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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, wherein claim recites, a “the first network slice”, claim 4 recites a “the second network slice”. The office notes that claim 3 depends on claim, which recites, “a first network slice” thus the use of a “the first network slice” in claim 3 is proper, however, the “the second network slice” has no antecedent basis because neither of claims 1 or 3, which claim 4 depends recites “a second network slice”.
Claim 5 is rejected for depending claim 4, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patka et al. (US 2024/0196450 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Patka discloses:
a system for assigning a network slice to a fixed wireless access (FWA) device based on devices served by the FWA device, (par.[0053] as discussed below) the system comprising:
a node having one or more antennas (fig.2a which depicts a gNB which has a one or more antenna, fig.3 communication interface 325), the node being associated with a wireless telecommunications network (fig.2a the gNB which is a based transceiver station of the wireless communications network);
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the node (fig.2a gNB comprises a one or more processors, fig.3 element 310); and
computer memory storing computer-usable instructions (fig.2a gNB comprises memory with instructions, fig.3 element 315, and element 320) that, when executed by the one or more processor, perform operations comprising:
performing a method for assigning a network slice (par.[0053] which recites, in part, “FIGS. 4A and 4B are flow diagrams illustrating an exemplary process 400 of an exemplary embodiment of the device detection and network slice assignment service.”) to a fixed wireless access (FWA) device (fig(s). 2a -2e, and par.[0031] depict and describe a fixed wireless access device) based on devices served by the FWA device (fig(s).2A -2E, par.[0031] which recites, in part, “As illustrated, process 200 may be implemented in an environment that includes end device 130, such as IoT device 205, access devices 107, such as an FWA device 210”, and in particular fig.2A wherein IOT device (end device) is communicatively wirelessly coupled with FWA device 210),
the method comprising:
determining that a first device is accessing a wireless communications network through an FWA device (par.[0035 – 0036] wherein the FWA device receives from the IoT device a DHCP request, and performs a lookup, the connection being a wireless connection);
identifying a first network slice that is associated with the first device (par.[0056 - 0057] describes performing a lookup for the end-device subscription database or data store. This is to determine whether the end-device is allowed to access the network, and also to determine a network slice to allocate to the end-device); and
allocating the first network slice to the FWA device based on the first device accessing the wireless communications network through the FWA device (par.[0056 – 0057] see, “When core device 122 determines that there is authorization (block 445 – YES), core device 122 may transmit a network slice request….. NSMA may provision the network slice. For example, NSMS 125 may provision a sub-network slice between FWA device 210 and another access device 107 (e.g., gNB 215). NSMS 125 may provision other sub-network slices…… NSMS may transmit a notification message to FWA device.).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Patka discloses:
determining that a second device is accessing the wireless communciation network through the FWA device;
identifying a second network slice that is associated with the second device; and
allocating the second network slice to the FWA device based on the second device accessing the network through the FWA device (fig.1 depicts a one or more end devices, wherein the one or more end devices may want perform access with a access devices via the FWA device. That is, the method and system discussed in claims 1 and 12 may be used for multiple devices performing access via a FWA device).
Regarding claim 3, Patka discloses:
further comprising establishing a first link between the FWA device and a node associated with the wireless communications network based on the first network slice (par.[0057] when core network device 122 determines that there is authorization (block 445-Yes) core device 122 may transmit a network slice request to NSMS…… the NSMS can provision the network slice…. NSMS may provision network slice between FWA device 210 and another access device 107……).
Regarding claim 4, Patka discloses:
establishing a second link between the FWA device and a node associated with the wireless communications network based on the second network slice (fig.2c the gNB and FWA device can associated with a one or more external devices or core devices, depending on the configuration of the network slice, par.[0038] which recites, in part, “According to various exemplary embodiments, NSMS 125 may provision other subnetwork slices, which may provide a network slice connection between gNB 215 and core network 120, between core network 120 and external network 115, and/or between gNB 215 and external network 115 in correspondence to subnetwork slices 249-1 through 249-3. As an example, subnetwork slice 249-3 may support a PDU session with a MEC server. According to another example, subnetwork slices 249-1 and 249-2 may support a PDU session with a PDN. According to yet another example, subnetwork slice 249-1 may support a PDU session with a UPF in core network 120.”).
Regarding claim 6, Patka discloses:
receiving device information for the first device from the FWA device, the device information comprising at least one of device capability information or device type (par.[0037] which recites, in part, “according to this exemplary scenario in which there is a match with the data, FWA device 210 may generate and transmit an authorization request 233 to an authorization device via gNB 215. The authorization request may include information included in the DHCP request (e.g., MAC address, identifier, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 9, Patka discloses:
wherein the FWA device is configured to support multiple network slices simultaneously (network slices for core network or external network, para [0038] "According to an exemplary embodiment, NSMS 125 may provision a subnetwork slice 247 connection between FWA device 210 and gNB 215, as illustrated. According to various exemplary embodiments, NSMS 125 may provision other subnetwork slices, which may provide a network slice connection between gNB 215 and core network 120, between core network 120 and external network 115, and/or between gNB 215 and external network 115 in correspondence to subnetwork slices 249-1 through 249-3. As an example, subnetwork slice 249-3 may support a PDU session with a MEC server. According to another example, subnetwork slices 249-1 and 249-2 may support a PDU session with a PDN. According to yet another example, subnetwork slice 249-1 may support a PDU session with a UPF in core network 120.").
Regarding claim 10, Patka discloses:
prioritizing an allocation of network slices to the FWA device based on a type of service being accessed by the devices served by the FWA device (network slices that may support a diverse array of application services and QoS requirements, par. [0027]-[0028] "For example, NSMS 125 may provision and manage (e.g., setup, maintenance, teardown) network slices that may support a diverse array of application services and associated performance metric, service level agreement (SLA), and quality of service (QOS) requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, NSMS 125 may provision a subnetwork slice between an FWA device (c.g., FWA CPE) and a wireless station (c.g., a gNB or the like), as described herein. According to an exemplary embodiment, NSMS 125 may provision and manage other subnetwork slices, such as RAN network slices, core network slices, application layer network slices (e.g., MEC slices, etc.), and end-to-end network slices (e.g., end device 130 to an application service device, a PDN server, etc.).").
Regarding claim 18, Patka discloses:
one or more non-transitory computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon , (fig.3 element 315, and element 320), that when executed by at least one processor (fig.3 element 310), cause the at least one processor the processor at element to perform a method comprising:
at a fixed wireless access (FWA) device (fig.2a at element 210), determining information for one or more devices served by the FWA device (par.[0054] and also, par.[0036 - 0037] describes determining information on the one or more devices served by the FWA devices after the one or more devices transmits and/or attempts to access the FWA device for service);
communicating the device information to a node that serves the FWA device (par.[0037] which recites, in part, “according to this exemplary scenario in which there is a match with the data, FWA device 210 may generate and transmit an authorization request 233 to an authorization device via gNB 215. The authorization request may include information included in the DHCP request (e.g., MAC address, identifier, etc.).”); and
receiving an allocation of at least one network slice at the FWA device (par.[0057] which describes the provisioning of the network slice from the access, and core networks to the FWA device on behalf of the end-user device using the FWA for wireless access), the at least one network slice having a particular assignment of network resources based on the device information of the one or more devices served by the FWA device (par.[0038] which recites, in part, “In response to receiving and analyzing the request, NSMS 125 may provision a network slice 244. According to an exemplary embodiment, NSMS 125 may provision a subnetwork slice 247 connection between FWA device 210 and gNB 215, as illustrated. According to various exemplary embodiments, NSMS 125 may provision other subnetwork slices, which may provide a network slice connection between gNB 215 and core network 120, between core network 120 and external network 115, and/or between gNB 215 and external network 115 in correspondence to subnetwork slices 249-1 through 249-3. As an example, subnetwork slice 249-3 may support a PDU session with a MEC server. According to another example, subnetwork slices 249-1 and 249-2 may support a PDU session with a PDN. According to yet another example, subnetwork slice 249-1 may support a PDU session with a UPF in core network 120.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patka as applied the independent claims above, in view of Zhu et al. (US 2021/037588 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the disclosure of Patka discloses the method of the independent claims, but may not disclose:
performing carrier aggregation between the first link and the second link, wherein the first link and the second link are used concurrently for data transmission, thereby enhancing the overall data throughput between the FWA device and the node associated with the wireless communications network.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Zhu discloses:
performing carrier aggregation between the first link and the second link, wherein the first link and the second link are used concurrently for data transmission, thereby enhancing the overall data throughput between the FWA device and the node associated with the wireless communications network (par.[0080] describes the aggregation of multiple network slices, which would increase the throughput).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to combine the teachings of Patka with the disclosure of Zho for combining multiple network slices to form an aggregated link. The motivation/suggestion would have been to increase resources for the transmission of user data.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 15-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patka as applied to the independent claims in view of Gupta et al (WO 2022/125879 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Patka discloses the method of claim 1, but Patka may not disclose:
further comprising monitoring data traffic of the first device to dynamically adjust an allocation of network resources corresponding to the first network slice.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Gupta discloses:
further comprising monitoring data traffic of the first device to dynamically adjust an allocation of network resources corresponding to the first network slice (para [0082] "To allocate a network slice, the network slice allocation service 425 may dynamically configure one or more network functions in the radio- based network 103 to implement the quality-of-service requirements for the network traffic that meets the network slice definition. It is noted that a network slice may have a greater or lesser priority than normal traffic, which may have a corresponding cost that is higher or lower than a normal usage cost. In some scenarios, the network slice allocation service 425 may increase or decrease allocated computing capacity 421 for network function workloads in order to meet the specified quality-of-service requirement. For example, more allocated computing capacity 421 for network functions implementing the network slice may provide a lower latency. In some embodiments, the network slice allocation service 425 may also rearrange network function workloads at different points in the radio-based network 103 to meet the quality-of-service requirement. Additionally, the network slice allocation service 425 may instantiate a content delivery service 426 in order to provide content 427 at different points in the radio-based network 103 in order to meet a quality-of-service requirement.").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Patka with the disclosure of Gupta for dynamic allocate resources as per Gupta in the method of Patka since it allows to provide desired QoS to users (para [0082], Gupta).
Regarding claim 8, the disclosure of Gupta teaches:
wherein the dynamic adjustment is based on current network conditions (par. [0083] "In some embodiments, application developers or application owners can specify required network slice configuration in an application template used to deploy a particular application in the cloud provider network 203, such that the application can provide this information to the network slice allocation service 427 when making an API-based request for a network slice. In some embodiments, the network slice allocation service 427 automatically determines one or more optimal network slices for a customer's application or for their overall radio-based network 103. To this end, the network slice allocation service 427 may train one or more machine learning models to recognize network slice configurations in view of conditions for a customer or across multiple customers.") and data traffic requirements of the first device (latency and QoS requirements, para [0082] "It is noted that a network slice may have a greater or lesser priority than normal traffic, which may have a corresponding cost that is higher or lower than a normal usage cost. In some scenarios, the network slice allocation service 425 may increase or decrease allocated computing capacity 421 for network function workloads in order to meet the specified quality-of-service requirement. For example, more allocated computing capacity 421 for network functions implementing the network slice may provide a lower latency. In some embodiments, the network slice allocation service 425 may also rearrange network function workloads at different points in the radio-based network 103 to meet the quality-of-service requirement. Additionally, the network slice allocation service 425 may instantiate a content delivery service 426 in order to provide content 427 at different points in the radio-based network 103 in order to meet a quality-of-service requirement.").
Regarding claim 15, Gupta discloses:
Patka discloses the system of claim 12, but may not disclose:
wherein the operations further comprise monitoring data traffic of the first device to dynamically adjust an allocation network resources corresponding to the first network slice.
In an analogous art, the disclosure Gupta discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise monitoring data traffic of the first device to dynamically adjust an allocation network resources corresponding to the first network slice (par. [0082] "To allocate a network slice, the network slice allocation service 425 may dynamically configure one or more network functions in the radio-based network 103 to implement the quality-of-service requirements for the network traffic that meets the network slice definition. It is noted that a network slice may have a greater or lesser priority than normal traffic, which may have a corresponding cost that is higher or lower than a normal usage cost. In some scenarios, the network slice allocation service 425 may increase or decrease allocated computing capacity 421 for network function workloads in order to meet the specified quality-of-service requirement. For example, more allocated computing capacity 421 for network functions implementing the network slice may provide a lower latency. In some embodiments, the network slice allocation service 425 may also rearrange network function workloads at different points in the radio-based network 103 to meet the quality-of-service requirement. Additionally, the network slice allocation service 425 may instantiate a content delivery service 426 in order to provide content 427 at different points in the radio-based network 103 in order to meet a quality-of-service requirement.").
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to dynamically allocate resources as per Gupta in the system of Patka since it allows to provide desired QoS to users (para [0082], Gupta).
Regarding claim 16, Gupta discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise prioritizing an allocation of network slices based on a type of service being accessed by the devices served by the FWA device (network slices that may support a diverse array of application services and QoS requirements, para [0027]-[0028] "For example, NSMS 125 may provision and manage (e.g., setup, maintenance, teardown) network slices that may support a diverse array of application services and associated performance metric, service level agreement (SLA), and quality of service (QOS) requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, NSMS 125 may provision a subnetwork slice between an FWA device (e.g., FWA CPE) and a wireless station (e.g., a gNB or the like), as described herein. According to an exemplary embodiment, NSMS 125 may provision and manage other subnetwork slices, such as RAN network slices, core network slices, application layer network slices (c.g., MEC slices, etc.), and end-to-end network slices (c.g., end device 130 to an application service device, a PDN server, etc.).").
Claim(s) 11 and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patka as applied to the independent claims in view of Erman et al. (US 2021/0036920 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the disclosure of Patka teaches the independent claims, but may not disclose:
deallocating the first network slice from the FWA device when the first device ceases to access the wireless communications network through the FWA device.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Erman teaches:
further comprising deallocating the first network slice from the FWA device (par. [0128] "At step 608, the one or more computing devices may cause termination of the network slice. For example, causing termination may include deallocating resources for the network slice and transmitting a signal to the network slice transformation layer that causes termination of the one or more computing function resources. Causing termination of the network slice may cause certain operations for terminating computing function resources to be performed by the network slice management layer, the computing resource MANO, the computing resource EM, and the computing resources. For example, upon receiving the signal that causes termination, the network slice transformation layer may send one or more instructions to terminate the one or more computing function resources. Upon termination, the computing resources that were previously configured as the one or more computing function resources may be released back to the available computing resources.") when the first device ceases to access the wireless communications network through the FWA device (par. [0127] "At step 607, the one or more computing devices may determine whether to terminate the network slice. For example, one of the network conditions may indicate a change in end-devices that are connected to the network slice (c.g., the last end-device has disconnected from the network slice). Based on this change, the one or more computing devices may determine to terminate the network slice. As another example, a policy or account indicate a termination condition (e.g., a policy or account indicates that the term for the network slice is for 1 or 2 years) and, based on the policy or account, the one or more computing devices may determine to terminate the network slice.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Patka for FWA network slice allocation, with the disclosure of Erman for deallocation of the network slice. The motivation/suggestion would have been to efficiently use resource by monitoring which are being used and which are not deallocating the resources to free the resource for other users.
Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patka as applied to the independent claims in view of Ramasamy et al. (US 2023/0118808 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the disclosure of Patka teaches the independent claims, but may not disclose:
wherein the device information comprises at least one of a quantity of component carriers that can be aggregated, a maximum throughput, multiple-in-multiple-out (MIMO) capabilities, or supported features.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Ramasamy teaches:
wherein the device information comprises at least one of a quantity of component carriers that can be aggregated, a maximum throughput, multiple-in-multiple-out (MIMO) capabilities, or supported features (par.[0012] which recites, in part, “In order to provide this persistent connectivity, a wireless access provider or a radio access network (RAN) provider (e.g., an internet service provider (ISP), a cellular provider, or the enterprise managed RANs) may allocate a network slice used to fulfill, at least, the data throughput requirements of these groups of endpoint devices or organizations that these endpoint devices fall under. Fig.5 element 502).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Patka with the disclosure of Ramasamy for on-demand network slice optimization and allocation. The motivation/suggestion would have been to support persistent connectivity in a dynamic network (Ramasamy: par.[0012]).
Claim(s) 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patka as applied to the independent claims in view of Li (US 2019/0289647 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the disclosure of Patka teaches the independent claims, but may not disclose:
determining a change in the device type and the device capability information for the one or more devices served by the FWA device; and based on the change in the device type and the device capability information for the one or more devices served by the FWA device, receiving an indication that the network slice has a different assignment of network resources.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Li teaches:
determining a change in the device type and the device capability information for the one or more devices served by the FWA device (Table 2, "Device type Mandatory Network slice device type related to a physical device type, where the network slice device type specifically includes Router, Switch, OFSwitch, PTNDevice, and the like. Respective forwarding table slice information may be defined for different devices, for example, a forwarding table size may be defined for the OFSwitch device. A service capability of a router node, for example, whether a service capability such as Trill or multicast is supported"); and
based on the change in the device type and the device capability information for the one or more devices served by the FWA device (allocated resource changes if forwarding capability change, para [0125]-[0128] "In this embodiment of the present application, the control device may initialize a global resource allocation algorithm to monitor a physical network resource change event, for example, a resource change event related to a network slice such as a topology change, a forwarding capability change, or a forwarding table capacity change. In this embodiment of the present application, the control device may receive a network slice creation request from a user (for example, a second-level operator), and the network slice creation request may include at least one type of the following information: a network slice topology, a slicing device capability, a slicing device capacity, network slice link bandwidth, a network slice service level agreement (SLA), and a network slice forwarding policy. An interface layer converts a requirement description into a network slice model object and sends the network slice model object to a slice management module for slice creation. The slice management module performs preliminary verification on a network slice requirement. After the verification is completed, a requirement object is stored in the database."),
receiving an indication that the network slice has a different assignment of network resources (par. [0131]- [0132] "The control device may encapsulate an algorithm result into a resource reservation message, and send the resource reservation message to a corresponding forwarding device for slice installation. The forwarding device decapsulates a service slice creation message, and allocates a distributed control plane resource (for example, a CPU, a memory, and a forwarding table), a data plane resource (for example, an NP, a forwarding queue, Quality of Service (QoS), and a network interface) to the service slice. If the service slice is a centralized SDN network, a control channel subnet is configured for the service slice in a network slice 0, and a method used includes but is not limited to configuration in a VPN.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings Patka for allocating a network slice with the disclosure of Li for adaptively assigning a network slice. The motivation/suggestion would have been to apply the resource allocation to multiple different types of wireless devices of varying capability.
Claim(s) 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patka as applied to the independent claims in view of Li as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Rao et al. (US 2022/0374259 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Patka and Li discloses the claim 19, but may not disclose:
wherein the change corresponds to at least one device having a guaranteed bit rate (GBR).
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Rao teaches:
wherein the change corresponds to at least one device having a guaranteed bit rate (GBR) (par.[0043] "Regarding the throughput GBR parameter, functions require the input data stream to arrive at a certain rate, which is the desired throughput (specified in kbps) and needs to be guaranteed for the function to perform well (GBR stands for Guaranteed Bit Ratc). This desired throughput is especially beneficial for streaming input data, where there is a continuous data stream that the function receives, which needs to bc processed at a certain rate to keep up with the incoming input stream and produce correct output.").
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Patka and Li as discussed with regard to claim 19, in view of the disclosure as discussed in Rao. The motivation/suggestion would have been to to support continuous data streaming operations (para [0043], Rao).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mujale et al. (US 2025/0274346 A1) “Network Slicing Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) Use Case”
Patel et al. (US 2023/0291607 A1) “System and Method for URSP-Based Tunneling Through Fixed Wireless Access”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 at (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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights