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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination and are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2026, 07/10/2025 and 11/05/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy was filed on 11/27/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-2 and 17-18, recites “ based on result of inputting, ”. The comma appears to have been used in error . Appropriate correction is required.
The claims 1 recites “a fist data structure”, (on line 6), which appears to include typographical error. Appropriate correction is required, for instance, the fist should be replaced with “first”.
Claims 1-2, 17 and 20, recites "points" and "that", (on line 8). The comma appears to have been used in error . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims1-2, 11- 13 and 17-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 17 and 20, recites "based on result of inputting" is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what's being inputted.
The claims recites “comprising a plurality of first time points and a plurality of first network parameter groups respectively corresponding to the plurality of first time points, that the traffic of the first application corresponds to a first category” this whole limitation appears to be unclear and not definite for the following reasons:
the claim recites a first data structure comprising "a plurality of first time points and a plurality of first network parameter groups respectively corresponding to ..." The phrase "respectively corresponding to the plurality of first time points" (in line 8) missing the second aspect of the correspondence, for instance, "a first plurality of first network parameter groups”. Therefore, the claim recitation does not appear to be unclear.
The correspondence established for "a plurality of first time points" seems to point to itself (meaning that the trigger for the correspondence appears to depend on the trigger itself). This does not appear to be clear.
The limitation as a whole appears to be incomplete since it fails to provide a clear correspondence for the second trigger (which is …a plurality of first network parameter groups…).
The limitation "that the traffic of the first application correspond to a first category" is vague and indefinite in the context of the limitation taken as a whole.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 17 respectively.
With respect to claims 2 and 18, recites “identify, based on result of inputting, to the traffic category classification model, second data associated with traffic of the first application consisting of a second data structure comprising a plurality of second time points which is different from the plurality of first time points and a plurality of second network parameter group respectively corresponding to the plurality of second time points, that the traffic of the first application corresponds to a second category which is different from the first category,” this whole limitation appears to be vague and not definite as those noted above for claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, the term “degree of increase or decrease”, in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degree” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The indicated terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 14- 20 are rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Soma et al. (US 20210377809 hereinafter Soma).
With respect to claims 1, 17 and 20, Soma teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (Soma, see FIG. 1 and paragraph [0027] processor 102 ); and
a memory storing at least one instruction that, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor (FIG. 1 and paragraph [0007, 0027] processor 102. a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to: receive a plurality of packets) causes the electronic device to:
identify, based on result of inputting, to a traffic category classification model, first data associated with traffic of a first application consisting of a fist data structure (Soma, see paragraphs [0007-0009] methods for classifying network traffic to use cellular network slices based on application parameters (i.e., first data associated with traffic)… cause the IHS to: receive a plurality of packets originated by a single application, classify each of the plurality of packets into one of a plurality of network slices based upon network parameters of the application, where each of the network slices is associated with a weight, and for each given packet among the plurality of packets, add a weight to a header portion (i.e., eqvalent to data structure) of the given packet, where the weight corresponds to the given packet's classification… the packet classification may include at least one of: video, voice, background, or best effort(i.e., different type of category)),
comprising a plurality of first time points and a plurality of first network parameter groups respectively corresponding to the plurality of first time points, that the traffic of the first application corresponds to a first category (Soma, see paragraphs [0008-0009] the classification may be based upon a machine learning (ML) algorithm that receives a packet and associates the packet with a corresponding network slice based upon previously collected network parameters…the packet classification may include at least one of: video, voice, background, or best effort. The network parameters may include at least one of: maximum throughput, average throughput, low time-between packets, average time-between packets (i.e., eqvalent to plurality of first time points), packet size, type of protocol, or header parameters (i.e., data structure)), and
perform at least one operation causing transmission and/or reception of a first traffic of the first application through a first data transmission path corresponding to the first category (Soma, see paragraphs [0009-0010] the program instructions, upon execution, cause the IHS to transmit the given packet over a selected link of a multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., equivalent to transmit first data transmission path corresponding to the first category), where the link is selected based upon the weight. The multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., transmission path) established).
With respect to claims 2 and 18, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
identify, based on result of inputting, to the traffic category classification model, second data associated with traffic of the first application consisting of a second data structure (Soma, see paragraphs [0007-0009] methods for classifying network traffic to use cellular network slices based on application parameters (i.e., multiple application parameters implies second data associated with traffic)… cause the IHS to: receive a plurality of packets originated by a single application (i.e., equivalent to first application), classify each of the plurality of packets (i.e., plurality of traffics) into one of a plurality of network slices based upon network parameters of the application… where the weight corresponds to the given packet's classification… the packet classification may include at least one of: video, voice, background, or best effort),
comprising a plurality of second time points which is different from the plurality of first time points and a plurality of second network parameter group respectively corresponding to the plurality of second time points, that the traffic of the first application corresponds to a second category which is different from the first category (Soma, see paragraphs [0008-0009] the packet classification may include at least one of: video, voice, background, or best effort. The network parameters (i.e., plurality of second parameter) include at least one of: maximum throughput, average throughput, low time-between packets, average time-between packets (i.e., eqvalent to plurality of second time points), packet size, type of protocol, or header parameters (i.e., data structure)), and
perform at least one operation causing transmission and/or reception of a second traffic of the first application through a second data transmission path corresponding to the second category, in replacement of the first data transmission path (Soma, see paragraphs [0009-0010] the program instructions, upon execution, cause the IHS to transmit the given packet over a selected link of a multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., equivalent to transmit second data transmission path corresponding to the second category), where the link is selected based upon the weight. The multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., transmission path) may be established).
With respect to claims 3 and 19, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
perform at least one operation for establishing the second data transmission path, based on determining that a data transmission path corresponding to the second category does not exist (Soma, discloses to transmit a new data category, a new connection will be established over the second transmission link for establishing network redundancy and preventing communication failure. When a device determines that the preferred data path does not exist, executing an operation to establish a secondary path see FIGS. 7-10, paragraphs [0092-0094] block 703, a new packet may be classified according to where its parameters fall with respect to the observed analysis of table 800… if those packets have parameters than match a video type (i.e., equivalent to second data type) of application in table 800, those packets may be classified as video packets).
With respect to claim 4, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
perform at least one operation for associating the second traffic of the first application with the second data transmission path, based on determining that a data transmission path corresponding to the second category exists (Soma, see paragraphs [0009-0010] the classification may be based upon a machine learning (ML) algorithm that receives a packet and associates the packet with a corresponding network slice based upon previously collected network parameters. The program instructions, upon execution, cause the IHS to transmit the given packet over a selected link of a multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., equivalent to transmit second data transmission path corresponding to the second category), where the link is selected based upon the weight. The multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., transmission path) may be established).
With respect to claim 5, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
perform at least one operation for associating the second traffic of the first application with a network interface corresponding to the second data transmission path, based on determining that the data transmission path corresponding to the second category exists (Soma, see paragraphs [0009-0010] the classification may be based upon a machine learning (ML) algorithm that receives a packet and associates the packet with a corresponding network slice based upon previously collected network parameters. The program instructions, upon execution, cause the IHS to transmit the given packet over a selected link of a multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., equivalent to transmit second data transmission path corresponding to the second category), where the link is selected based upon the weight. The multi-link Virtual Private Network (VPN) (i.e., transmission path) may be established).
With respect to claim 14, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the first data further comprises additional groups respectively corresponding to the plurality of first time points (Soma, see paragraphs [0008-0009] the packet classification may include at least one of: video, voice, background, or best effort. The network parameters may include at least one of: maximum throughput, average throughput, low time-between packets, average time-between packets (i.e., eqvalent to plurality of first time points), packet size, type of protocol, or header parameters (i.e., data structure)).
With respect to claim 15, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the first data further comprises a plurality of second network parameter groups respectively corresponding to the plurality of first time points, wherein the plurality of second network parameter groups is different from the plurality of first network parameter groups (Soma, see paragraphs [0008-0009] the packet classification may include at least one of: video, voice, background, or best effort. The network parameters (i.e., plurality of second parameter) include at least one of: maximum throughput, average throughput, low time-between packets, average time-between packets (i.e., eqvalent to plurality of second time points), packet size, type of protocol, or header parameters (i.e., data structure)).
With respect to claim 16, Soma teaches the electronic device, wherein the first data transmission path comprises at least one of a protocol data unit (PDU) session, a packet data name (PDN) connection, or a network slice (Soma, see paragraphs [0006-0007] receive a plurality of packets originated by a single application, classify each of the plurality of packets into one of a plurality of network slices based upon network parameters of the application, where each of the network slices is associated with a weight).
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 section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US 20210377809 hereinafter Soma) in view of LV (US 20240357470 hereinafter LV).
With respect to claim 6, Soma teaches an electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
determine a first route selection descriptor corresponding to the first category based on a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) rule, and perform at least one operation for establishing the first data transmission path corresponding to the first route selection descriptor.
However, Lv discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
determine a first route selection descriptor corresponding to the first category based on a user equipment route selection policy (URSP) rule, and perform at least one operation for establishing the first data transmission path corresponding to the first route selection descriptor (LV, see paragraph [0006] according to a first aspect, a data transmission method is provided, including: obtaining, by a terminal, a UE route selection policy URSP rule, where the URSP rule includes a first mapping relationship between at least one service type and route selection descriptor RSDs; and transmitting a to-be-sent data traffic of an application program based on the URSP rule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Soma with the teaching of Lv to provide the method for selecting the appropriate Route Selection Descriptor (RSD) based on UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules allows a device to steer application traffic to the optimal network slice or data connection without manual user intervention. This dynamic routing strategy optimizes resource allocation, improves security and privacy, and facilitates seamless roaming.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US 20210377809 hereinafter Soma) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20240073772 hereinafter Gupta).
With respect to claim 7, Soma teaches an electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of first network parameter groups comprises at least one of a number of uplink packets, a log value of the number of uplink packets, a size of uplink packets, a log value of the size of uplink packets, a number of downlink packets, a log value of the number of downlink packets, a size of downlink packets, a log value of the size of downlink packets, a first time gap between uplink packets, or a second time gap between downlink packets.
However, Gupta discloses wherein each of the plurality of first network parameter groups comprises at least one of a number of uplink packets, a log value of the number of uplink packets, a size of uplink packets, a log value of the size of uplink packets, a number of downlink packets, a log value of the number of downlink packets, a size of downlink packets, a log value of the size of downlink packets, a first time gap between uplink packets, or a second time gap between downlink packets (Gupta, see paragraph [0011] the UPF 102 can also perform packet routing and forwarding, perform packet inspection, enforce the user plane part of policy rules, lawfully intercept packets, perform traffic usage reporting, perform Quality of Service (QoS) handling for a user plane (e.g., packet filtering, gating, uplink (UL)/downlink (DL) rate enforcement), perform Uplink Traffic verification (e.g., Service Data Flow (SDF) to QoS flow mapping), transport level packet marking in the uplink and downlink, and perform downlink packet buffering and downlink data notification triggering. UPF 102 can include an uplink classifier to support routing traffic flows to a data network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Soma with the teaching of Gupta to provide the method for evaluating these specific uplink and downlink metrics is that it provides a comprehensive, computationally stable way to analyze network traffic behavior and traffic patterns without causing metric overflow. These network parameter groups offer several distinct advantages, including: evaluating the number of downlink packets relative to uplink metrics.
With respect to claim 8, Soma teaches the electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of first network parameter groups comprises at least one parameter identified based on a comparison result between information associated with uplink and information associated with downlink.
However, Gupta discloses wherein each of the plurality of first network parameter groups comprises at least one parameter identified based on a comparison result between information associated with uplink and information associated with downlink (Gupta, see paragraph [0022] the UPF 102 can also perform packet routing and forwarding, perform packet inspection, enforce the user plane part of policy rules, lawfully intercept packets, perform traffic usage reporting, perform Quality of Service (QoS) handling for a user plane (e.g., packet filtering, gating, uplink (UL)/downlink (DL) rate enforcement), perform Uplink Traffic verification (e.g., Service Data Flow (SDF) to QoS flow mapping), transport level packet marking in the uplink and downlink, and perform downlink packet buffering and downlink data notification triggering. UPF 102 can include an uplink classifier to support routing traffic flows to a data network).
Same motivation as claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US 20210377809 hereinafter Soma) in view of Cai et al. (US 20130322374 hereinafter Cai).
With respect to claim 9, Soma teaches an electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of first network parameter groups comprises at least one parameter identified based on a first degree of increase or decrease in information associated with uplink communications or a second degree of increase or decrease in information associated with downlink communications.
However, Cai discloses wherein each of the plurality of first network parameter groups comprises at least one parameter identified based on a first degree of increase or decrease in information associated with uplink communications (Cai, see paragraph [0079] power control information may include power control instructions that may recommend the network increase, decrease, or maintain a downlink transmission power, an indication of channel strength or quality on a downlink channel, …), or
a second degree of increase or decrease in information associated with downlink communications (Cai, see paragraph [0105] , the WTRU 604 may determine the transmission power of the uplink communication channel 616 and decide to increase the transmission power of the uplink communication channel 612 when the uplink communication channel 616 is increased. The WTRU 604 may decide to decrease the transmission power of the uplink communication channel 612 when the transmission power of the uplink communication channel 616 is decreased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Soma with the teaching of Cai to provide the method for identifying a network parameter based on degree centrality allows administrators to instantly visualize traffic burdens and bottlenecks. By monitoring shifts in degree based information, networks can dynamically adjust, improving efficiency.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US 20210377809 hereinafter Soma) in view of Xu et al. (CN 116451770 A hereinafter Xu).
With respect to claim 10, Soma teaches the electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to: scaling each of the plurality of first network parameter groups such that each of the plurality of first network parameter groups has a scaled value.
However, Xu discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to: scaling each of the plurality of first network parameter groups such that each of the plurality of first network parameter groups has a scaled value (Xu, see Page 7, lines 21-24, each of the plurality of smoothing parameter sets includes a plurality of smoothing parameters corresponding to a plurality of initial parameters. For example, a plurality of initial parameters are scaled by the scaling values to obtain a plurality of smoothing parameters, which are the initial parameters after the smoothing operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Soma with the teaching of Xu to provide the method for scaling first network parameter groups to a standardized value ensures uniform weighting, preventing variables with large numeric ranges from disproportionately dominating model outputs. This optimizes stability, avoids gradient vanishing/exploding during backpropagation, and improves convergence.
With respect to claim 11, Soma teaches the electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to: clip the scaled value of each of the plurality of first network parameter groups within a designated value range.
However, Xu discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to: clip the scaled value of each of the plurality of first network parameter groups within a designated value range (Xu, see page 23, lines 24-33 (claim 10), the step of respectively using a plurality of scaling values to smooth a plurality of initial parameters in the neural network model to obtain a plurality of smooth parameter groups comprises: respectively using the plurality of scaling values, reducing the plurality of activation values, obtaining a plurality of smooth activation value groups corresponding to the plurality of scaling values).
Same motivation as claim 10.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US 20210377809 hereinafter Soma) in view of Atefi et al. (US 20180376460 hereinafter Atefi).
With respect to claim 12, Soma teaches an electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
identify that the first traffic of the first application corresponds to the first category, based on an inference result for the first category of the traffic category classification model being larger than or equal to a designated threshold.
However, Atefi discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
identify that the first traffic of the first application corresponds to the first category, based on an inference result for the first category of the traffic category classification model being larger than or equal to a designated threshold (Atefi, see paragraph [0040] frames/packets communicated from one apparatus to another apparatus may be associated with one or more access categories, stream identifiers (IDs), traffic categories, and/or traffic IDs. Some systems may only be able to communicate packets/frames associated with a single access category, stream identifier (ID), traffic category, and/or traffic ID at a single point in time. Paragraphs [0060, 0071] further discloses data unit is transmitted from an apparatus associated with a BSS different from a BSS with which the STA is associated and/or (ii) a strength of the received ULTR, signal, frame, and/or data unit is less than a first detection threshold value. The first detection threshold value may be greater than a second detection threshold value used if the received ULTR, signal, frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Soma with the teaching of Atefi to provide the method for identifying the first traffic of an application based one an inference score equal or greater than a designated threshold provides significant advantages for network optimization security, and model reliability.
With respect to claim 13, Soma teaches an electronic device, yet fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
identify, based on an inference result for the first category of the traffic category classification model being smaller than a designated threshold, that the traffic of the first application corresponds to the first category, based on history information that the traffic of the first application is transmitted and/or received through the first data transmission path.
However, Atefi discloses wherein the at least one instruction, when individually or collectively executed by the at least one processor, further causes the electronic device to:
identify, based on an inference result for the first category of the traffic category classification model being smaller than a designated threshold, that the traffic of the first application corresponds to the first category, based on history information that the traffic of the first application is transmitted and/or received through the first data transmission path (Atefi, see paragraph [0080] received for the first signal transmitted from a second apparatus to a third apparatus and RSSI information received for a second signal transmitted from the third apparatus to the second apparatus in response to the first signal. In some configurations, the first apparatus (e.g., first STA) may refrain from resetting/setting/updating/adjusting one or more settings of the NAV of/associated with the first apparatus (e.g., first STA) when the RSSI information for the first signal is equal to or below a first threshold value and/or the RSSI information for the second signal is equal to or below a second threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Soma with the teaching of Atefi to provide the method for identifying that traffic belongs to a specific category even when the model’s direct inference confidence for that category is below a designated threshold, leverages historical path data to significantly reduce false positives and prevent false negatives. This approach drastically improves overall classification reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
PG. Pub. US 20240314858 Electronic device e.g. smart phone, has processor receiving notification based on confirmation of network connection request from application and establishing packet data unit session based on first path selection descriptor.
PG. Pub. US 20240056943 Wireless communication device e.g. intelligent mobile phone, has communication processor for sending request to network device, where request is used for activating session and request comprises parameter in routing select descriptor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KASSA whose telephone number is (571)270-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9 AM -6 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on 517-272-4001. 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.
06/25/2026
/ELIZABETH KASSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/MOUSTAFA M MEKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights