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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2025 and 06/01/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement have been considered by the examiner
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as that specification would be read by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111). The constructions below govern the rejections that follow.
Deterministic Network (DetNet). Claim 14 recites that the DetNet is an IETF DetNet, and the specification uses the term in that sense. DetNet is accordingly construed as the deterministic networking service of the IETF architecture, (See spec in paragraph [0018] “[0018] FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of a network architecture to support IETF Deterministic Networks”) under which an identified sequence of packets is carried across a portion of the network that is DetNet aware with bounded latency and loss. (See spec [0132]-[0133] “Maximum latency variation: this is the difference between the minimum and maximum end-end one-way latency, in nanoseconds. [0133] MaxLoss: this defines the maximum Packet Loss Ratio (PLR) parameter for the DetNet service between the ingress and egress(es) of the DetNet domain.”). Nothing in the claims requires any particular DetNet data plane encapsulation, and a data network reached over a user plane connection may be such a portion of the network.
First information. Claim 1 recites a first information to setup a user plane connection, and claim 2 defines it by two alternatives, a data network name or a single network slice selection assistance information. The term is therefore construed as whatever the terminal supplies in its request from which the user plane connection is set up, and either of the two recited identifiers satisfies it. Claim 3 adds that the first information corresponds to a DetNet, or includes a DetNet capability of the UE; these are alternatives and either suffices.
DetNet capability of the UE. Claims 5, 6 and 7 each define this capability by what the terminal is able to do, act as a relay, edge or transit node, support neighbor discovery or DetNet configuration protocols, or calculate a residence time. The term is construed as the terminal's ability to perform the recited function, not as a particular signaling format, and a terminal that in fact performs the function has the capability.
Conditional and alternative recitations. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 22 and 26 to 29 recite their limitations in the alternative, in the forms at least one of, one or more of, and or. A claim so drafted is satisfied when any one of the recited alternatives is satisfied, and each rejection below states which alternative it rests on and states that no reference is relied on as teaching the others.
Memory, processor and controller. Claims 1, 10 and 25 recite a memory with a processor or a controller coupled to it. These are structural terms rather than generic placeholders and the claims use no means language, so 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and the limitations are given their plain structural meaning as programmed hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 23.501 version 15.4.0 in view of RFC 8655.
Regarding claim 1, TS 23.501 discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to, because TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment of a fifth generation system that stores the route selection policy rules it is provisioned with and runs applications that request data transmission, on which the user equipment applies the stored rules to decide which PDU session carries the application's data, so that the user equipment is a device holding rules in a memory and executing applications and the rule evaluation on a processor coupled to that memory, which is a user equipment comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the user equipment to carry out the operations that follow: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “The UE shall store the URSP rules, including the NSSP, as described in TS 23.503 [45].”; TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 pg. 143 “When a UE application associated with a specific S-NSSAI requests data transmission,”; TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “the UE routes the user data of this application in one of these PDU Sessions”).
TS 23.501 does not use the words processor or memory. A user equipment that is required to store the rules it is provisioned with, and that executes applications and applies those stored rules when an application requests data transmission, necessarily holds the rules and the applications in a memory and executes them on a processor coupled to that memory; there is no other way for a terminal to store rules and run programs. Accordingly, it is therefore reasonable to find that TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the user equipment to carry out the operations it describes. In any event it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the user equipment of TS 23.501 with a processor coupled to a memory, which is the ordinary way a terminal that stores rules and runs applications is built, with the predictable result of a terminal that performs those operations.
Furthermore, TS 23.501 discloses: transmit a request to a wireless communication network, the request comprising a first information to setup a user plane connection, because TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment that asks the network to set up a PDU session to a data network and supplies, in that request, the slice selection assistance information and, where it is available, the data network name identifying the data network the session is to reach, so that what the terminal sends is a request carrying the information from which the user plane connection is set up: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 pg. 143 “shall indicate in the PDU Session Establishment procedure the S-NSSAI according to the NSSP in the URSP and, if available, the DNN the PDU Session is related to”).
Although TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment that requests a PDU session and supplies, in that request, the slice selection assistance information and the data network name identifying the data network the session is to reach: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3), TS 23.501 does not explicitly disclose that the traffic the user plane connection is set up for is Deterministic Network data traffic.
Nevertheless, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses for Deterministic Network (DetNet) data traffic. because RFC 8655 teaches packets carried under a deterministic networking service as a DetNet flow, within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, so that the traffic the user plane connection is set up to carry is Deterministic Network traffic (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes end systems and DetNet nodes.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry the deterministic networking traffic RFC 8655 describes over the user plane connection TS 23.501 sets up, and to have the terminal name, in its own session request, the data network that carries it. TS 23.501 establishes a user plane connection to whatever data network the terminal identifies and is indifferent to the character of the traffic the connection then carries; RFC 8655 describes traffic that is carried as an identified flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, and such traffic has to reach that portion of the network to be served at all. Naming the data network that carries the deterministic traffic is the use of TS 23.501's own mechanism for the purpose that mechanism exists to serve, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a session set up to the network that carries that traffic. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination leaves the session establishment procedure untouched and changes only which data network the terminal names in it.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, TS 23.501 discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises at least one of a data network name or a single network slice selection assistance information, as TS 23.501 further discloses a PDU session being associated to a network slice selection assistance information and a data network name, which are the single network slice selection assistance information and the data network name the first information is recited to carry (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “A PDU Session is associated to an S-NSSAI and a DNN.”).
Claim 2 recites its alternatives in the form at least one of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a data network name, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Accordingly TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein one of the first information corresponds to a DetNet, or the first information includes a DetNet capability of the UE, as RFC 8655 further discloses the DetNet flow as the sequence of packets to which the deterministic networking service is provided, so that information identifying the traffic of the requested connection as such a flow is information corresponding to a DetNet (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”).
Claim 3 recites its two limitations in the alternative, joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of one of the first information corresponds to a DetNet, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Thus TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 3, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses The UE of claim 3, wherein the DetNet capability of the UE defines the UE to act as at least one of a relay node, an edge node, or a transit node, as RFC 8655 further discloses the three kinds of DetNet node by name, the relay node that interconnects forwarding sub-layer paths, the edge node that is an instance of a relay node acting as a source or destination, and the transit node that switches across links and sub-networks, which are the relay node, edge node and transit node the capability is recited to define (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A DetNet node that includes a service sub-layer function that interconnects different DetNet forwarding sub-layer paths to provide service protection.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “An instance of a DetNet relay node that acts as a source and/or destination at the DetNet service sub-layer.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A DetNet node, operating at the DetNet forwarding sub-layer, that utilizes link-layer and/or network-layer switching across multiple links and/or sub-networks to provide paths for DetNet service sub-layer functions.”).
Claim 5 recites its alternatives in the form at least one of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a relay node, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
For these reasons TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, TS 23.501 discloses: A processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to, because TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment of a fifth generation system that stores the route selection policy rules it is provisioned with and runs applications that request data transmission, on which the user equipment applies the stored rules to decide which PDU session carries the application's data, so that the user equipment is a device holding rules in a memory and executing applications and the rule evaluation on a processor coupled to that memory, the processing element of that user equipment which applies the stored rules being a processor for wireless communication comprising a controller coupled with a memory and configured to cause the processor to carry out the operations that follow: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “The UE shall store the URSP rules, including the NSSP, as described in TS 23.503 [45].”; TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “When a UE application associated with a specific S-NSSAI requests data transmission,”; TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “the UE routes the user data of this application in one of these PDU Sessions”).
TS 23.501 does not use the words processor or memory. A user equipment that is required to store the rules it is provisioned with, and that executes applications and applies those stored rules when an application requests data transmission, necessarily holds the rules and the applications in a memory and executes them on a processor coupled to that memory; there is no other way for a terminal to store rules and run programs. It is therefore reasonable to find that TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the user equipment to carry out the operations it describes. In any event it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the user equipment of TS 23.501 with a processor coupled to a memory, which is the ordinary way a terminal that stores rules and runs applications is built, with the predictable result of a terminal that performs those operations.
Furthermore, TS 23.501 discloses: transmit a request to a wireless communication network, the request including a first information to setup a user plane connection, because TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment that asks the network to set up a PDU session to a data network and supplies, in that request, the slice selection assistance information and, where it is available, the data network name identifying the data network the session is to reach, so that what the terminal sends is a request carrying the information from which the user plane connection is set up: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “shall indicate in the PDU Session Establishment procedure the S-NSSAI according to the NSSP in the URSP and, if available, the DNN the PDU Session is related to”).
Although TS 23.501 teaches a user equipment that requests a PDU session and supplies, in that request, the slice selection assistance information and the data network name identifying the data network the session is to reach: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3), TS 23.501 does not explicitly disclose that the traffic the user plane connection is set up for is Deterministic Network data traffic.
However, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses for Deterministic Network (DetNet) data traffic. because RFC 8655 teaches packets carried under a deterministic networking service as a DetNet flow, within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, so that the traffic the user plane connection is set up to carry is Deterministic Network traffic (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes end systems and DetNet nodes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry the deterministic networking traffic RFC 8655 describes over the user plane connection TS 23.501 sets up, and to have the terminal name, in its own session request, the data network that carries it. TS 23.501 establishes a user plane connection to whatever data network the terminal identifies and is indifferent to the character of the traffic the connection then carries; RFC 8655 describes traffic that is carried as an identified flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, and such traffic has to reach that portion of the network to be served at all. Naming the data network that carries the deterministic traffic is the use of TS 23.501's own mechanism for the purpose that mechanism exists to serve, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a session set up to the network that carries that traffic. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination leaves the session establishment procedure untouched and changes only which data network the terminal names in it.
Regarding claim 26, which depends on claim 25, TS 23.501 discloses The processor of claim 25, wherein the first information includes at least one of a data network name or a single network slice selection assistance information, as TS 23.501 further discloses a PDU session being associated to a network slice selection assistance information and a data network name, which are the single network slice selection assistance information and the data network name the first information is recited to carry (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3 “A PDU Session is associated to an S-NSSAI and a DNN.”).
Claim 26 recites its alternatives in the form at least one of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a data network name, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Therefore TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 27, which depends on claim 25, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses The processor of claim 25, wherein one of the first information corresponds to a DetNet, or the first information includes a DetNet capability of a user equipment (UE), as RFC 8655 further discloses the DetNet flow as the sequence of packets to which the deterministic networking service is provided, so that information identifying the traffic of the requested connection as such a flow is information corresponding to a DetNet (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”).
Claim 27 recites its two limitations in the alternative, joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of one of the first information corresponds to a DetNet, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Accordingly, TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 28, which depends on claim 27, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses The processor of claim 27, wherein the DetNet capability of the UE defines the UE to act as at least one of a relay node, an edge node, or a transit node, as RFC 8655 further discloses the three kinds of DetNet node by name, the relay node that interconnects forwarding sub-layer paths, the edge node that is an instance of a relay node acting as a source or destination, and the transit node that switches across links and sub-networks, which are the relay node, edge node and transit node the capability is recited to define (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A DetNet node that includes a service sub-layer function that interconnects different DetNet forwarding sub-layer paths to provide service protection.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “An instance of a DetNet relay node that acts as a source and/or destination at the DetNet service sub-layer.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A DetNet node, operating at the DetNet forwarding sub-layer, that utilizes link-layer and/or network-layer switching across multiple links and/or sub-networks to provide paths for DetNet service sub-layer functions.”).
Claim 28 recites its alternatives in the form at least one of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a relay node, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Thus TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Claims 6, 7, 10-15, 22-24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 23.501 version 15.4.0 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of 3GPP TS 23.502 version 16.7.1.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 3, even though TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 teaches a user equipment that asks the network to set up a PDU session and supplies, in that request, the information from which the user plane connection is set up, the traffic that connection carries being a DetNet flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3; RFC 8655, section 2.1), TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 does not explicitly disclose that the DetNet capability of the user equipment includes a capability to support a neighbor discovery protocol.
However, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses The UE of claim 3, wherein the DetNet capability of the UE because TS 23.502 teaches the terminal itself supplying, for the session it requests, the address of the DS-TT Ethernet port it uses, so that the DS-TT port whose functions follow is the terminal's own and what that port is able to do is a capability of the terminal (TS 23.502, clause 4.3.2.2.1, pg. 92 “the UE shall include the MAC address of the DS-TT Ethernet port used for this PDU session”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses includes a capability to support one or more of neighbor discovery protocols or DetNet configuration protocols because TS 23.502 teaches neighbor discovery configuration being provided to that port so as to configure and activate the discovery agent running there, so that a terminal whose port runs such an agent is a terminal supporting a neighbor discovery protocol (TS 23.502, clause F.1, pg. 577 “provides DS-TT port neighbor discovery configuration to DS-TT to configure and activate the LLDP agent in DS-TT”).
Claim 6 recites its alternatives in the form one or more of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of neighbor discovery protocols, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give the terminal of TS 23.501 as modified by RFC 8655 the neighbor discovery support TS 23.502 describes. TS 23.502 is the procedural companion to TS 23.501 and specifies, for the same fifth generation system, how a terminal whose port sits at the edge of a time sensitive bridged network takes part in that network, and the traffic RFC 8655 describes is served only within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, a portion RFC 8655 says includes the end systems, and the terminal that requests the session is such an end system. Equipping that terminal as TS 23.502 already equips the terminal at the edge of a time sensitive network is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a terminal able to take its place in the deterministic portion of the network it asks to reach. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since TS 23.502 writes the procedure for the very session establishment TS 23.501 specifies and nothing in either document is altered by the combination.
Accordingly, TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 3, even though TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 teaches a user equipment that asks the network to set up a PDU session and supplies, in that request, the information from which the user plane connection is set up, the traffic that connection carries being a DetNet flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3; RFC 8655, section 2.1), TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 does not explicitly disclose that the DetNet capability of the user equipment includes a capability to calculate a residence time.
Nonetheless, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses The UE of claim 3, wherein the DetNet capability of the UE includes a capability to calculate a residence time because TS 23.502 teaches the terminal that is aware of its own DS-TT residence time supplying that residence time to the network in its session request, so that the residence time the network works with is a value the terminal holds and reports rather than one the network supplies to it (TS 23.502, clause 4.3.2.2.1, “If the UE is aware of the UE-DS-TT Residence Time, then the UE shall additionally include the UE-DS-TT Residence Time.”).
The reference does not use the word calculate. Under the construction adopted above, the DetNet capability of the terminal is the terminal's ability to perform the recited function, and a terminal that holds its own residence time and supplies that value to the network has arrived at the value for itself; nothing in the claim requires any particular method of arriving at it, or that the terminal derive it rather than measure or store it. It would in any event have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the terminal work out the residence time it is required to report, since a value a device must report and that no other node supplies to it is a value that device has to arrive at.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give the terminal of TS 23.501 as modified by RFC 8655 the residence time reporting TS 23.502 describes. TS 23.502 is the procedural companion to TS 23.501 and specifies, for the same fifth generation system, how a terminal whose port sits at the edge of a time sensitive bridged network takes part in that network, and the traffic RFC 8655 describes is served only within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, a portion RFC 8655 says includes the end systems, and the terminal that requests the session is such an end system. Equipping that terminal as TS 23.502 already equips the terminal at the edge of a time sensitive network is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a terminal able to take its place in the deterministic portion of the network it asks to reach. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since TS 23.502 writes the procedure for the very session establishment TS 23.501 specifies and nothing in either document is altered by the combination.
Consequently TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, TS 23.501 discloses: A network node implementing an application function in a wireless communication network, the network node comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network node to, because TS 23.501 teaches the application function as one of the network functions of which the fifth generation system consists, and teaches that a network function is implemented as a network element on dedicated hardware or as a software instance running on dedicated hardware, so that the node on which the application function runs is a node holding that software in a memory and executing it on a processor coupled to that memory, which is a network node implementing an application function comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network node to carry out the operations that follow: (TS 23.501, clause 4.2.2 “The 5G System architecture consists of the following network functions (NF).”; TS 23.501, clause 4.2.2 “Application Function (AF)”; TS 23.501, clause 3.1 pg. 16 “A network function can be implemented either as a network element on a dedicated hardware, as a software instance running on a dedicated hardware, or as a virtualized function instantiated on an appropriate platform, e.g. on a cloud infrastructure.”).
TS 23.501 does not use the words processor or memory of the application function. A network function that is implemented as a software instance running on hardware, or as a network element on dedicated hardware, is a program held in a memory and executed by a processor coupled to that memory; a software instance cannot run on hardware in any other way. It is therefore reasonable to find that TS 23.501 teaches a network node implementing an application function comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the network node to carry out the operations of the application function. In any event it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the application function of TS 23.501 on a network node having a processor coupled to a memory, which is the dedicated hardware TS 23.501 itself names, with the predictable result of a node that performs the operations of that function.
Furthermore, TS 23.501 discloses: send a subscription request to a first network function of the wireless communication network, because TS 23.501 teaches a fifth generation system whose network exposure function is the function through which network function capabilities and events are exposed to application functions, which is the first network function of the wireless communication network to which an application function directs such a request: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5 pg. 189 “NF capabilities and events may be securely exposed by NEF for e.g. 3rd party, Application Functions, Edge Computing as described in clause 5.13.”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 discloses: and the first information identifying a second network function supporting, because TS 23.501 teaches the user plane function as the external PDU session point of interconnect to the data network, which is the second network function the first information identifies as serving the session: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.3 “External PDU Session point of interconnect to Data Network.”).
Although TS 23.501 teaches a fifth generation system in which a network exposure function exposes network function capabilities and events to application functions and a user plane function is the point of interconnect between the session and the data network: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5, clause 6.2.3), TS 23.501 does not explicitly disclose that the traffic so carried is Deterministic Network traffic or that the second network function supports DetNet relay node functionality.
However, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses Deterministic Network (DetNet) deterministic data traffic because RFC 8655 teaches packets carried under a deterministic networking service as a DetNet flow, within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, so that the traffic the user plane connection is set up to carry is Deterministic Network traffic (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes end systems and DetNet nodes.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses DetNet relay node functionality because RFC 8655 teaches the DetNet relay node as a node carrying a service sub-layer function that interconnects different forwarding sub-layer paths to provide service protection, which is the DetNet relay node functionality the second network function supports (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A DetNet node that includes a service sub-layer function that interconnects different DetNet forwarding sub-layer paths to provide service protection.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry the deterministic networking traffic RFC 8655 describes over the user plane connection TS 23.501 sets up, and to have the terminal name, in its own session request, the data network that carries it. TS 23.501 establishes a user plane connection to whatever data network the terminal identifies and is indifferent to the character of the traffic the connection then carries; RFC 8655 describes traffic that is carried as an identified flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, and such traffic has to reach that portion of the network to be served at all. Naming the data network that carries the deterministic traffic is the use of TS 23.501's own mechanism for the purpose that mechanism exists to serve, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a session set up to the network that carries that traffic. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination leaves the session establishment procedure untouched and changes only which data network the terminal names in it.
Although TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 teaches a fifth generation system whose network exposure function and user plane function serve the session, carrying a DetNet flow within a DetNet aware portion of the network by way of a DetNet relay node: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5; RFC 8655, section 2.1), TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 does not explicitly disclose the subscription by which the application function asks to be notified of the network address, the receipt of the flow requirements from a controller, their translation into quality of service requirements, or the further request by which the session is established.
Nevertheless, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses the subscription request requesting a notification of because TS 23.502 teaches an application function that subscribes to one or more events by sending a subscribe request to the network exposure function and providing the endpoint at which it is to be notified, which is the subscription request asking for a notification (TS 23.502, clause 4.15.3.2.3, “The AF subscribes to one or several Event(s) (identified by Event ID) and provides the associated notification endpoint of the AF by sending Nnef_EventExposure_Subscribe request.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses a network address of a user equipment (UE) because TS 23.502 teaches the allocation of a UE IP address or Prefix as one of the events a consumer may subscribe to, the notification carrying that address, which is the network address of the user equipment the notification is requested for (TS 23.502, clause 5.2.8.3.1, “UE IP address / Prefix allocation/change: The event notification may contain a new UE IP address / Prefix or an indication of which UE IP address / Prefix has been released.”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses that establishes a user plane connection to support because TS 23.502 teaches the establishment of a PDU session as a further subscribable event, so that the notification is the one raised when the user equipment establishes its user plane connection (TS 23.502, clause 5.2.8.3.1, “PDU Session Establishment and/or PDU Session Release.”).
In addition, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses receive, from the first network function, first information identifying a first device because TS 23.502 teaches the event notification returned on such a subscription carrying a new UE IP address or Prefix, which is first information, received from that first network function, identifying the first device (TS 23.502, clause 5.2.8.3.1, “UE IP address / Prefix allocation/change: The event notification may contain a new UE IP address / Prefix or an indication of which UE IP address / Prefix has been released.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses receive, from a DetNet controller in response to receiving the first information, DetNet flow requirements because TS 23.502 teaches a fifth generation system integrated with a fully centralized model network in which the centralized configuration entity provides the traffic information to the application function, which is the application function receiving flow requirements from a controller (TS 23.502, clause F.2, “For 5GS integrating with fully-centralized model TSN network, the CNC provides TSN information to the AF.”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses the application function configured to translate the DetNet flow requirements into quality of service (QoS) requirements for relaying the DetNet deterministic data traffic over the wireless communication network because TS 23.502 teaches the required quality of service parameters being derived from the information the application function supplied, which is the translation of those flow requirements into quality of service requirements (TS 23.502, clause 4.15.6.6, “the PCF derives the required QoS parameters based on the information provided by the NEF”).
In addition, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses send a second request to the second network function to establish a user plane session with the wireless communication network in accordance with the QoS requirements for relaying the DetNet deterministic data traffic over the wireless communication network. because TS 23.502 teaches the application function sending a further request to reserve the resources for the session, carrying the flow description and the quality of service reference, on which the network establishes the session at the function that serves it in accordance with those quality of service requirements (TS 23.502, clause 4.15.6.6, “The AF sends a request to reserve resources for an AF session using Nnef_AFsessionWithQoS_Create request message”).
The claim recites that the second request is sent to the second network function. It does not recite that the request is delivered to that function directly, and on the broadest reasonable interpretation a request the application function sends into the network, on which the network then establishes the user plane session at the function that serves it in accordance with the requested quality of service, is a second request sent to that function. TS 23.502 routes the application function's request through the network exposure function and the policy control function, which is the ordinary path by which such a request reaches the function that carries the session.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out, in the system TS 23.501 describes and for the deterministic traffic RFC 8655 describes, the exchanges TS 23.502 specifies. TS 23.502 is the procedural companion to TS 23.501 and specifies the very operations by which an application function acts on a session in that system, the event subscription by which it learns of an allocated address, the receipt of traffic information from a centralized configuration entity, and the reservation of resources at a stated quality of service. An application function that is to arrange transport for traffic whose whole value lies in bounded delay must know which session carries it and must ask for the quality of service that traffic needs, and TS 23.502 supplies both steps already fitted to TS 23.501's architecture. Using them is the application of a known technique to a system built to receive it, with the predictable result of a session established at the quality of service the deterministic traffic requires, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because no element of either document is altered by the combination.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses The network node of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the application function to translate the DetNet flow requirements into the QoS requirements for relaying the DetNet deterministic data traffic over the wireless communication network dependent upon second information provided by one or more of the first device or the second network function, as TS 23.502 further discloses the application function working out the delay of each port pair from the residence time the terminal itself provided, which is the translation being dependent upon second information provided by the first device (TS 23.502, clause 4.3.2.2.1, “AF calculates the bridge delay for each port pair, i.e. composed of DS-TT Ethernet port and NW-TT Ethernet port, using the UE-DS-TT Residence Time”).
Claim 11 recites its alternatives in the form one or more of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of the first device, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Therefore TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 10, TS 23.501 discloses The network node of claim 10, wherein the first network function is a network exposure function, as TS 23.501 further discloses the network exposure function as the function through which network function capabilities and events are exposed to application functions, which is the first network function the subscription request is sent to (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5 “NF capabilities and events may be securely exposed by NEF for e.g. 3rd party, Application Functions, Edge Computing as described in clause 5.13.”).
Accordingly TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 10, TS 23.501 discloses The network node of claim 10, wherein the second network function is a user plane function, as TS 23.501 further discloses the user plane function as the external PDU session point of interconnect to the data network, which is the second network function the user plane session is established with (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.3 “External PDU Session point of interconnect to Data Network.”).
Thus TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 10, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses The application function of claim 10, wherein the DetNet is an IETF DetNet, as RFC 8655 further discloses the deterministic networking architecture of the Internet Engineering Task Force itself, in which a DetNet flow is the sequence of packets to which the DetNet service is provided, which is an IETF DetNet (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”).
Consequently TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 15, TS 23.501 discloses: A method performed by a network node implementing an application function of a wireless communication network, the method comprising: sending a subscription request to a first network function of the wireless communication network, because TS 23.501 teaches a fifth generation system whose network exposure function is the function through which network function capabilities and events are exposed to application functions, which is the first network function of the wireless communication network to which an application function directs such a request: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5 “NF capabilities and events may be securely exposed by NEF for e.g. 3rd party, Application Functions, Edge Computing as described in clause 5.13.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 discloses: and the first information identifying a second network function supporting, because TS 23.501 teaches the user plane function as the external PDU session point of interconnect to the data network, which is the second network function the first information identifies as serving the session: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.3 “External PDU Session point of interconnect to Data Network.”).
Although TS 23.501 teaches a fifth generation system in which a network exposure function exposes network function capabilities and events to application functions and a user plane function is the point of interconnect between the session and the data network: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5, clause 6.2.3), TS 23.501 does not explicitly disclose that the traffic so carried is Deterministic Network traffic or that the second network function supports DetNet relay node functionality.
However, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses Deterministic Network (DetNet) deterministic data traffic because RFC 8655 teaches packets carried under a deterministic networking service as a DetNet flow, within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, so that the traffic the user plane connection is set up to carry is Deterministic Network traffic (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A sequence of packets that conforms uniquely to a flow identifier and to which the DetNet service is to be provided.”; RFC 8655, section 2.1, “The portion of a network that is DetNet aware. It includes end systems and DetNet nodes.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 discloses DetNet relay node functionality because RFC 8655 teaches the DetNet relay node as a node carrying a service sub-layer function that interconnects different forwarding sub-layer paths to provide service protection, which is the DetNet relay node functionality the second network function supports (RFC 8655, section 2.1, “A DetNet node that includes a service sub-layer function that interconnects different DetNet forwarding sub-layer paths to provide service protection.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry the deterministic networking traffic RFC 8655 describes over the user plane connection TS 23.501 sets up, and to have the terminal name, in its own session request, the data network that carries it. TS 23.501 establishes a user plane connection to whatever data network the terminal identifies and is indifferent to the character of the traffic the connection then carries; RFC 8655 describes traffic that is carried as an identified flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, and such traffic has to reach that portion of the network to be served at all. Naming the data network that carries the deterministic traffic is the use of TS 23.501's own mechanism for the purpose that mechanism exists to serve, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a session set up to the network that carries that traffic. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the combination leaves the session establishment procedure untouched and changes only which data network the terminal names in it.
Although TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 teaches a fifth generation system whose network exposure function and user plane function serve the session, carrying a DetNet flow within a DetNet aware portion of the network by way of a DetNet relay node: (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5; RFC 8655, section 2.1), TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 does not explicitly disclose the subscription by which the application function asks to be notified of the network address, the receipt of the flow requirements from a controller, their translation into quality of service requirements, or the further request by which the session is established.
Nevertheless, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses the subscription request requesting a notification of because TS 23.502 teaches an application function that subscribes to one or more events by sending a subscribe request to the network exposure function and providing the endpoint at which it is to be notified, which is the subscription request asking for a notification (TS 23.502, clause 4.15.3.2.3, “The AF subscribes to one or several Event(s) (identified by Event ID) and provides the associated notification endpoint of the AF by sending Nnef_EventExposure_Subscribe request.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses a network address of a user equipment (UE) because TS 23.502 teaches the allocation of a UE IP address or Prefix as one of the events a consumer may subscribe to, the notification carrying that address, which is the network address of the user equipment the notification is requested for (TS 23.502, clause 5.2.8.3.1, “UE IP address / Prefix allocation/change: The event notification may contain a new UE IP address / Prefix or an indication of which UE IP address / Prefix has been released.”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses that establishes a user plane connection to support because TS 23.502 teaches the establishment of a PDU session as a further subscribable event, so that the notification is the one raised when the user equipment establishes its user plane connection (TS 23.502, clause 5.2.8.3.1, “PDU Session Establishment and/or PDU Session Release.”).
In addition, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses receiving, from the first network function, first information identifying a first device because TS 23.502 teaches the event notification returned on such a subscription carrying a new UE IP address or Prefix, which is first information, received from that first network function, identifying the first device (TS 23.502, clause 5.2.8.3.1, “UE IP address / Prefix allocation/change: The event notification may contain a new UE IP address / Prefix or an indication of which UE IP address / Prefix has been released.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses receiving, from a DetNet controller in response to the first information, DetNet flow requirements because TS 23.502 teaches a fifth generation system integrated with a fully centralized model network in which the centralized configuration entity provides the traffic information to the application function, which is the application function receiving flow requirements from a controller (TS 23.502, clause F.2, “For 5GS integrating with fully-centralized model TSN network, the CNC provides TSN information to the AF.”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses translating the DetNet flow requirements into quality of service (QoS) requirements for relaying the DetNet deterministic data traffic over the wireless communication network because TS 23.502 teaches the required quality of service parameters being derived from the information the application function supplied, which is the translation of those flow requirements into quality of service requirements (TS 23.502, clause 4.15.6.6, “the PCF derives the required QoS parameters based on the information provided by the NEF”).
In addition, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses sending a second request to the second network function to establish a user plane session with the wireless communication network in accordance with the QoS requirements for relaying the DetNet deterministic data traffic over the wireless communication network. because TS 23.502 teaches the application function sending a further request to reserve the resources for the session, carrying the flow description and the quality of service reference, on which the network establishes the session at the function that serves it in accordance with those quality of service requirements (TS 23.502, clause 4.15.6.6, “The AF sends a request to reserve resources for an AF session using Nnef_AFsessionWithQoS_Create request message”).
The claim recites that the second request is sent to the second network function. It does not recite that the request is delivered to that function directly, and on the broadest reasonable interpretation a request the application function sends into the network, on which the network then establishes the user plane session at the function that serves it in accordance with the requested quality of service, is a second request sent to that function. TS 23.502 routes the application function's request through the network exposure function and the policy control function, which is the ordinary path by which such a request reaches the function that carries the session.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out, in the system TS 23.501 describes and for the deterministic traffic RFC 8655 describes, the exchanges TS 23.502 specifies. TS 23.502 is the procedural companion to TS 23.501 and specifies the very operations by which an application function acts on a session in that system, the event subscription by which it learns of an allocated address, the receipt of traffic information from a centralized configuration entity, and the reservation of resources at a stated quality of service. An application function that is to arrange transport for traffic whose whole value lies in bounded delay must know which session carries it and must ask for the quality of service that traffic needs, and TS 23.502 supplies both steps already fitted to TS 23.501's architecture. Using them is the application of a known technique to a system built to receive it, with the predictable result of a session established at the quality of service the deterministic traffic requires, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because no element of either document is altered by the combination.
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 15, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising translating the DetNet flow requirements into the QoS requirements for relaying the DetNet deterministic data traffic over the wireless communication network dependent upon second information provided by one or more of the first device or the second network function, as TS 23.502 further discloses the application function working out the delay of each port pair from the residence time the terminal itself provided, which is the translation being dependent upon second information provided by the first device (TS 23.502, clause 4.3.2.2.1, “AF calculates the bridge delay for each port pair, i.e. composed of DS-TT Ethernet port and NW-TT Ethernet port, using the UE-DS-TT Residence Time”).
Claim 22 recites its alternatives in the form one or more of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of the first device, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Accordingly, TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 15, TS 23.501 discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the first network function is a network exposure function, as TS 23.501 further discloses the network exposure function as the function through which network function capabilities and events are exposed to application functions, which is the first network function the subscription request is sent to (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.5 “NF capabilities and events may be securely exposed by NEF for e.g. 3rd party, Application Functions, Edge Computing as described in clause 5.13.”).
Thus TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 15, TS 23.501 discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the second network function is a user plane function, as TS 23.501 further discloses the user plane function as the external PDU session point of interconnect to the data network, which is the second network function the user plane session is established with (TS 23.501, clause 6.2.3 “External PDU Session point of interconnect to Data Network.”).
Consequently TS 23.501, RFC 8655 and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 29, which depends on claim 27, even though TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 teaches a user equipment that asks the network to set up a PDU session and supplies, in that request, the information from which the user plane connection is set up, the traffic that connection carries being a DetNet flow within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware: (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.3; RFC 8655, section 2.1), TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 does not explicitly disclose that the DetNet capability of the user equipment includes a capability to support a neighbor discovery protocol.
Nevertheless, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses The processor of claim 27, wherein the DetNet capability of the UE because TS 23.502 teaches the terminal itself supplying, for the session it requests, the address of the DS-TT Ethernet port it uses, so that the DS-TT port whose functions follow is the terminal's own and what that port is able to do is a capability of the terminal (TS 23.502, clause 4.3.2.2.1, “the UE shall include the MAC address of the DS-TT Ethernet port used for this PDU session”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 in view of RFC 8655 and further in view of TS 23.502 discloses includes a capability to support one or more of neighbor discovery protocols or DetNet configuration protocols because TS 23.502 teaches neighbor discovery configuration being provided to that port so as to configure and activate the discovery agent running there, so that a terminal whose port runs such an agent is a terminal supporting a neighbor discovery protocol (TS 23.502, clause F.1, “provides DS-TT port neighbor discovery configuration to DS-TT to configure and activate the LLDP agent in DS-TT”).
Claim 29 recites its alternatives in the form one or more of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed items is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of neighbor discovery protocols, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternatives, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give the terminal of TS 23.501 as modified by RFC 8655 the neighbor discovery support TS 23.502 describes. TS 23.502 is the procedural companion to TS 23.501 and specifies, for the same fifth generation system, how a terminal whose port sits at the edge of a time sensitive bridged network takes part in that network, and the traffic RFC 8655 describes is served only within a portion of the network that is DetNet aware, a portion RFC 8655 says includes the end systems, and the terminal that requests the session is such an end system. Equipping that terminal as TS 23.502 already equips the terminal at the edge of a time sensitive network is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and it would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a terminal able to take its place in the deterministic portion of the network it asks to reach. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since TS 23.502 writes the procedure for the very session establishment TS 23.501 specifies and nothing in either document is altered by the combination.
Therefore TS 23.501 and RFC 8655 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights