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 statement submitted on 02/25/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3 of claim 12, replace “in accordance an output” with -- in accordance with an output --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trabelsi et al. (US 20170353503 A1).
Consider claim 1, Trabelsi discloses a first device for wireless communication (read as local device that would be a mobile device and would communicate through a wireless connection, figures 5 and 6, par [0068] and [0078]) comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the first device to (read as processor 502 and memory 504, which the memory 504 containing session handling module 508 and stored software instructions that are executed by one or more processors to perform the crossed-invite functions of device 500, figure 6, par [0078]-[0079]):
detect a collision between an outgoing signal from the first device to a second device and an incoming signal from the second device to the first device (read as the local device (i.e. device 500 or UE1) sends an outgoing session invite to a remote device (i.e. UE2), receives an incoming session invite from that same remote device before the outgoing invite is accepted, and identifies the resulting cross-invite situation; and the two oppositely directed invites during the unresolved session setup corresponds to a detected collision, figure 5, par [0032] and [0069]);
drop the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and signaling protocol information of the incoming signal (read as network assigned priority embodiment in which each endpoint includes its assigned priority value in its outgoing invites; the local device (i.e. UE1) compares the value carried by its outgoing invites with the remote value carried by the incoming invite and cancels its outgoing session invite when the remote value has higher priority, figure 5, par [0046], [0072]-[0073] and [0077]); and
communicate with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal (read as after cancelling the outgoing invite, the local device (i.e. UE1) presents or accepts the incoming session invite; UE1 and UE2 then exchange 200OK and ACK message and establish the session initiated by that incoming invite, so the devices communicate using the remaining incoming session, figures 4 and 5, par [0042] and [0077]).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the signaling protocol information is session initiation protocol information (read as session handling module 508 uses Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to establish and manage the sessions, thus, the invites information used in the crossed-invite handling process is SIP signaling information, figure 6, par [0016] and [0078]).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the outgoing signal is an outgoing media call from the first device to the second device, a call hold indication transmitted by the first device to the second device, or an indication to switch between media types transmitted by the first device to the second device, and wherein the incoming signal is an incoming media call at the first device from the second device, a call hold indication received by the first device from the second device, or an indication to switch between media types received by the first device from the second device (read as the local device’s outgoing SIP invite initiates an outgoing VOLTE media call to the remote device, while the reciprocal incoming SIP invite initiates an incoming VOLTE media call from that remote device, figure 5, par [0016] and [0068]-[0069]).
Consider claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal indicates a first priority and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal indicates a second priority (read as each endpoint would include its assigned priority value in its outgoing invite; accordingly, the local device’s outgoing invite indicates the local priority, while the remote device’s outgoing invite, received at the local device as the incoming invite, indicates the remote priority, figure 5, par [0046] and [0072]).
Consider claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein, to cause the first device to drop the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal, the processing system is configured to cause the first device to drop the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing a first value included in the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal with a second value included in the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal (read as the local device’s assigned priority value, included in its outgoing invite, is the first value, while the remote priority token, included in the incoming invite, is the second value; the local device compares these values and cancels its outgoing session invite when the remote value has higher priority, figure 5, par [0046], [0072]-[0073] and [0077]).
Consider claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the first value with the second value comprises dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance an output of a function that uses the first value and the second value, wherein the first value and the second value are stored at the first device and the second device (read as a comparison operation that uses the local and remote priority values and produces the higher-priority determination that controls cancellation of the lower-priority invite (figure 5, par [0073] and [0077]); and that both UE1 and UE2 perform that comparison using the processor and memory, each endpoint (device) necessarily retains both values at the endpoint while executing the comparison, which is storage under the broadest reasonable interpretation, figure 6, par [0051], [0078] and [0080]).
Consider claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the first value is a telephone number of the first device and the second value is a mobile number of the second device (read as mobile user equipment (UE) whose numeric SIP URI user parts are as the respective priority values, UE1’s local telephone number is 16135551212, while remote mobile UE’s number is 16135561212, corresponding the respective first device telephone number and second device telephone number, figure 4, par [0034], [0036] and [0040]-[0041]).
Consider claim 18, as applied to claim 11 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal comprises dropping the outgoing signal in accordance with the second value being greater than the first value, and wherein communicating with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal comprises communicating with the second device using the incoming signal (read as UE2’s remote value (the second value) is greater than the UE1’s locale value (the first value); UE1 accordingly sends CANCEL for its outgoing invite and establishing the session initiated by UE2’s incoming invite through the 200 OK and ACK exchange, figure 4, par [0041]-[0042]).
Consider claim 19, Trabelsi discloses a method for wireless communication by a first device (read as local device that would be a mobile device and would communicate through a wireless connection, figures 5 and 6, par [0068] and [0078]; and processor 502 and memory 504, which the memory 504 containing session handling module 508 and stored software instructions that are executed by one or more processors to perform the crossed-invite functions of device 500, figure 6, par [0078]-[0079]), comprising:
detecting a collision between an outgoing signal from the first device to a second device and an incoming signal from the second device to the first device (read as the local device (i.e. device 500 or UE1) sends an outgoing session invite to a remote device (i.e. UE2), receives an incoming session invite from that same remote device before the outgoing invite is accepted, and identifies the resulting cross-invite situation; and the two oppositely directed invites during the unresolved session setup corresponds to a detected collision, figure 5, par [0032] and [0069]);
dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and signaling protocol information of the incoming signal (read as network assigned priority embodiment in which each endpoint includes its assigned priority value in its outgoing invites; the local device (i.e. UE1) compares the value carried by its outgoing invites with the remote value carried by the incoming invite and cancels its outgoing session invite when the remote value has higher priority, figure 5, par [0046], [0072]-[0073] and [0077]); and
communicating with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal (read as after cancelling the outgoing invite, the local device presents or accepts the incoming session invite; UE1 and UE2 then exchange 200OK and ACK message and establish the session initiated by that incoming invite, so the devices communicate using the remaining incoming session, figures 4 and 5, par [0042] and [0077]).
Consider claim 20, Trabelsi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first device, cause the first device to (read as local device that would be a mobile device and would communicate through a wireless connection, figures 5 and 6, par [0068] and [0078]; and processor 502 and memory 504, which the memory 504 containing session handling module 508 and stored software instructions that are executed by one or more processors to perform the crossed-invite functions of device 500, figure 6, par [0014] and [0078]-[0079]):
detect a collision between an outgoing signal from the first device to a second device and an incoming signal from the second device to the first device (read as the local device (i.e. device 500 or UE1) sends an outgoing session invite to a remote device (i.e. UE2), receives an incoming session invite from that same remote device before the outgoing invite is accepted, and identifies the resulting cross-invite situation; and the two oppositely directed invites during the unresolved session setup corresponds to a detected collision, figure 5, par [0032] and [0069]);
drop the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and signaling protocol information of the incoming signal (read as network assigned priority embodiment in which each endpoint includes its assigned priority value in its outgoing invites; the local device (i.e. UE1) compares the value carried by its outgoing invites with the remote value carried by the incoming invite and cancels its outgoing session invite when the remote value has higher priority, figure 5, par [0046], [0072]-[0073] and [0077]); and
communicate with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal (read as after cancelling the outgoing invite, the local device presents or accepts the incoming session invite; UE1 and UE2 then exchange 200OK and ACK message and establish the session initiated by that incoming invite, so the devices communicate using the remaining incoming session, figures 4 and 5, par [0042] and [0077]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4, 5, 7-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabelsi et al. (US 20170353503 A1) in view of George et al. (US 20230007704 A1).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein, to cause the first device to detect the collision between the outgoing signal and the incoming signal, the processing system is configured to cause the first device to: compare a first destination indication included in the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal with a second source indication included in the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal; determine that the first source indication and the second destination indication are associated with the first device; and determine that the second source indication and the first destination indication are associated with the second device (read as the UE1 determines that the originator of the incoming invite is the same UE2 identified as the addressee of the outstanding outgoing invite; the incoming originator corresponds to the second source indication, and the outgoing addressee corresponds to the first destination indication associated with the second device, figure 4, par [0041]) but does not specifically disclose comparing the first source indication with the second destination indication and determining that the first source indication and the second destination indication are associated with the first device.
Nonetheless, George discloses reciprocal SIP header identifiers, which the outgoing invite 524 identifies the first UE 502 in its From header and the second UE 504 in its TO header, while reciprocal invite 526 identifies the second UE 504 in its From header and the first UE 502 in its To header; comparing the matching outgoing-To and incoming-From identifies at the respective endpoints to verify the opposite UE, figure 5, par [0091]-[0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of George into the teachings of Trabelsi, to configure Trabelsi’s crossed-invite identify check using George’s reciprocal SIP From and To header comparisons at the local device, in order to confirm that both INVITEs identify the same two UEs before resolving the collision (see par [0091]-[0095] of George).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 4 above, Trabelsi, as modified by George, discloses wherein dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal comprises dropping the outgoing signal, and wherein communicating with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal comprises communicating with the second device using the incoming signal (read as the UE1 cancels its outgoing INVITE, presents and accepts UE2’s incoming INVITE, and exchanges 200 OK and ACK message with UE2 to establish the session initiated by the INVITE; UE1 therefore drops the outgoing signal and communicates with UE2 using the incoming signal, figures 4 and 5, par [0042] and [0047]).
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first device to set the first priority to a low priority and the second priority to a high priority (read as determining and comparing the local device priority value and remote device priority value, including in which the local outgoing INVITE has lower priority and the remote incoming INVITE has higher priority; thus, the first priority is the lower priority and the second priority is the higher relative priority used to select the incoming INVITE, figure 5, par [0072]-[0073] and [0077]) but does not specifically disclose in accordance with an initial signal between the first device and the second device being transmitted by the first device to the second device and in accordance with a subsequent signal between the first device and the second device being transmitted by the second device to the first device.
Nonetheless, George discloses the first UE 502 initiates the previous first call, after which the second UE 504 transmits invite message 526 to the first UE 502 during the later collision; the previous originator terminates invite 524 and the second UE maintains its return invite 526, giving history dependent preference to the second UE’s subsequent signal, figure 5, par [0079], [0086] and [0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of George into the teachings of Trabelsi, to configure Trabelsi’s local and remote invite priority using George’s previous call direction rule, assigning lower priority to the first UE’s outgoing INVITE and higher priority to the second UE’s return INVITE, in order to select one surviving call path after simultaneous redial and support successful call establishment (see par [0102] and [0106] of George).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, Trabelsi, as modified by George, discloses wherein dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal comprises dropping the outgoing signal, and wherein communicating with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal comprises communicating with the second device using the incoming signal (read as the lower priority local device cancels its outgoing INVITE, accepts the remaining incoming INVITE and establishes the incoming session through the 200 OK and ACK exchange with the remote device, figures 4 and 5, par [0042] and [0077]).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first device to set the first priority to a high priority and the second priority to a low priority in accordance with an initial signal between the first device and the second device being transmitted by the first device to the second device and in accordance with a subsequent signal between the first device and the second device being transmitted by the first device to the second device (read as determining and comparing the local device priority value and remote device priority value, including in which the local outgoing INVITE has higher priority and the remote incoming INVITE has lower priority; thus, the first priority is the higher priority and the second priority is the lower relative priority used to preserve the outgoing INVITE, figure 5, par [0072]-[0074]) but does not specifically disclose in accordance with an initial signal between the first device and the second device being transmitted by the first device to the second device and in accordance with a subsequent signal between the first device and the second device being transmitted by the first device to the second device.
Nonetheless, George discloses the first UE 502 initiates the previous first call and later transmits outgoing invite 524 to the second UE; the first UE maintains invites 524 while the second UE terminates reciprocal invites 526, giving history dependent preferences to the first UE’s successive outgoing signal, figure 5, par [0079], [0086] and [0098]-[0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of George into the teachings of Trabelsi, to configure Trabelsi’s local and remote invite priority using George’s previous originator retention rule, assigning higher priority to the first UE’s outgoing INVITE and lower priority to the second UE’s INVITE, in order to preserve one history selected call path and support successful call establishment (see par [0098]-[0099] and [0106]).
Consider claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, Trabelsi, as modified by George, discloses wherein dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal comprises awaiting cancelation of the incoming signal, and wherein communicating with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal comprises communicating with the second device using the outgoing signal (read as when the local device has higher priority, it preserves its outgoing session invite and awaits the remote device’s cancellation of the incoming session invite, and continues toward acceptance of the outgoing session, figure 5, par [0073]-[0074]) but does not specifically disclose the first device dropping the incoming signal.
Nonetheless, George further discloses the first UE maintains outgoing invite 524 and transmits busy message 534 in response to incoming invite 526, rejecting that incoming call; the second UE then process invite 524 and establishes the call initiated by the first UE’s outgoing INVITE, figure 5, par [0099]-[0100] and [0103]-[0104].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of George into the teachings of Trabelsi, which modified by George, to configure Trabelsi’s local higher priority technique using George’s busy message rejection of the reciprocal incoming INVITE, in order to terminate the non-selected incoming call locally while preserving the selected outgoing call for successful establishment (see par [0099]-[0100] and [0103]-[0106]).
Consider claim 17, as applied to claim 11 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein dropping the outgoing signal or the incoming signal in accordance with comparing the signaling protocol information of the outgoing signal and the signaling protocol information of the incoming signal comprises awaits the incoming signal in accordance with the first value being greater than the second value, and wherein communicating with the second device using the other of the outgoing signal or the incoming signal comprises communicating with the second device using the outgoing signal (read as the local device has higher priority value when comparing the local and remote priority values, it preserves its outgoing session invite and awaits the remote device’s cancellation of the incoming session invite, and continues toward acceptance of the outgoing session; the local value corresponds to the first value and the remote value corresponds to the second value, figure 5, par [0073]-[0074]) but does not specifically disclose the first device dropping the incoming signal.
Nonetheless, George further discloses the first UE maintains outgoing invite 524 and transmits busy message 534 in response to incoming invite 526, rejecting that incoming call; the second UE then process invite 524 and establishes the call initiated by the first UE’s outgoing INVITE, figure 5, par [0099]-[0100] and [0103]-[0104].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of George into the teachings of Trabelsi, which modified by George, to configure Trabelsi’s local higher priority technique using George’s busy message rejection of the reciprocal incoming INVITE, in order to terminate the non-selected incoming call locally while preserving the selected outgoing call for successful establishment (see par [0099]-[0100] and [0103]-[0106]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trabelsi et al. (US 20170353503 A1) in view of Cardona et al. (US 20090323655 A1).
Consider claim 14, as applied to claim 11 above, Trabelsi discloses wherein the first value is a function of a mobile number of the first device and the second value is a function of a mobile number of the second device (read as deriving the remote priority value by applying a function or operation to the remote device’s telephone number identifying information and deriving the local priority value in the same manner from the local device’s corresponding identifying information; thus, the first and second values are functions of the respective mobile numbers, figure 3, par [0036]-[0037] and [0045]) but does not specifically disclose the function as hash.
Nonetheless, Cardona disclose SHA1 mobile number hashing, which the p1 mobile phone number is hashed using a SHA1 one-way cryptographic function, and that both the sending and receiving ends apply the hash to telephone number records, Table 1, figures [0075] and [0093]-[0094].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cardona into the teachings of Trabelsi, to configure Trabelsi’s telephone number priority function using Cardona’s SHA1 mobile number hashing, in order to allow both endpoints to reproduce telephone number derived values without transmitting the underlying number in cleartext for better privacy (see par [0093] of Cardona).
Consider claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, Trabelsi, as modified by Cardona, discloses wherein the first value is a function of a mobile number of the first device and a time-varying input and the second value is a function of a mobile number of the second device and a time-varying input (read as deriving the remote priority value by applying a function or operation to the remote device’s telephone number identifying information and deriving the local priority value in the same manner from the local device’s corresponding identifying information; thus, the first and second values are functions of the respective mobile numbers, figure 3, par [0036]-[0037] and [0045]; and determining a device priority token from the device phone number, a randomized function of time and a timestamp; the resulting token is therefore a function of the respective device’s mobile number and a time-varying input, par [0047]-[0048]) but does not specifically disclose the function as hash and hashing the mobile number of the first device and the mobile number of the second device with the same time-varying input.
Nonetheless, Cardona disclose SHA1 mobile number hashing, which the p1 mobile phone number is hashed using a SHA1 one-way cryptographic function, and that both the sending and receiving ends apply the hash to telephone number records, Table 1, figures [0075] and [0093]-[0094]; and hashing the concatenation of a telephone number record and a salt known by both ends of the conversation; the throw-away or date-derived salt changes over time, and the receiver uses the same transmitted salt to compute its phone record signature, par [0097]-[0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cardona into the teachings of Trabelsi, to configure Trabelsi’s telephone number and time priority function using Cardona’s shared throw-away or date-derived salted hash, in order to preserve mutually reproducible endpoint values while changing the shared input over time and making reverse lookup more difficult (see par [0097]-[0099] of Cardona).
Consider claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, Trabelsi, as modified by Cardona, discloses the claimed invention above and wherein the time-varying input (see claim 15) but does not specifically disclose is in accordance with a current day of a month.
Nonetheless, Cardona further discloses generating the shared salt on application launch by hashing the output of date of the application launch and using that salt for phone record signature; a date includes a day-of-month component, so the date-derived input is reasonably interpreted as being in accordance with the current day of the month of the application launch, par [0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cardona into the teachings of Trabelsi, as modified by Cardona, to configure Trabelsi’s time-varying priority input using Cardona’s date-derived shared salt, in order to refresh the shared comparison input as the current date changes while preserving the same input at both endpoints (see par [0097]-[0099] of Cardona).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights