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 .
Priority
Foreign
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) or 365 (b) is acknowledged, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Domestic
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C.120, 121, or 365(c) or 365 (a) of any PCT Application international application is
acknowledged, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/5/2024 and 6/27/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesely, et al (US PG Publication 2021/0352531), hereafter Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, et al (US PG Publication 2022/0232452), hereafter Sivaraj.
Regarding claim 1, Vesely teaches
a communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a first distributed unit (DU), first information of a second central unit (CU) from a first central unit (CU)
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU. The gNB-CU could include additional assistance information for supporting a new gNB-CU selection), wherein:
the first CU is a CU that has set up a connection to the first DU and that does not support a first slice
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU about the error in the gNB-CU selection
[0069] After failing to retrieve the UE context, the wrong gNB-CU sends the RRC Setup together with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU that the UE context retrieval failed),
the first information of the second CU comprises an identifier or a name of the second CU, the second CU is a CU that supports the first slice, and the first slice is a network slice to be accessed by user equipment (UE)
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU. The gNB-CU could include additional assistance information for supporting a new gNB-CU selection (e.g., PLMN ID or Slice ID selected by the UE, the RRC Setup Completed message as provided by the UE). The gNB-DU then performs another gNB-CU selection until it finds the correct gNB-CU (e.g., the one that served the PLMN or Slice selected by the UE); and
setting up, by the first DU, a connection to the second CU based on the first information of the second CU
([0067] The RRC Setup Completed message as provided by the UE). The gNB-DU then performs another gNB-CU selection until it finds the correct gNB-CU (e.g., the one that served the PLMN or Slice selected by the UE).
Vesely does not teach
the first information of the second CU comprises transport layer information of the second CU.
In the same field of endeavor, Sivaraj teaches
the first information of the second CU comprises transport layer information of the second CU
([0154] The NG/S1 UL UP Transport Layer Information is present in those F1AP network-interface messages previously elaborated, and must be correlated with the gNB-CU UE F1AP ID and gNB-DU UE F1AP ID IEs extracted from those messages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Sivaraj’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, by including transport layer information, for the benefit of correlating transport layer information with a CU and DU (see [0154]).
Regarding claim 2, Vesely teaches the method according to claim 1,
further comprising:
removing, by the first DU, the connection to the first CU
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU
[0068] After sending the RRC Setup Complete to the correct gNB-CU, the gNB-DU will send an F1AP message requesting the release of the signaling connection to the wrong gNB-CU (e.g., UE Context Release Request)).
Regarding claim 5, Vesely teaches
a communication method, comprising:
sending, by a first central unit (CU), first information of a second CU to a first distributed unit (DU), wherein the first information of the second CU comprises an identifier or a name of the second CU
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU. The gNB-CU could include additional assistance information for supporting a new gNB-CU selection (e.g., PLMN ID or Slice ID selected by the UE, the RRC Setup Completed message as provided by the UE). The gNB-DU then performs another gNB-CU selection until it finds the correct gNB-CU (e.g., the one that served the PLMN or Slice selected by the UE),
establishing, by the first DU, a connection to the second CU based on the first information of the second CU
([0067] The RRC Setup Completed message as provided by the UE). The gNB-DU then performs another gNB-CU selection until it finds the correct gNB-CU (e.g., the one that served the PLMN or Slice selected by the UE),
wherein:
the first CU is a CU that has set up a connection to the first DU and that does not support a first slice
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU about the error in the gNB-CU selection
[0069] After failing to retrieve the UE context, the wrong gNB-CU sends the RRC Setup together with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU that the UE context retrieval failed),
the second CU is a CU that supports the first slice, and the first slice is a network slice to be accessed by user equipment (UE)
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU. The gNB-CU could include additional assistance information for supporting a new gNB-CU selection (e.g., PLMN ID or Slice ID selected by the UE, the RRC Setup Completed message as provided by the UE). The gNB-DU then performs another gNB-CU selection until it finds the correct gNB-CU (e.g., the one that served the PLMN or Slice selected by the UE).
Vesely does not teach
wherein the first information of the second CU comprises transport layer information of the second CU.
In the same field of endeavor, Sivaraj teaches
wherein the first information of the second CU comprises transport layer information of the second CU
([0154] The NG/S1 UL UP Transport Layer Information is present in those F1AP network-interface messages previously elaborated, and must be correlated with the gNB-CU UE F1AP ID and gNB-DU UE F1AP ID IEs extracted from those messages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Sivaraj’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, by including transport layer information, for the benefit of correlating transport layer information with a CU and DU (see [0154]).
Claims 3, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, et al (US PG Publication 2020/0374947), hereafter Jin.
Regarding claim 3, Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, teaches the method according to
claim 1.
Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, does not teach
further comprising:
sending, by the first DU, second information to the first CU, wherein the second information indicates the first CU to select the second CU that supports the first slice.
In the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches
further comprising:
sending, by the first DU, second information to the first CU, wherein the second information indicates the first CU to select the second CU that supports the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value
[0138] Optionally, identification information of a CU-UP connected to the DU may further be carried in the interface setup request message. The identification information of the CU-UP connected to the DU is carried in the interface setup request message sent to the CU-CP, so that the CU-CP obtains information about the CU-UP connected to the DU. In this way, the CU-CP selects a proper CU-UP to serve UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Jin’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including CU selection of another CU, for the benefit of having the CU-CP select a proper CU-UP to serve UE (see [0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, teaches the method according to claim 5.
Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, does not teach
further comprising:
selecting, by the first CU, the second CU from a plurality of CUs that can support the first slice.
In the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches
further comprising:
selecting, by the first CU, the second CU from a plurality of CUs that can support the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Jin’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including CU selection of another CU, for the benefit of having the CU-CP select a proper CU-UP to serve UE (see [0138]).
Regarding claim 7, Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, teaches the method according to claim 6.
Jin further teaches
further comprising:
receiving, by the first CU, second information from the first DU, wherein the second information includes an instruction for the first CU to select the second CU that supports the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value
[0138] Optionally, identification information of a CU-UP connected to the DU may further be carried in the interface setup request message. The identification information of the CU-UP connected to the DU is carried in the interface setup request message sent to the CU-CP, so that the CU-CP obtains information about the CU-UP connected to the DU. In this way, the CU-CP selects a proper CU-UP to serve UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Jin’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including CU selection of another CU, for the benefit of having the CU-CP select a proper CU-UP to serve UE (see [0138]).
Claims 4, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, and further in view of Leroux (US PG Publication 2018/0376380).
Regarding claim 4, Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, teaches the method according to claim 3.
Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, does not teach
further comprising:
receiving, by the first DU, third information from the first CU, wherein the third information comprises slice information supported by the first CU;
identifying, by the first DU based on the third information, whether the first CU supports the first slice; and
upon identifying that the first CU does not support the first slice, performing, by the first DU, the step of sending second information to the first CU.
In the same field of endeavor, Leroux teaches
further comprising:
receiving, by the first DU, third information from the first CU, wherein the third information comprises slice information supported by the first CU
(In Fig. 8, CU1 310 informs capabilities to DU 320 in Step 810
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310);
identifying, by the first DU based on the third information, whether the first CU supports the first slice
(In Fig. 8, DU 320 finds a better CU in Step 850
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310); and
upon identifying that the first CU does not support the first slice, performing, by the first DU, the step of sending second information to the first CU
(In Fig. 8, DU 320 sends a Handover Req message to the CU1 310 in Step 851
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Leroux’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including DU receiving information for selection of another CU, for the benefit of matching the capabilities of the CUs, without having to independently query each attached CU until one is found (see [0192]).
Regarding claim 8, Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, teaches the method according to claim 7.
Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, does not teach
further comprising:
sending, by the first CU, third information to the first DU, wherein the third information comprises slice information supported by the first CU, and
identifying, by the first DU based on the third information, whether the first CU supports the first slice.
In the same field of endeavor, Leroux teaches
further comprising:
sending, by the first CU, third information to the first DU, wherein the third information comprises slice information supported by the first CU
(In Fig. 8, CU1 310 informs capabilities to DU 320 in Step 810
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310), and
identifying, by the first DU based on the third information, whether the first CU supports the first slice
(In Fig. 8, DU 320 finds a better CU in Step 850
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Leroux’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including DU receiving information for selection of another CU, for the benefit of matching the capabilities of the CUs, without having to independently query each attached CU until one is found (see [0192]).
Regarding claim 9, Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, and further in view of Leroux, teaches the method according to claim 8.
Jin further teaches
further comprising:
identifying, by the first CU based on slice information supported by the first CU, whether the first CU supports the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value
[0138] In this way, the CU-CP selects a proper CU-UP to serve UE); and
upon identifying that the first CU does not support the first slice, performing, by the first CU, the step of selecting the second CU from a plurality of CUs that can support the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value
[0138] In this way, the CU-CP selects a proper CU-UP to serve UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Jin, and further in view of Leroux, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Jin’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including CU selection of another CU, for the benefit of having the CU-CP select a proper CU-UP to serve UE (see [0138]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroux, in view of Vesely.
Regarding claim 11, Leroux teaches
A communication method, comprising:
sending, by a first central unit (CU), fourth information to a second central unit CU, wherein:
the fourth information includes an instruction for the second CU to update a connection between the first CU and a first distributed unit (DU) to a connection between the first DU and the second CU
([0168] A given node, such as a CU 310 determine when it is no longer optimal and will handover to another CU 310 and inform path switches to the DUs 320. This strategy would also expose CU 310 capabilities to other CU(s) 310 and to DU(s) 320 and DU 320 capabilities to CU(s) 310 and to other DU(s) 320, such that, by way of non-limiting example, if the CN 330 requests a path switch, the CU 310 can determine whether or not it is still the optimal CU 310. If another CU 310 is better, it can automatically initiated handover to that CU 310 and trigger path switches to involved DUs 320
[0191] Capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 31).
Leroux does not teach
the first CU is a CU that has set up a connection to the first DU and that does not support a first slice, the second CU is a CU that supports the first slice, and the first slice is a network slice to be accessed by user equipment (UE).
In the same field of endeavor, Vesely teaches
the first CU is a CU that has set up a connection to the first DU and that does not support a first slice, the second CU is a CU that supports the first slice, and the first slice is a network slice to be accessed by user equipment (UE)
([0067] After realizing the error, the gNB-CU sends an F1 Application Protocol (F1AP) message (e.g., UE Context Release Command) with a special indication that informs the gNB-DU about the error in the gNB-CU selection. The gNB-CU could include additional assistance information for supporting a new gNB-CU selection (e.g., PLMN ID or Slice ID selected by the UE, the RRC Setup Completed message as provided by the UE). The gNB-DU then performs another gNB-CU selection until it finds the correct gNB-CU (e.g., the one that served the PLMN or Slice selected by the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Leroux, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Vesely’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, updating to a connection with another DU, for the benefit of finding a correct CU (see [0067]).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leroux, in view of Vesely, and further in view of Jin.
Regarding claim 12, Leroux, in view of Vesely, teaches the method according to claim 11.
Vesely, in view of Sivaraj, does not teach
further comprising:
selecting, by the first CU, the second CU from a plurality of CUs that can support the first slice..
In the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches
further comprising:
selecting, by the first CU, the second CU from a plurality of CUs that can support the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Leroux, in view of Vesely, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Jin’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including CU selection of another CU, for the benefit of having the CU-CP select a proper CU-UP to serve UE (see [0138]).
Regarding claim 13, Leroux, in view of Vesely, and further in view of Jin, teaches the method according to claim 12.
Jin further teaches
further comprising:
receiving, by the first CU, second information from the first DU, wherein the second information includes an instruction for the first CU to select the second CU that supports the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value
[0138] Optionally, identification information of a CU-UP connected to the DU may further be carried in the interface setup request message. The identification information of the CU-UP connected to the DU is carried in the interface setup request message sent to the CU-CP, so that the CU-CP obtains information about the CU-UP connected to the DU. In this way, the CU-CP selects a proper CU-UP to serve UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Leroux, in view of Vesely, and further in view of Jin, which includes communication between DUs and CUs, to include Jin’s teaching of communication between DUs and CUs, including CU selection of another CU, for the benefit of having the CU-CP select a proper CU-UP to serve UE (see [0138]).
Regarding claim 14, Leroux, in view of Vesely, and further in view of Jin, teaches the method according to claim 13.
Leroux further teaches
further comprising:
sending, by the first CU, third information to the first DU, wherein the third information comprises slice information supported by the first CU
(In Fig. 8, CU1 310 informs capabilities to DU 320 in Step 810
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310), and
identifying, by the first DU based on the third information, whether the first CU supports the first slice
(In Fig. 8, DU 320 finds a better CU in Step 850
[0192] The DU 320 can decide to handover to another CU 310 with such connection/session demands to match the capabilities of the CUs 310, without having to independently query each attached CU 310 until one is found. In this case, capabilities exposed to the DU 320 could include, by way of non-limiting example, slice connectivity of the CUs 310).
Regarding claim 15, Leroux, in view of Vesely, and further in view of Jin, teaches the method according to claim 12.
further comprising:
identifying, by the first CU based on slice information supported by the first CU, whether the first CU supports the first slice
([0097] The CU-CP determines whether the CU-UP 1 and the CU-UP 2 support the network slice corresponding to the session or the bearer that needs to be set up. In this way, load among CU-UPs is more balanced, thereby increasing resource utilization of a network, and also avoiding a session setup failure caused by selecting a CU-UP with an insufficient capability); and
upon identifying that the first CU does not support the first slice, performing, by the first CU, the step of selecting the second CU from a plurality of CUs that can support the first slice
([0090] The CU-CP may select a proper CU-UP with reference to the capacity information. A plurality of CU-UPs all support a network slice corresponding to a session or a bearer that needs to be set up), a CU-CP selects, as a serving CU-UP, a CU-UP whose capacity information corresponds to a larger value
[0097] The CU-CP determines whether the CU-UP 1 and the CU-UP 2 support the network slice corresponding to the session or the bearer that needs to be set up. In this way, load among CU-UPs is more balanced, thereby increasing resource utilization of a network, and also avoiding a session setup failure caused by selecting a CU-UP with an insufficient capability).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Teyeb, et al (US PG Publication 2023/0239755), hereafter Teyeb, teaches obtaining configuration information for establishing an interface between the IAB node DU and a target IAB donor central unit (CU).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Frank Donado whose telephone number is (571) 270-5361. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays between 8 am and 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Patent Examiner (SPE) Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK E DONADO/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights