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
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on February 18, 2026. U.S. patent applications, foreign patents, and non-patent literature documents have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Curic et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0098568). This reference was provided in the information disclosure statement dated February 18, 2026.
Regarding Claim 1,
Curic discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the network entity to:
detect, at a session management and orchestration (SMO), a trigger for conflict management associated with at least one application; and
[0039] The O-RAN architecture 100 includes several components that inter-communicate over different interfaces. Each interface uses a different name per the O-RAN specification, and includes the A1 interface, the O1 interface, the O2 interface, and the Open Fronthaul Management (M)-plane interface. The interfaces connect the Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework 102 to O-RAN network functions (NFs) 104.
[0065] In addition to several other components of a typical non-RT RIC 112, according to one or more embodiments of the present invention, the non-RT RIC 112 includes an xApp Descriptor Collection 302, a conflict detector 304, operations module 306, and an analytics module 308.
[0068] The Conflict Detector 304 facilitates identifying occurrence of a conflict. The conflict detector 304 periodically or on-demand retrieves logged data from)(App Activity Log available on the near-RT RICs 114 to detect occurrence (or not) of a conflict.
provide, at the SMO based on the trigger for the conflict management, a conflict evaluation or a conflict mitigation.
[0062] Further, one or more embodiments of the present invention facilitate non-RT RIC 112 to cause one or more near-RT RICs 114 to change xApp operations to avoid conflicts, and/or to mitigate effects of conflicts.
Regarding Claim 2,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger is an app initiated conflict evaluation associated with the at least one application, and wherein the app initiated conflict evaluation is before a deployment of at least one policy associated with the conflict management.
[0059] A technical challenge exists to detect and mitigate such conflicts in the O-RAN 100. Typically, direct and (some) indirect conflicts can be detected by leveraging pre-action resolution, in which the near-RT RIC 104 checks the parameters that certain xApp 132 is attempting to modify before the update is implemented in the network. In some cases, post-action verification is performed, in which the near-RT RIC 104 monitors the state of the network after the update has been implemented and verifies if the state is as expected. Implicit conflicts are not always easy to detect. The state-of-the-art telco today does not have formal mechanisms for identifying all indirect and implicit conflicts.
Regarding Claim 3,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a detection of the trigger is based on a non-digital twin (non-DT) technique corresponding to at least one of: at least one dependency rule, at least one artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML)(AI/ML) model, or at least one conflict record associated with the at least one application.
[0068] The conflict detector 304 also may identify patterns that indicate conflict occurrence in some embodiments of the present invention. For example, the conflict detector 304 can use one or more artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) based algorithm(s)/model(s) 312 over the logged data to identify occurrence of a conflict. The AI/ML model(s) 312 are pre-trained using a training dataset before being deployed on the non-RT RIC 112 in one or more embodiments of the present invention. The AI/ML model(s) 312 can be continuously updated as the non-RT RIC 112 is used. In one or more embodiments of the present invention, the trained AI/ML model(s) 312 classify the conflict-related patterns into different conflict types, i.e., direct, indirect, and implicit. By performing the conflict detection in the non-RT RIC 112, embodiments of the present invention can facilitate detecting inter-domain conflicts, because data/information required to make such a distinction is only available at the non-RT RIC 112.
Regarding Claim 5,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger is an application-initiated conflict evaluation associated with the at least one application, and wherein the application-initiated conflict evaluation is after a deployment of at least one policy associated with the conflict management.
[0059] A technical challenge exists to detect and mitigate such conflicts in the O-RAN 100. Typically, direct and (some) indirect conflicts can be detected by leveraging pre-action resolution, in which the near-RT RIC 104 checks the parameters that certain xApp 132 is attempting to modify before the update is implemented in the network. In some cases, post-action verification is performed, in which the near-RT RIC 104 monitors the state of the network after the update has been implemented and verifies if the state is as expected. Implicit conflicts are not always easy to detect. The state-of-the-art telco today does not have formal mechanisms for identifying all indirect and implicit conflicts.
Regarding Claim 6,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger is based on a key performance indicator (KPI) degradation associated with the at least one application, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive an indication of the KPI degradation from a KPI monitoring service, a configuration management service, a policy management and information service, a near-real time radio access network intelligent controller (near-RT RIC) platform, a network node, or the at least one application.
[0090] Further, at block 220, the operations module 306 receives the operational intents from an operator. The intent covers the aspect of the desired KPI thresholds, sustainable KPI degradation buffer, allowed KPI loss in case of major outages and other intents. The intents can be based for various reasons, such as energy optimization, latency improvements, quality of service improvements, bandwidth increases, efficient resource utilization, or other technical advantages. The intents can also be designed to achieve one or more business goals, SLA conditions, etc. For example, the intent can be specified as follows. If accessibility is less than 98% then maximum session establishment delay must be less than 3 ms; otherwise, maximum session establishment delay must be less than 5 ms; or in presence of link failures, maximum session establishment delay must be maximum 7 ms, etc.
Regarding Claim 7,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to provide the conflict mitigation, and wherein the conflict mitigation corresponds to a revocation of at least one policy or at least one configuration associated with the at least one application.
[0097] Policies are sent over A1 interface to the conflict mitigator 402 in the respective near-RT RICs 114. Conflict mitigator 402 leverages the received policies when responding to E2 guidance request that causes an update to one or more xApps 132. For example, in the above policy example, if xApp2 attempts to update the param2 on the E2 node CU/DU1, the conflict mitigator 402 responds with rejection. On the other hand, the conflict mitigator 402 does not block xApp2 from making changes on the param3 on the same E2 node.
Regarding Claim 8,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to provide the conflict mitigation, and wherein the conflict mitigation corresponds to a guidance to a network operation and management entity.
[0045] The non-RT RIC 112 is a logical function within the SMO framework 102 that enables non-real-time (>1 second operation times) control and optimization of RAN elements and resources; AI/machine learning (ML) workflow(s) including model training, inferences, and updates; and policy-based guidance of applications/features in the near-RT RIC 114. In some embodiments of the present invention, the non-RT RIC 112 can be an ML training host to host the training of one or more ML models. ML training can be performed offline using data collected from the near-RT RIC, O-DU 120, and O-RU 116. The near-RT RIC 114 is a logical function that enables near-real-time (sub 1 second operation times) control and optimization of RAN elements and resources via fine-grained, data collection and actions over the E2 interface. The near-RT RIC 114 may include one or more AI/ML workflows including model training, inferences, and updates.
Regarding Claim 9,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, at the SMO from a near-real time radio access network intelligent controller (near-RT RIC) platform, a candidate configuration or a candidate policy associated with the conflict management.
[0061] At present, conflict management in O-RAN 100 is performed by near-RT RICs 104. O-RAN Alliance specifies (through documentation referenced herein) a conflict mitigation component in each near-RT RIC 104 (see FIG. 2, for example). Per the O-RAN specifications, prior to installing any updates in the network, xApps 132 leverage API (application programming interface) call(s) for E2 Guidance request(s), in which xApps 132 send their proposed changes for conflict mitigation component. The conflict mitigation component, which can be hardware/software, or a combination, provides a E2 Guidance response that indicates whether the proposed changes from the xApp 132 conflict with changes from other xApps 132. If yes, conflict management can recommend modification for the proposed changes to the xApp 132 to attempt to avoid the conflict(s).
Regarding Claim 11,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to provide the conflict evaluation or the conflict mitigation, the at least one processor is configured to: provide, to a near-real time radio access network intelligent controller (near-RT RIC) platform responsible for the conflict management associated with the at least one application, the conflict evaluation or the conflict mitigation, wherein the at least one application corresponds to at least one near-real-time RIC Application (xApp) configured to run on the near-RT RIC platform.
[0053] In O-RAN 100, SMO 102, non-RT RIC 102, and near-RT RICs 104 continuously collect the network state. The RICs (102, 104) host applications (130, 132) that read the network state and govern the network behavior accordingly. These applications include rApps 130 on the non-RT RIC 102 and xApps 132 on near-RT RICS 104, respectively.
Regarding Claim 11,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: deploy the conflict mitigation, wherein the at least one application is configured to corresponds to at least one non-real-time radio access network intelligent controller (RIC) Application (rApp).
[0053] In O-RAN 100, SMO 102, non-RT RIC 102, and near-RT RICs 104 continuously collect the network state. The RICs (102, 104) host applications (130, 132) that read the network state and govern the network behavior accordingly. These applications include rApps 130 on the non-RT RIC 102 and xApps 132 on near-RT RICS 104, respectively.
Regarding Claim 14,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to provide the conflict evaluation or the conflict mitigation, the at least one processor is configured to: detect at least one conflict associated with the at least one application based on selection of a set of conflict policies associated with the at least one application.
[0072] In one or more embodiments of the present invention, the analytics module 308 correlates the data from the one or more sources. Based on the correlated result the analytics module 308 creates one or more conflict-avoidance policies that are sent further over A1 interface to the near-RT RICs 114. In one or more embodiments of the present invention, the non-RT RIC 112 creates a respective set of policies for each near-RT RIC 114.
Regarding Claim 15,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to provide the conflict evaluation or the conflict mitigation, the at least one processor is configured to: detect at least one conflict associated with the at least one application based on a rule specified in an operator configuration associated with the at least one application.
[0093] The operational intents received from the operator are essential for conflict mitigation as they reflect the operator's desires regarding network operation and therefore are used to identify the optimal xApp behavior for each network state. In general, the xApp actions at any time must be such that they maintain the satisfactory KPIs or improve the degraded KPIs, while keeping intent into consideration. The analytics module 308 is used for this purpose. The analytics module 308 is aware of the optimization goals of each xApp 132 and parameters that each xApp 132 can affect. Only then the analytics module 308 can tune the xApp activity according to the intent requirements.
Regarding Claim 16,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to provide the conflict evaluation or the conflict mitigation, the at least one processor is configured to: provide the conflict evaluation, wherein the conflict evaluation comprises information of a set of conflict policies associated with the at least one application.
[0073] The conflict mitigator (402) in the near-RT RIC 114 receives such policies for that particular near-RT RIC 114. For example, a policy can indicate that “if accessibility in the domain covered by O-CU.sub.X and O-CU.sub.Y is between level L1 and level L2, xApp1 may only perform updates on the parameter P1 and xApp2 may only perform updates on the parameter P2, but xApp3 should not be allowed to make changes on any parameter in the observed domain”. Upon reception of such policies, the conflict mitigator (402) aligns to them by updating the operational logic of the near-RT RIC 114. Updating the operational logic can include updating computer-executable instructions that are executed on the near-RT RIC 114.
Regarding Claim 17,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger is originated within the SMO.
[0039] The O-RAN architecture 100 includes several components that inter-communicate over different interfaces. Each interface uses a different name per the O-RAN specification, and includes the A1 interface, the O1 interface, the O2 interface, and the Open Fronthaul Management (M)-plane interface. The interfaces connect the Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework 102 to O-RAN network functions (NFs) 104.
[0065] In addition to several other components of a typical non-RT RIC 112, according to one or more embodiments of the present invention, the non-RT RIC 112 includes an xApp Descriptor Collection 302, a conflict detector 304, operations module 306, and an analytics module 308.
[0068] The Conflict Detector 304 facilitates identifying occurrence of a conflict. The conflict detector 304 periodically or on-demand retrieves logged data from)(App Activity Log available on the near-RT RICs 114 to detect occurrence (or not) of a conflict.
Regarding Claim 18,
Curic discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger is originated from at least one entity within a near-real time radio access network intelligent controller (near-RT RIC) platform.
[0068] The Conflict Detector 304 facilitates identifying occurrence of a conflict. The conflict detector 304 periodically or on-demand retrieves logged data from)(App Activity Log available on the near-RT RICs 114 to detect occurrence (or not) of a conflict.
Regarding Claim 19,
Curic discloses: A method for wireless communication performed by a network entity, comprising: detecting, at a session management and orchestration (SMO), a trigger for conflict management associated with at least one application; and
[0039] The O-RAN architecture 100 includes several components that inter-communicate over different interfaces. Each interface uses a different name per the O-RAN specification, and includes the A1 interface, the O1 interface, the O2 interface, and the Open Fronthaul Management (M)-plane interface. The interfaces connect the Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework 102 to O-RAN network functions (NFs) 104.
[0065] In addition to several other components of a typical non-RT RIC 112, according to one or more embodiments of the present invention, the non-RT RIC 112 includes an xApp Descriptor Collection 302, a conflict detector 304, operations module 306, and an analytics module 308.
[0068] The Conflict Detector 304 facilitates identifying occurrence of a conflict. The conflict detector 304 periodically or on-demand retrieves logged data from)(App Activity Log available on the near-RT RICs 114 to detect occurrence (or not) of a conflict.
providing, at the SMO based on the trigger for the conflict management, a conflict evaluation or a conflict mitigation.
[0062] Further, one or more embodiments of the present invention facilitate non-RT RIC 112 to cause one or more near-RT RICs 114 to change xApp operations to avoid conflicts, and/or to mitigate effects of conflicts.
Regarding Claim 20,
Curic discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: means for detecting, at a session management and orchestration (SMO), a trigger for conflict management associated with at least one application; and
[0039] The O-RAN architecture 100 includes several components that inter-communicate over different interfaces. Each interface uses a different name per the O-RAN specification, and includes the A1 interface, the O1 interface, the O2 interface, and the Open Fronthaul Management (M)-plane interface. The interfaces connect the Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework 102 to O-RAN network functions (NFs) 104.
[0065] In addition to several other components of a typical non-RT RIC 112, according to one or more embodiments of the present invention, the non-RT RIC 112 includes an xApp Descriptor Collection 302, a conflict detector 304, operations module 306, and an analytics module 308.
[0068] The Conflict Detector 304 facilitates identifying occurrence of a conflict. The conflict detector 304 periodically or on-demand retrieves logged data from)(App Activity Log available on the near-RT RICs 114 to detect occurrence (or not) of a conflict.
means for providing, at the SMO based on the trigger for the conflict management, a conflict evaluation or a conflict mitigation.
[0062] Further, one or more embodiments of the present invention facilitate non-RT RIC 112 to cause one or more near-RT RICs 114 to change xApp operations to avoid conflicts, and/or to mitigate effects of conflicts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Curic in view of Curic et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0129799), herein referred to as “Curic II”. The Curic II reference was provided in the information disclosure statement dated February 18, 2026.
Regarding Claim 4,
Curic does not disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
However, Curic II discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a detection of the trigger is based on a digital twin (DT) associated with the at least one application that simulates at least one conflict associated with the at least one application.
[0087] FIG. 4 depicts a visualization of border digital twins 402 stored by each near-RT RICs 114 in one or more embodiments of the present invention. Each near-RT RIC 114 stores a border digital twin 402 that represents a state of one or more neighboring near-RT RICs 114 that affect that near-RT RIC 114 or which are affected by that near-RT RIC 114. The border digital twin 402 is based on information logged (FIG. 3) and other information associated with the near-RT RIC 114.
[0096] The awareness module 204 facilitates performing operations in response to one or more instructions/commands from the non-RT RIC 112 and/or other components of the near-RT RIC 114. For example, the awareness module 204 responds to INST1: Border digital twin relevance, which is used for the identification of conditions and events on the user and control plane that must be added to the border digital twin and activity register. For control plane activities (e.g., from xApps 132), the instruction involves the rules for the prediction of potential cross-domain impact. INST1 is leveraged by border activity tracker 206.
Curic and Curic II are considered to be analogous because they involve wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curic to include the concept of detection of a trigger based on a digital twin that simulates a conflict as taught by Curic II so as to address conflicts within the network.
Regarding Claim 13,
Curic does not disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Curic II discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to provide the conflict evaluation or the conflict mitigation, the at least one processor is configured to:
detect at least one conflict associated with the at least one application based on performance of a set of iterative simulations based on a digital twin (DT) associated with the at least one application with a configuration of a respective policy against a set of policies associated with the at least one application.
[0084] Conflict detection may be done based on a variety of options, that may be standalone options or combined. In a first option, conflict detection may be based on running iterative simulations using DT with configuration of N.sup.th policy against N−1 policies until a conflict is detected. In a second option, conflict detection may be based on an algorithm which chooses conflicting policies from the policy database using information provided by consumers and runs DT based simulations with the configurations of the selected policies to detect conflict. In a third option, conflict detection may be based on rule based detection. Information provided by consumers may include policy category (intent/use case), policy status (enforced or not enforced), policy priority, application identifier (ID) which enforced or intends to enforce the policy, information on KPI degradation, or the like. Detection of conflicting policies may be based on the rules specified in operator configuration.
Curic and Curic II are considered to be analogous because they involve wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curic to include the concept of detecting conflict associated with a set of iterative simulations based on a digital twin as taught by Curic II so as to address conflicts within the network.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Curic in view of Akman and Sahin (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2024/0163649), herein referred to as “Sahin”. The Sahin reference is the U.S.-based counterpart to the EPO application provided in the information disclosure statement dated February 18, 2026.
Regarding Claim 10,
Curic does not disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Akman discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, via a service management and exposure (SME), an indication of a service for the conflict management.
[0093] In the example of FIG. 5B, application 123 may send a request for an SME service (e.g., to register a service request) to R1 termination 152 (502), which sends a message to conflict manager 121 to determine whether there is a conflict or not with the specified SME service. Conflict manager 121 may check the authorization of the service request (504), validate the service request (506), and determine whether the service request has any conflicts (508).
[0094] In response to determining that there is no conflict, conflict manager 121 may instruct service manager 163 to proceed with implementing the SME service. For example, service manager 163 may process the SME service by registering the service (510). Service manager 163 sends a response to the service registration to R1 termination 152, which in turn sends the response to application 123 via R1 interface 152 (512).
Curic and Akman are considered to be analogous because they involve wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curic to include the concept of having service management and exposure as taught by Akman so as to address conflicts within the network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE P. SAMLUK whose telephone number is (571)270-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE P. SAMLUK/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
