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 .
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.
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 col. 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.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw et al (US20180332441A1) in view of Bishay et al (US20210105628A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw’441 discloses a device (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017) comprising:
a processor (see, Fig. 8, processor, par 0121); and
a memory (see, Fig. 8, disk drive unit, par 0122) that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (see, performing methods or functions when processor executes instructions stored in disk drive unit and main memory, par 0122), the operations comprising:
detecting a request (service request, par 0060) to implement a network service (see, Fig. 3A step 302-304, SDN controller analyzes and receives service request to determine service requirements, par 0027, 0060);
based on the detecting (analyzed and received service request, par 0027), evaluating resources of a mobility radio access network (RAN) (Fig. 2, RAN for mobility network, par 0036, 0045), a transport segment, and core equipment (see, SDN controller evaluates service requirement requested from received service request to determine resources required for network service including access resources, transport resources and core network resources, par 0027-0028, 0036, 0038, 0060), the evaluating including selecting deployment locations for service elements to enable the network service (see, SDN controller analyzes policies or policy defined for a service including location restrictions (e.g., locations at which the services are allowed or not allowed), par 0032, 0051, 0060), wherein the resources (resources, par 0046) include a virtual machine-based architecture of a cloud (VMs with cloud orchestrator in cloud server architecture can be equated to virtual machine-based architecture of a cloud, par 0023) platform (cloud with loud server architecture including hypervisor and/or IP provider edge implied cloud platform, par 0023) and cloud service provider compute hosts (see, resources including clouds (slices) including VMs with cloud orchestrator in cloud server architecture and cloud server in each cloud of clouds, par 0023, 0046. Noted, network clouds with cloud server in network including hypervisor and/or IP provider edge can be equated to cloud service provider compute hosts, 0023, 0046); and
based on the evaluating, deploying the service elements at the deployment locations (see, creates network slices for identified different service requirements including location restrictions by RAN, access and core network resources, par 0042, 0051).
Shaw’441 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the resources include a virtual machine-based architecture of a cloud service provider platform and cloud service provider compute hosts.
However Bishay’628 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, network slices provide services on the network including network slices and orchestrator implemented by physical network elements and virtual network elements, par 0026) discloses: based on the detecting (changing demands of an application and service on-demand requirement, par 0004. Noted, Fig. 1, Orchestrator communicates with networks (including terminal) through API for user demand, par 0026, 0043), evaluating resources (resources can be sliced with extremely fine granularity while assuring adjustable level of separation and share-ability based on application requirements to meets the changing demands, par 0004) of a mobility radio access network (RAN) (access network for mobile network with mobility management as portion of slice, par 0002- 0003, 0035), a transport segment (transport network as portion of slice, par 0002), and core equipment (see, orchestrator manages and orchestrates slice spanning across access network, transport network and core network to meets the changing demands for service on-demand requirement, par 0002, 0004, 0028. Noted, core network as part of slice can be equated to resources for core equipment, par 0002), the evaluating including selecting deployment locations for service elements to enable the network service (see, actual position of a subdomain in a slice and this slice's current placement within the tenant hierarchy (GAO), has a major impact on the possible outcomes and imposed limitations, par 0066), wherein the resources (cloud resources, par 0082) include a virtual machine-based architecture (virtual machines running different software and processes on top of cloud computing infrastructure, par 0036) of a cloud service provider platform (service provider executing 5G Slicing use case within a NaaS offer, par 0025) and cloud service provider compute hosts (see, Fig. 1 and 7, resources including OpenStack resources in cloud subdomains and application slices, and cloud with virtual servers implemented by virtual machines on top of cloud computing infrastructure and service provider executing 5G Slicing use case within a NaaS offer, par 0025, 0036, 0082. Noted, virtual servers can be equated to cloud service provider compute hosts, par 0082. Noted further, subdomain as part of cloud provider's default application slice and thus virtual servers in subdomain can be taken as one kind of cloud resource, par 0082).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Bishay’628 into that of Shaw’441. The motivation would have been to allow access to more than one logical slice by multi-slicing based on service type, QoS and/or subscriber type (par 0011).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 recites a method to perform the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw’441 in view of Bishay’628 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (US20200344576A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the device of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the network service includes a broadcast service capability.
However Li’576 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2, call flow for MBMS session start procedure for E-UTRAN and UTRAN for EPS, par 0059) discloses: wherein the network service includes a broadcast service capability (see, request for service indicating whether service provider wants to utilize only the transport capability for broadcast service, par 0122).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Li’576 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to enhance network to permit multicast and broadcast operations over both the control plane and the user plane (par 0037).
Regarding claim 3, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the device of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the network service includes a multicast service capability.
However Li’576 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2, call flow for MBMS session start procedure for E-UTRAN and UTRAN for EPS, par 0059) discloses: wherein the network service includes a multicast service capability (see, request for service indicating whether service provider wants to utilize only the transport capability for multicast service, par 0122).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Li’576 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to enhance network to permit multicast and broadcast operations over both the control plane and the user plane (par 0037).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw’441 in view of Bishay’628 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kucera (US20210084523A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the device of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the service elements include a routing encapsulation tunnel to facilitate connectivity between the core equipment and the transport segment.
However Kucera’523 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, data transmission including latency-oriented data flow between two communication UEs, data flows related to a Skype session between UEs and capacity-oriented data flow between UE and server, par 0058) discloses: wherein the service (service for data flow, par 0152) elements (connections can be equated to service elements, par 0145) include a routing encapsulation tunnel (generic routing encapsulation (GRE) tunnel, par 0005) to facilitate connectivity between the core equipment (EPC (PDN-GW and P-GW)) and the transport segment (see, FIG. 10, GRE tunnel between UE and EPC with connections for data flow service including connection between EPC (PDN-GW and P-GW) and GW2 in ISP network, par 0145, 0152. Noted, Fig. 10, GW2 in ISP network can be equated to transport segment, par 0145).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Kucera’523 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to enhance network to control data transmission in communication network by using network slices to improve traffic under consideration of QoS requirements (par 0001).
Regarding claim 12, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the service elements include a tunnel to facilitate connectivity between the core equipment and the transport segment.
However Kucera’523 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, data transmission including latency-oriented data flow between two communication UEs, data flows related to a Skype session between UEs and capacity-oriented data flow between UE and server, par 0058) discloses: wherein the service (service for data flow, par 0152) elements (connections can be equated to service elements, par 0145) include a tunnel (generic routing encapsulation (GRE) tunnel, par 0005) to facilitate connectivity between the core equipment (EPC (PDN-GW and P-GW)) and the transport segment (see, FIG. 10, GRE tunnel between UE and EPC with connections for data flow service including connection between EPC (PDN-GW and P-GW) and GW2 in ISP network, par 0145, 0152. Noted, Fig. 10, GW2 in ISP network can be equated to transport segment, par 0145).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the non-transitory machine-readable medium as taught by Kucera’523 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to enhance network to control data transmission in communication network by using network slices to improve traffic under consideration of QoS requirements (par 0001).
Claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw’441 in view of Bishay’628 as applied to claims 1, 11 and 19 above, and further in view of Parichehrehteroujeni et al (US20240056872A1, PCT Priority Date: Jan 14, 2021).
Regarding claim 5, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the device of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the network service includes a connection of an access point equipment of the RAN to a control plane facilitated by access management function clusters.
However Parichehrehteroujeni’872 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, overall architecture of an NG-RAN, par 0093) discloses: wherein the network service includes a connection of an access point equipment of the RAN (each NG-RAN node, par 0019) to a control plane (Fig. 1, 5GC, par 0093) facilitated by access management function clusters (see, each NG-RAN node connects to all AMFs of AMF Sets within an AMF Region in 5GC supporting at least one slice also supported by the NG-RAN node, par 0019, 0093. Noted, AMF set and AMF sets can be equated to access management function cluster and clusters respectively, par 0019).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Parichehrehteroujeni’872 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to enhance network to control data transmission in communication network by using network slices to control the handling of QoE data in a wireless device (par 0089).
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 5 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 recites a method to perform the steps recited in claim 5 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw’441 in view of Bishay’628, and further in view of Parichehrehteroujeni’872 as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Chandrashekar et al (US20250247808A1, PCT Priority Date: Oct 28, 2021).
Regarding claim 6, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872 discloses the device of claim 5 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441, Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the request is generated by the access point equipment.
However Chandrashekar’808 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, architecture of a network system comprise 5GS architecture, par 0124) discloses: wherein the request is generated by the access point equipment (see, gNB sends mobility registration Update message comprising an Uplink NAS transport message to L-AMF, par 0191. Noted, UE sends mobility registration Update message but obviously not comprising Uplink NAS transport message (since path between UE and gNB is not transport path) and thus mobility registration Update message from gNB is different than that from UE, thus generated by gNB, par 0189, 0191. Noted, registration or service request, abstract).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Chandrashekar’808 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872. The motivation would have been to improve latency of mobility and session management for PDU session served by L-AMF (par 0247).
Regarding claim 7, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872 discloses the device of claim 5 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441, Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the evaluating is based on criteria, and wherein the criteria include physical distances of paths from the access point equipment to the access management function clusters.
However Chandrashekar’808 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, architecture of a network system comprise 5GS architecture, par 0124) discloses: wherein the evaluating is based on criteria, and wherein the criteria include physical distances of paths from the access point equipment to the access management function clusters (see, Fig. 5 step 560, RAN selects L-AMF from AMFs (each splitting into L-AMF and C-AMF) to bring selected core network functions closer to (R)AN, par 0168, 0190. Noted, AMF (splitting into C-AMF and L-AMF) and AMFs (splitting into C-AMFs and L-AMFs) can be taken as access management function cluster and clusters respectively, par 0208, 0250).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Chandrashekar’808 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872. The motivation would have been to improve latency of mobility and session management for PDU session served by L-AMF (par 0247).
Regarding claim 8, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872 discloses the device of claim 7 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441, Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the deploying includes utilizing an access management function cluster included in the access management function clusters with a shortest physical distance included in the physical distances.
However Chandrashekar’808 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, architecture of a network system comprise 5GS architecture, par 0124) discloses: wherein the deploying includes utilizing an access management function cluster included in the access management function clusters with a shortest physical distance included in the physical distances (see, Fig. 5 step 560, RAN selects L-AMF from AMFs (each splitting into L-AMF and C-AMF) to bring selected core network functions closer to (R)AN, par 0168, 0190. Noted, AMF (splitting into C-AMF and L-AMF) and AMFs (splitting into C-AMFs and L-AMFs) can be taken as access management function cluster and clusters respectively, par 0208, 0250. Noted further, NG-RAN is unaware of the C-AMF/L-AMF split and selects an AMF of AMFs, par 0208, 0250).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Chandrashekar’808 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni’872. The motivation would have been to improve latency of mobility and session management for PDU session served by L-AMF (par 0247).
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 7 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 8 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 8 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Claims 9-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw’441 in view of Bishay’628 as applied to claims 1, 11 and 19 above, and further in view of Jagannatha et al (US10602422B1).
Regarding claim 9, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the device of claim 1 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the network service includes an establishment of a user plane function between the cloud service provider platform and a user equipment.
However Jagannatha’422 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1A-1D, establishing data session for application using optimized network slice and data network, section 2 lines 14-37) discloses: wherein the network service (service through network slice, section 6 lines 24-30) includes an establishment of a user plane function between the cloud service provider platform (application cloud platform as end point for data session, section 6 lines 15-22) and a user equipment (see, Fig. 1B and 1D, (APH on) UE requests UPF included in networks to establish data session for service through network slice between UE and application cloud platform (and thus UPF established within paths of data session), section 4 lines 51-60 and section 6 lines 11-30).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Jagannatha’422 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to provide various enhancements to wireless communications such as slicing, flexible bandwidth allocation, improved spectral efficiency, URLLC, beamforming, high-frequency communications and network slicing (section 1 lines 611).
Regarding claim 10, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 discloses the device of claim 9 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441 and Bishay’628 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the user plane function utilizes a network slice.
However Jagannatha’422 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1A-1D, establishing data session for application using optimized network slice and data network, section 2 lines 14-37) discloses: wherein the user plane function utilizes a network slice (see, UPF establishes data session using network slice, section 6 line 11-30).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the device as taught by Jagannatha’422 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628. The motivation would have been to provide various enhancements to wireless communications such as slicing, flexible bandwidth allocation, improved spectral efficiency, URLLC, beamforming, high-frequency communications and network slicing (section 1 lines 611).
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 9 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw’441 in view of Bishay’628, and further in view of Parichehrehteroujeni872 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Jagannatha et al (US10602422B1).
Regarding claim 20, Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni872 discloses the method of claim 19 (see, Fig. 1 and 8, SDN controller in communication network including SDN for providing services to communication devices, par 0017).
The combination of Shaw’441, Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni872 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the network service includes an establishment of a user plane function involving a user equipment.
However Jagannatha’422 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1A-1D, establishing data session for application using optimized network slice and data network, section 2 lines 14-37) discloses: wherein the network service (service through network slice, section 6 lines 24-30) includes an establishment of a user plane function involving a user equipment (see, Fig. 1B and 1D, (APH on) UE requests UPF included in networks to establish data session for service through network slice between UE and application cloud platform (and thus UPF established within paths of data session), section 4 lines 51-60 and section 6 lines 11-30) .
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the method as taught by Jagannatha’422 into that of Shaw’441 modified by Bishay’628 and Parichehrehteroujeni872. The motivation would have been to provide various enhancements to wireless communications such as slicing, flexible bandwidth allocation, improved spectral efficiency, URLLC, beamforming, high-frequency communications and network slicing (section 1 lines 611).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh et al (US20220110086A1, Priority Date: Oct 01, 2021) discloses: To achieve low latency and high-performance LCS, it may be beneficial to have the involved LMF and AMF at the network edge close to the UE, in order to minimize delays due to signaling between radio access network (RAN) and core network (CN) (i.e., gNB and AMF), and between CN entities (i.e., AMF and LMF) (par 0019); The AMF Load Balancing functionality permits UEs that are entering into an AMF region/AMF set to be directed to an appropriate AMF in a manner that achieves load balancing between AMFs. This is achieved by setting a weight factor for each AMF, such that the probability of the 5G-AN selecting an AMF is proportional to a weight factor of the AMF. The weight factor is typically set according to the capacity of an AMF node relative to other AMF nodes. The weight factor is sent from the AMF to the 5G-AN via NGAP messages (par 0023). This applies to claim 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KWANG Yao can be reached on (571)272-3182. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XUAN LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights