service path (i.e. “data path”) between a customer edge device of the customer edge devices and a provider edge device of the provider edge devices (“a mechanism for verifying a data path in an Ethernet bridged LAN. In one aspect the destination provider edge node is capable of diverting frames addressed to the destination customer edge node to the control plane based on their EtherType without terminating the frames. Therefore the Eping command can be issued without information on the destination provider edge node. In a second aspect the destination provider edge node does not have this diversion capability. Therefore the encapsulated Eping message must be addressed to the destination provider edge node so that it can be terminated before being sent to the control plane. The destination provider edge node can be discovered by either using a hop-by-hop approach wherein the address of the customer edge node is carried by a discover request message, or by sending a discover request message to a special multicast address and the provider edge node adjacent to the destination customer edge node responds to the discover request message.” [0051] and furthermore “To perform the verification technique of the present invention an operator would initiate an Ethernet ping from a provider edge (PE) device directed to a particular MAC address. The Eping tests the integrity of the path to the destination and can also calculate the roundtrip delay between source and destination. If the source address is not specified the default setting for the source address is the MAC source address of the device where the Eping is invoked.” [0011]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe, to include Lee’s mechanism to ping the path a frame will traverse, in order to map a persistent service path between a customer edge device and a provider edge device (Lee [0011]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Lee’s mechanism to ping the path a frame will traverse into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10
Allan discloses a device (e.g. “provider tandem ("PT") 18” in Fig. 1; [0025]) for determining persistent service paths between provider edge devices and customer edge devices, the device comprising memory coupled to at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
identify a service identifier associated with a service provided by a communication network;
identify, based on the service identifier and traffic data of the communication network, one or more first adjacencies between provider edge devices, of the communication network, using a service indicated by the service identifier;
identify, based on the service identifier and traffic data of the communication network, one or more second adjacencies between the provider edge devices and customer edge devices using the service; and
map, based on the one or more first adjacencies and the one or more second adjacencies, a persistent service path between a customer edge device of the customer edge devices and a provider edge device of the provider edge devices.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 10 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 10 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 19
A system for determining persistent service paths between provider edge devices and customer edge devices, the system comprising:
the provider edge devices;
the customer edge devices; and
memory coupled to at least one processor, the at least one processor configured to: identify a service identifier associated with a service provided by a communication network;
identify, based on the service identifier and traffic data of the communication network, one or more first adjacencies between the provider edge devices, wherein the provider edges use a service indicated by the service identifier;
identify, based on the service identifier and traffic data of the communication network, one or more second adjacencies between the provider edge devices and customer edge devices, wherein the customer edge devices use the service; and
map, based on the one or more first adjacencies and the one or more second adjacencies, a persistent service path between a customer edge device of the customer edge devices and a provider edge device of the provider edge devices.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 19 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 19 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Claims 2-5, 11-14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allan, in view of Miyabe and Lee, and further in view of Wakumoto et al. US Pub 2018/0049223 (hereinafter “Wakumoto”).
Regarding claim 2
Allan, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, previously discloses the method of claim 1,
Allan, Miyabe, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro edge adjacency.
In an analogous art, Wakumoto discloses wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro edge adjacency (“Devices 230, 240, and 250 may include, without limitation, one or more of a router, a switch, a metro core device, a metro aggregator device, and the like.” [0025]; Fig. 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, to include Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network, in order to map a persistent service path between a customer edge device and a provider edge device (Wakumoto [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3
Allan, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, previously discloses the method of claim 1,
Allan, Miyabe, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro aggregator adjacency.
In an analogous art, Wakumoto discloses wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro aggregator adjacency (“Devices 230, 240, and 250 may include, without limitation, one or more of a router, a switch, a metro core device, a metro aggregator device, and the like.” [0025]; Fig. 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, to include Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network, in order to map a persistent service path between a customer edge device and a provider edge device (Wakumoto [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4
Allan, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, previously discloses the method of claim 1,
Allan, Miyabe, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro off-network to network interface adjacency.
In an analogous art, Wakumoto discloses wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro off-network to network interface adjacency (“Conventionally, network service path mapping requires service providers to maintain an inventory of network devices and, more specifically, interfaces of the network devices. Each interface within the inventory is generally assigned an interface description field and corresponding interface attributes. The use of such inventories is limited in various ways. For example, equipment vendors often limit the size and/or format of interface description fields.” [0014]; [0026]; Fig. 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, to include Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network, in order to map a persistent service path between a customer edge device and a provider edge device (Wakumoto [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5
Allan, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, previously discloses the method of claim 1,
Allan, Miyabe, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the first adjacencies comprise a ma to metro edge adjacency.
In an analogous art, Wakumoto discloses wherein the first adjacencies comprise a ma to metro edge adjacency (“Devices 230, 240, and 250 may include, without limitation, one or more of a router, a switch, a metro core device, a metro aggregator device, and the like.” [0025]; Fig. 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, to include Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network, in order to map a persistent service path between a customer edge device and a provider edge device (Wakumoto [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Wakumoto’s method for mapping network service paths between endpoint devices of a network into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11
The device of claim 10, wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro edge adjacency.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 11 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 2. Therefore apparatus claim 11 corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Regarding claim 12
The device of claim 10, wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro aggregator adjacency.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 12 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 3. Therefore apparatus claim 12 corresponds to method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 3 rejection above.
Regarding claim 13
The device of claim 10, wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro off-network to network interface adjacency.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 13 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 4. Therefore apparatus claim 13 corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 4 rejection above.
Regarding claim 14
The device of claim 10, wherein the first adjacencies comprise a ma to metro edge adjacency.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 14 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 5. Therefore apparatus claim 14 corresponds to method claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 20
The system of claim 19, wherein the first adjacencies comprise a metro core to a metro edge adjacency.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 20 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 2. Therefore apparatus claim 20 corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allan, in view of Miyabe and Lee, and further in view of Mayya et al. US Pub 2018/0034668 (hereinafter “Mayya”).
Regarding claim 6
Allan, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, previously discloses the method of claim 1,
Allan, Miyabe, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the mapping is performed without a user request.
In an analogous art, Mayya discloses wherein the mapping is performed without a user request (“In another example, a less preferred gateway 2 can send ‘R’ with automatic AS-path-prepend to effectively make gateway 1 preferred. In another example, the user may specify BGP communities in a priority-order (e.g. based on their mapping to local-preference on the provider-edge (PE) router side (e.g. a provider-edge router can be a version of a CE router that sits on the provider's edge instead of the customer's edge, etc.). Gateway 1 can then automatically redistribute route ‘R’ with a community value from this ordered list which is more preferred than the community value chosen on the route redistributed by gateway 2.” [0066]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, to include Mayya’s method of a gateway distributing routes learned through routing protocols (RP) into a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), in order to automatically redistribute the route with different priorities to influence steering of traffic to a preferred gateway (Mayya [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Mayya’s method of a gateway distributing routes learned through routing protocols (RP) into a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7
Allan, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, previously discloses the method of claim 1,
Allan, Miyabe, and Lee do not specifically teach wherein the first adjacencies and the second adjacencies are based on each metro core cluster member of a cluster of metro core cluster members.
In an analogous art, Mayya discloses wherein the first adjacencies and the second adjacencies are based on each metro core cluster member of a cluster of metro core cluster members (“CE router (customer edge router) can be a router located on the customer premises that provides an Ethernet interface between the customer's LAN and the provider's core network. CE routers can be a component in an MPLS architecture.” [0023]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network, as modified by Miyabe and Lee, to include Mayya’s method of a gateway distributing routes learned through routing protocols (RP) into a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), in order to automatically redistribute the route with different priorities to influence steering of traffic to a preferred gateway (Mayya [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Mayya’s method of a gateway distributing routes learned through routing protocols (RP) into a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)into Allan’s method for providing a virtual private communication network to transport customer data between a set of customer devices coupled to a provider network since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8
Allan, as modified by Miyabe, Lee, and Mayya, previously discloses the method of claim 7,
Allan further discloses further comprising generating the cluster of metro core cluster members based on third adjacencies between the provider edge devices and a metro core (“System 10 also includes a route reflector such as a border gateway protocol ("BGP") route reflector. Route reflectors such as a BGP route reflector are known in the art and are used to propagate routing information among the devices in the network such as between customer edge devices 12, provider edge devices 14 and provider tandem 18. This is an example of a specific embodiment of a function that meets the general requirement of flooding service information to those network elements that participate in implementing a specific service instance. For example, it is contemplated that route propagation can be achieved via a full mesh of BGP adjacencies between all provider tandems 18 and all provider edge devices 14 (i.e. the cluster of metro core cluster members).” [0027] and furthermore “Provider tandem device 18 maps its own label to the provider edge device 14 service label and offers its own label and route to all spoke provider edge devices 14 via the BGP route reflector 24 or other suitable mechanism for route propagation such as the full mesh of BGP adjacencies (i.e. the cluster of metro core cluster members) described above (step S118). By creating its own label and routing the information with the new label to all spoke provider edge devices 14, provider tandem 18 essentially creates a multi-point label so that all customer data destined for the customer edge device 12 supporting the new customer route is transmitted by the spokes to provider tandem 18.” [0043]).
Regarding claim 9
Allan, as modified by Miyabe, Lee, and Mayya, previously discloses the method of claim 8,
Allan further discloses wherein generating the cluster comprises removing non-cluster members identified using metro core to metro core adjacencies and metro core to member adjacencies (“In accordance with the principles of the invention shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, customer data can be transported from a first customer edge device, such as customer edge device 12a, to a second customer edge device, such as customer edge device 12d, as follows. As discussed above, both provider edge devices 14a and 14c supporting the customer edge devices advertise their committed information rates to provider tandem 18 as part of a routing update that occurs when these provider edge devices update other devices in the network to indicate which routes are supported by customer edge devices (such as by CE 12a and 12d). Routes supported refers to those routes that are available to customer devices within each respective internal customer network 22.” [0031]).
Regarding claim 15
The device of claim 10, wherein the mapping is performed without a user request.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 15 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 6. Therefore apparatus claim 15 corresponds to method claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16
The device of claim 10, wherein the first adjacencies and the second adjacencies are based on each metro core cluster member of a cluster of metro core cluster members.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 16 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 7. Therefore apparatus claim 16 corresponds to method claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 17
The device of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the cluster of metro core cluster members based on third adjacencies between the provider edge devices and a metro core.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 17 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 8. Therefore apparatus claim 17 corresponds to method claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 18
The device of claim 17, wherein to generate the cluster comprises to remove non-cluster members identified using metro core to metro core adjacencies and metro core to member adjacencies.
`The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 9. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 9 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights