DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected.
Claims 5, 11, and 14-15, and 17-18 are objected to.
Please refer to the attached PTO Form 892 and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted 3/26/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, and 14-15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Keep in mind, that this is allowability over the prior art. The claims are still subject to a double patenting rejection that needs to be resolved before the claims can be allowed.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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.
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 1-4, 6-10, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Terminal and Communication Method of the Same” by Baek et al., 20170041752A1(“Baek”) .
With respect to claim 1, Baek discloses: a multicast service transmission method, comprising: a multicast service transmission method, comprising:
sending, by a management device, configuration information of a first multicast service flow to a gateway device, wherein the first multicast service flow comprises at least one packet filtering rule corresponding to a Quality of Service (QoS) flow matching a first multicast service (Baek at ¶¶103, and 115 where the UE relays a multicast message and then relays the message to other mobile units, i.e., transmits said page, or an identifier corresponding to an access network device serving the terminal device. Also see ¶14 where terminal specific identifiers are used as well as the temporary mobile group identifiers mentioned in ¶115. Also see Baek at ¶260 for the method indicating that any function can be performed by any network device in any embodiment. Also note that for the UE to receive the message from the network it would come from a management device sending messages.);
and instructing, by the management device, the gateway device to send a data packet of the first multicast service to at least one of a terminal device or an access network device based on the at least one packet filtering rule (Baek at ¶115 where the system instructs the gateway to send the multicast flow).;
or instructing, by the management device, the gateway device to stop sending a data packet of the first multicast service to at least one of a terminal device or an access network device.
With respect to claim 2, Baek discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the management device, a first message, wherein the first message comprises one or more of the following:
an identifier corresponding to a first multicast service;
an indication for requesting to receive or terminate the first multicast service;
an identifier corresponding to a terminal device requesting to receive or terminate the first multicast service;
or an identifier corresponding to an access network device serving the terminal device (Baek at ¶115 where a TMGI Flow ID is included. This is an identifier of a connection session.).
With respect to claim 3, Baek discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the data packet of the first multicast service is sent to at least one of the terminal device or the access network device via a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session in a unicast mode (One of ordinary skill in the art would read the sending of packets in Baek and understand that the packets are sent as a PDU session1. Also see Baek at ¶88 “In this case, in the LTE mobile communication system, for QoS management of an IMS service session provided to the user terminal 210, a first Rx interface 260 between P-CSCF entity 235 and policy and charging rules function (PCRF) entity (for example, evolved packet system (EPS)) 220 may be defined and the QoS may be controlled by the corresponding interface 260.”)
With respect to claim 4, Baek discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: instructing, by the management device, the gateway device to establish a connection related to the first multicast service to a network device (Baek at ¶110-116 where the instructions establish a communication session which is establishing a session).
With respect to claim 6, Baek discloses method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending, by the management device, a second message, wherein the second message comprises an identifier corresponding to the first multicast service and is used to query whether there is a device requesting to receive the first multicast service in a network served by the management device, the device comprising at least one of the terminal device or the access network device (Baek at ¶¶115, 116 where a second ECGI list can be sent, which is representative of the device requesting multicast service “the ECGI list included in the session start response message received in the step 379 is different from the ECGI list included in the activate MBMS bearer request message received in the step 371”);
or the second message is used to query whether there is a device requesting to receive a multicast service in a network served by the management device, the device comprising at least one of the terminal device or the access network device.
With respect to claim 7, Baek discloses method according to claim 1, wherein an identifier corresponding to the terminal device comprises one or more of the following: an identifier of the terminal device;
an identifier of a connection session established by the terminal device; a bearer identifier of the terminal device; a tunnel identifier corresponding to a session or a bearer of the terminal device;
an identifier of the access network device serving the terminal device (Baek at ¶115 where a TMGI Flow ID is included. This is an identifier of a connection session.); or an identifier of a cell serving the terminal device.
With respect to claim 9, Baek discloses method according to claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the management device, second configuration information to the access network device, wherein the second configuration information comprises one or more of the following information: first indication information used to indicate a mode in which the gateway device sends the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device; or second indication information used to indicate a mode in which the access network device sends the data packet of the first multicast service to the terminal device, wherein the mode in which the gateway device sends the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device comprises that the gateway device sends the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in a unicast mode or a multicast mode; and the mode in which the access network device sends the data packet of the first multicast service to the terminal device comprises that the access network device sends thedata packet of the first multicast service to the terminal device in the unicast mode or the multicast mode (see Baek at Figure 3 where the system sends multicast information from the gateway device to the access device who then forwards mode information to the UE. Also see Baek at ¶¶103-115 for more elaboration on this process.).
With respect to claim 9, Baek discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending, by the management device, a third message to the access network device, wherein the third message comprises one or more of the following:an indication for adding or deleting a multicast member;an identifier corresponding to an added or deleted terminal device that is served by the access network device and that is in a member of the first multicast service;the identifier corresponding to the first multicast service (Baek at ¶¶115-121 where the message has indications of nodes that have been added as a result of the eNB update and messaging those nodes);
or
the member of the first multicast service comprises the terminal device requesting to receive the first multicast service (Baek at ¶¶115-116 where the message has indications of nodes that have been added as a result of the eNB update and messaging those nodes).
With respect to claim 10, Baek discloses: the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, by the management device, a quality of service (QoS) parameter of the first multicast service(Baek at ¶105 where a QoS parameter is sent as part of a sent message); and
sending, by the management device, a QoS profile to the access network device (Id.),
wherein the QoS profile comprises an identifier of the QoS flow corresponding to the first multicast service and a QoS parameter corresponding to the QoS flow; or
the QoS profile comprises an identifier of a bearer corresponding to the first multicast service and a QoS parameter corresponding to the bearer (Id. where “The QoS value may be mapped to a value representing priority of the MBMS bearer.”)
With respect to claim 11, Baek discloses the method according to claim 1, whereinthe configuration information of the first multicast service flow comprises a service data flow (SDF) template related to the first multicast service, and the SDF template comprises the at least one packet filtering rule that is used by the gateway device to map, according to the packet filtering rule, a received data packet of the first multicast service to the QoS flow matching with the first multicast service for the sending.
With respect to claim 13, Baek discloses the multicast service transmission method, comprising:
receiving, by a gateway device, a data packet of a first multicast service that is sent by a network device; and
sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to an access network device based on at least one packet filtering rule (Baek at ¶¶103 and 115 where the UE relays a multicast message and then relays the message to other mobile units, i.e., transmits said page, or an identifier corresponding to an access network device serving the terminal device. Also see ¶14 where terminal specific identifiers are used as well as the temporary mobile group identifiers mentioned in ¶115. Also see Baek at ¶¶179-189 where packets work their way through the system of Figure 3.),
wherein the sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device comprises at least one of:
sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in a multicast mode; or
sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in a unicast mode (Id.)
With respect to claim 16, Baek discloses the method method according to claim 13, wherein the sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in the multicast mode further comprises at least one of: sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device through a first channel, wherein the first channel is for transmitting the data packet of the first multicast service; or sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device through a first channel, wherein the first channel is for transmitting data packets of a plurality of different multicast services (Baek at ¶115 where the multicast will be over a specific radiofrequency);.
With respect to claim 19, Baek discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in the multicast mode, further comprises at least one of:
sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in the multicast mode (see Baek at Figure 3 where the system sends multicast information from the gateway device to the access device who then forwards mode information to the UE. Also see Baek at ¶¶103-115 for more elaboration on this process.); and
sending, by the access network device, the data packet of the first multicast service to a terminal device in the unicast mode (see Baek at Figure 3 where the system sends multicast information from the gateway device to the access device who then forwards mode information to the UE. Also see Baek at ¶¶103-115 for more elaboration on this process.); or
the sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in the unicast mode comprises:
sending, by the gateway device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the access network device in the unicast mode; and
sending, by the access network device, the data packet of the first multicast service to the terminal device in the multicast mode.
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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
With respect to claim 12, while Baek discloses the method according to claim 4, Baek does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Anchan. Anchan discloses further comprising:, further comprising: sending, by the management device, a second notification message to the gateway device, wherein the second notification message is used to instruct the gateway device to disconnect the connection of the first multicast service established to the network device see Anchan at ¶¶148, 149 where a variety of control signals can be sent including a message to disconnect the multicast service ).
Reasons to combine: Baek and Anchan are analogous to the claimed invention in that the are in the same field of endeavor, establishing and maintaining a multicast session. In a multicast session there are multiple recipients. In Baek’s system these recipients at the UEs are mobile. Mobile nodes move between access points and in these situations the need to stop some or all multicast sessions may be needed to handle this reality (See Anchan at ¶100). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baek with Anchan to be able to disconnect, i.e., end a session that had started earlier.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of “Systems And Methods For Enabling Private Communication Within A User Equipment Group” by Li at al., US2020/0059761A1 (“Li”)
With respect to claim 20, while Baek discloses the method according to claim 13, Baek does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Li. Li discloses further comprising: further comprising:
receiving, by the gateway device, indication information from a terminal device through the access network device,
wherein the indication information is used to indicate a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session requested by the terminal device requires support of a multicast service (see Li at ¶163 where the request message carries an indication that the PDU session will be multicast)
Reasons to combine: Baek and Li are analogous to the claimed invention in that the are in the same field of endeavor, establishing and maintaining a multicast session (See Li at ¶7). Li at ¶¶6-8 states that there is a need in the art for having information in messaging setup that supports efficient communication between UEs in a UE group. One way to do this is to include the parameters needed for a that setup during the setup stages. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baek with Li to set up a bearer that has the required communication parameters.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over 5 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. While instant Claim 3 recites “protocol data unit” and Claim 1 of the patent does not, one of ordinary skill in the art would read the sending of packets in claim 17 and understand that the packet are sent as a PDU session2.Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim (Claim 23 speaks to the server embodiment from the method of claim 7, an obvious variation). Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US Patent 12,245,. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim (Claim 24 speaks to the server embodiment from the method of claim 9, an obvious variation). Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim (Claim 25 speaks to the server embodiment from the method of claim 14, an obvious variation). Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17i of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 15 is simply a broader version of the patented claim. While instant Claim 15 recites “protocol data unit” and Claim 17 of the patent does not, one of ordinary skill in the art would read the sending of packets in claim 17 and understand that the packet are sent as a PDU session3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to (Claim 26 speaks to the server embodiment from the methods of claims 14 and 6 combined, an obvious variation). Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim (Claim 28 speaks to the server embodiment from the method of claim 18, an obvious variation). Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US Patent 12,245,104. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is simply a broader version of the patented claim. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The documents below were considered.
“System For Performing Multicast Mapping To Broadcast Evacuation Notification To People Within Building During Incident, Determines Response Information From Peripheral Device And Adds Peripheral Devices To Sub-network In Multicast Map” by Steinhauser, US20190028354A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
1 Protocol data unit - Wikipedia
2 Protocol data unit - Wikipedia
3 Protocol data unit - Wikipedia
Prosecution Insights