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 Status
Within the instant claim set filed 28 November 2025, claim 13 is marked as Previously Presented, however, there is a strikeout marking of “stored” within the claim’s recitations. In a telephone conversation on 21 April 2026, then-attorney of record David LaBruno confirmed that such was an inadvertent inclusion relative to the term having already been deleted within the amendment filed 18 November 2025. Examiner will proceed with examination under this confirmation.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 13, 15-16, and 31-34 recite a method comprising the step(s) of “inhibiting the network function from instructing a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing; or instructing the user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing for the communication between the first member of the group and the second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types comprises the first type of traffic routing”. These recitations are interpreted in accordance with MPEP § 2111.04, section II regarding contingent limitations. Notably, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Note that claims 1-4, 27-30, and 35-39 are not subject to this interpretation since these claims recite an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2163.04 states that “The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact”, “A description as filed is presumed to be adequate, unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to the contrary has been presented by the examiner to rebut the presumption.” § 2163.04 requires that “The examiner, therefore, must have a reasonable basis to challenge the adequacy of the written description. The examiner has the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person skilled in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims” wherein “the examiner must set forth express findings of fact which support the lack of written description conclusion (see MPEP § 2163 for examination guidelines pertaining to the written description requirement)”.
Given that this is a first action on the merits in the instant application, the claims presented are original. MPEP § 2163, section (I)(A) states that “[I]ssues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art… An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function…Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process.”
Furthermore, MPEP § 2161.01, section I, instructs that “Problems satisfying the written description requirement for original claims often occur when claim language is generic or functional, or both…For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed… original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” (Examiner’s emphasis added.)
Claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 recite “inhibiting the network function from instructing a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing”.
Aside from the disclosure that substantially repeats the claims’ limitations, paragraph 0143 of the application as published discloses a “means for inhibiting” containing “monitoring means, checking means, and inhibiting means” which may be embodied as the nonce functions “monitor, checker, and inhibiter” and as “processor(s)”. Paragraph 0145 as published discloses that “If the set of the one or more admissible types does not comprise the first type of traffic routing (S120=no), the means for inhibiting 130 inhibits the network function to instruct a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group (S130)”.
Examiner finds that the specification is silent as to any supporting algorithm/steps/procedure to perform such “inhibiting”. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably said that the function of “inhibiting” was described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Therefore, Examiner finds that claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 fail to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 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.
The term “inhibit” in claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inhibit” 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.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 recite “inhibiting the network function from instructing a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing”.
Aside from the disclosure that substantially repeats the claims’ limitations, paragraph 0143 of the application as published discloses a “means for inhibiting” containing “monitoring means, checking means, and inhibiting means” which may be embodied as the nonce functions “monitor, checker, and inhibiter” and as “processor(s)”. Paragraph 0145 as published discloses that “If the set of the one or more admissible types does not comprise the first type of traffic routing (S120=no), the means for inhibiting 130 inhibits the network function to instruct a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group (S130)”.
It is unclear what is meant be “inhibiting” the performance of a function. There is no definition of what is meant by this term, the specification fails to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is also unclear what element within the claims performs the “inhibiting”.
Examiner will interpret the claimed invention and apply prior art as best understood given the above issues.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 27-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20230217240 A1 to Jung et al. (“Jung”).
Regarding claim 1, Jung taught an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory storing instructions of a network function that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, by the network function (“SMF”), an indication of a group type of a group comprising members, wherein the members comprise user equipments, wherein, for the group type, information indicating a set of admissible types of traffic routing admitted for a communication within the group is stored; checking, by the network function, based on the indication, whether the set of admissible types of traffic routing for the group type comprises a first type of traffic routing. (consider paragraph 0047, specifically “A PDU Session provides access to one and only one 5G VN group…A dedicated SMF is responsible for all the PDU Sessions for communication of a certain 5G VN group…Session management related policy control for a DNN and S-NSSAI as described in TS 23.502 [3], is applicable to the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. This includes also usage of URSP, for the UE to determine how to route outgoing traffic to a PDU Session for the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group…A PDU Session provides unicast, broadcast and multicast communication for the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. The PSA UPF determines whether the communication is for unicast, broadcast or multicast based on the destination address of the received data, and performs unicast, broadcast or multicast communication handling…In order to realize N19 traffic routing, the SMF correlates PDU sessions established to the same 5G VN group and uses this to configure the UPF with the group level N4-session including packet detection and forwarding rules for N19 tunnelling forwarding”) (consider further paragraph 0049 regarding “three types of traffic forwarding methods allowed for 5G VN communication” including “N19-based, where the UL/DL traffic for the 5G VN group communication is forwarded between PSA UPFs of different PDU sessions via N19. N19 is based on a shared User Plane tunnel connecting PSA UPFs of a single 5G VN group” and “Local switch, where traffic is locally forwarded by a single UPF if this UPF is the common PSA UPF of different PDU Sessions for the same 5G VN group”) (consider further paragraph 0050, “The SMF handles the user plane paths of the 5G VN group, including: —The SMF may prefer to select a single PSA UPF for as many PDU sessions (targeting the same 5G VN group) as possible, in order to implement local switch on the UPF. —(if needed) Establishing N19 tunnels between PSA UPFs to support N19-based traffic forwarding”) (consider paragraph 0051, “For Ethernet PDU Session, the SMF may instruct the UPF(s) to classify frames based on VLAN tags, and to add and remove VLAN tags, on frames received and sent on N6, as described in clause 5.6.10.2. NOTE 1: For handling VLAN tags for traffic on N6, TSP ID could also be used as described in clause 6.2.2.6 of TS 23.503 [45]. Further description on User Plane management for 5G VN groups is available in clause 5.8.2.13.”) (consider further paragraph 0052, specifically “When N6-based traffic forwarding is expected, after creation of a 5G VN group the AF can influence the traffic routing for all the members of the 5G VN group, by providing information identifying the traffic, DNAI(s) suitable for selection and an optional indication of traffic correlation together with a 5G VN External Group ID identifying the 5G VN group in an AF request sent to the PCF, as described in clause 5.6.7…The PCF transforms the AF request into policies that apply to PDU Sessions of the 5G VN group and sends the policies to the SMF. According to the policies, the SMF (re)selects DNAI(s) for the PDU Sessions and configures their UP paths to route the traffic to the selected DNAI(s). If the policies include the traffic correlation indication, the SMF (re)selects a common DNAI for the PDU Sessions so that the traffic of the 5G VN group is routed to the common DNAI”)
Jung also appears to reasonably teach inhibiting the network function from instructing a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing (ie. if the “three types of traffic forwarding methods allowed for 5G VN communication” are not one of the “allowed for 5G VN communication” such as “N19 traffic routing”, then the “SMF” will inhibit any communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing for that type (ie. N19). Since the “SMF” is “responsible for all the PDU Sessions for communication of a certain 5G VN group” and “the SMF may instruct the UPF(s)”, “The SMF handles the user plane paths of the 5G VN group” including “(if needed) Establishing N19 tunnels between PSA UPFs to support N19-based traffic forwarding”)”, therefore, alternatively, Jung also reasonably infers that the “SMF” is able to inhibit its functionality of “Establishing N19 tunnels between PSA UPFs to support N19-based traffic forwarding” if it is “needed”)
In the alternative that Jung may be interpreted as not expressly teaching that inhibiting the network function from instructing a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to do so since Jung expressly teaches only allowing certain types of traffic routing to communication within members of a group and supporting the communication of allowed types as shown above. Therefore, such would have suggested to one skilled in the art that the network function is programmed to disallow traffic routing where the traffic is not one of the allowed types, therefore, it would necessarily “inhibit” the performance of that function in the manner claimed. Therefore, to modify the teachings of Jung to inhibit the network function from instructing a user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing to a communication between a first member of the group and a second member of the group if the set of the one or more admissible types of traffic routing does not comprise the first type of traffic routing would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
instructing the user plane function to apply the first type of traffic routing for the
communication between the first member of the group and the second member of the group if the
set of the one or more admissible types comprises the first type of traffic routing. (again, consider paragraph 0047, specifically “A PDU Session provides access to one and only one 5G VN group…A dedicated SMF is responsible for all the PDU Sessions for communication of a certain 5G VN group…Session management related policy control for a DNN and S-NSSAI as described in TS 23.502 [3], is applicable to the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. This includes also usage of URSP, for the UE to determine how to route outgoing traffic to a PDU Session for the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group…A PDU Session provides unicast, broadcast and multicast communication for the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. The PSA UPF determines whether the communication is for unicast, broadcast or multicast based on the destination address of the received data, and performs unicast, broadcast or multicast communication handling…In order to realize N19 traffic routing, the SMF correlates PDU sessions established to the same 5G VN group and uses this to configure the UPF with the group level N4-session including packet detection and forwarding rules for N19 tunnelling forwarding”) (again, consider further paragraph 0049 regarding “three types of traffic forwarding methods allowed for 5G VN communication” including “N19-based, where the UL/DL traffic for the 5G VN group communication is forwarded between PSA UPFs of different PDU sessions via N19. N19 is based on a shared User Plane tunnel connecting PSA UPFs of a single 5G VN group” and “Local switch, where traffic is locally forwarded by a single UPF if this UPF is the common PSA UPF of different PDU Sessions for the same 5G VN group”) (again, consider further paragraph 0050, “The SMF handles the user plane paths of the 5G VN group, including: —The SMF may prefer to select a single PSA UPF for as many PDU sessions (targeting the same 5G VN group) as possible, in order to implement local switch on the UPF. —(if needed) Establishing N19 tunnels between PSA UPFs to support N19-based traffic forwarding”) (again, consider further paragraph 0052, specifically “When N6-based traffic forwarding is expected, after creation of a 5G VN group the AF can influence the traffic routing for all the members of the 5G VN group, by providing information identifying the traffic, DNAI(s) suitable for selection and an optional indication of traffic correlation together with a 5G VN External Group ID identifying the 5G VN group in an AF request sent to the PCF, as described in clause 5.6.7…The PCF transforms the AF request into policies that apply to PDU Sessions of the 5G VN group and sends the policies to the SMF. According to the policies, the SMF (re)selects DNAI(s) for the PDU Sessions and configures their UP paths to route the traffic to the selected DNAI(s). If the policies include the traffic correlation indication, the SMF (re)selects a common DNAI for the PDU Sessions so that the traffic of the 5G VN group is routed to the common DNAI”)
Regarding claim 3, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first type of traffic routing comprises a local area network type traffic routing between the first member and the second member, wherein the local area network type of traffic routing allows, on a user plane for the communication, forwarding of traffic between the first member and the second member between a first user plane function serving the first member and a second user plane function serving the second member without crossing a data network. (again, consider paragraph 0051, “For Ethernet PDU Session, the SMF may instruct the UPF(s) to classify frames based on VLAN tags, and to add and remove VLAN tags, on frames received and sent on N6, as described in clause 5.6.10.2. NOTE 1: For handling VLAN tags for traffic on N6, TSP ID could also be used as described in clause 6.2.2.6 of TS 23.503 [45]. Further description on User Plane management for 5G VN groups is available in clause 5.8.2.13.”)
Regarding claim 4, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
subscribing to a notification of a creation of the group; and wherein the receiving comprises receiving the notification. (consider paragraph 0045, specifically “If a UE is member of a 5G VN Group, UDM retrieves UE subscription data and corresponding 5G VN group data from UDR, and provides the AMF and SMF with UE subscription data with 5G VN group data included. The PCF generates URSP rules based on 5G VN group data. The PCF retrieves 5G VN group data from UDR. The PCF(s) that have subscribed to modifications of 5G VN group data receive(s) a Nudr_DM_Notify notification of data change from the UDR.”) (consider further paragraph 0047, specifically “During establishment of the PDU Session, secondary authentication as described in clause 5.6.6 and in TS 23.502 [3], clause 4.3.2.3, may be performed in order to authenticate and authorize the UE for accessing the DNN associated with the 5G VN group. Authentication and authorization for a DNN using secondary authentication implies authentication and authorization for the associated 5G VN group. There is no 5G VN group specific authentication or authorization defined. —The SM level subscription data for a DNN and S-NSSAI available in UDM, as described in clause 5.6.1, applies to the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. —Session management related policy control for a DNN and S-NSSAI as described in TS 23.502 [3], is applicable to the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. This includes also usage of URSP, for the UE to determine how to route outgoing traffic to a PDU Session for the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group… During the PDU Session Establishment procedure, the SMF retrieves SM subscription data related to 5GLAN type service from the UDM as part of the UE subscription data for the DNN.”)
Regarding claim 27, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the notification comprises the indication. consider paragraph 0045, specifically “If a UE is member of a 5G VN Group, UDM retrieves UE subscription data and corresponding 5G VN group data from UDR, and provides the AMF and SMF with UE subscription data with 5G VN group data included. The PCF generates URSP rules based on 5G VN group data. The PCF retrieves 5G VN group data from UDR. The PCF(s) that have subscribed to modifications of 5G VN group data receive(s) a Nudr_DM_Notify notification of data change from the UDR.”) (consider further paragraph 0047, specifically “During establishment of the PDU Session, secondary authentication as described in clause 5.6.6 and in TS 23.502 [3], clause 4.3.2.3, may be performed in order to authenticate and authorize the UE for accessing the DNN associated with the 5G VN group. Authentication and authorization for a DNN using secondary authentication implies authentication and authorization for the associated 5G VN group. There is no 5G VN group specific authentication or authorization defined. —The SM level subscription data for a DNN and S-NSSAI available in UDM, as described in clause 5.6.1, applies to the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. —Session management related policy control for a DNN and S-NSSAI as described in TS 23.502 [3], is applicable to the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group. This includes also usage of URSP, for the UE to determine how to route outgoing traffic to a PDU Session for the DNN and S-NSSAI associated to a 5G VN group… During the PDU Session Establishment procedure, the SMF retrieves SM subscription data related to 5GLAN type service from the UDM as part of the UE subscription data for the DNN.”)
Regarding claim 28, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
subscribing to a notification of an update related to the group; and wherein the receiving comprises receiving the notification. (consider paragraph 0045, specifically “If a UE is member of a 5G VN Group, UDM retrieves UE subscription data and corresponding 5G VN group data from UDR, and provides the AMF and SMF with UE subscription data with 5G VN group data included. The PCF generates URSP rules based on 5G VN group data. The PCF retrieves 5G VN group data from UDR. The PCF(s) that have subscribed to modifications of 5G VN group data receive(s) a Nudr_DM_Notify notification of data change from the UDR.”)
Regarding claim 29, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 28, wherein the notification comprises the indication. (again, consider paragraph 0045, specifically “If a UE is member of a 5G VN Group, UDM retrieves UE subscription data and corresponding 5G VN group data from UDR, and provides the AMF and SMF with UE subscription data with 5G VN group data included. The PCF generates URSP rules based on 5G VN group data. The PCF retrieves 5G VN group data from UDR. The PCF(s) that have subscribed to modifications of 5G VN group data receive(s) a Nudr_DM_Notify notification of data change from the UDR.”)
Regarding claim 30, Jung taught the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the network function comprises a session management function, an access management function, or a policy control function. (again, consider paragraphs 0047 and 0049-0052 regarding the “SMF”)
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, and 31-34 recite a method of an apparatus comprising a network function (“SMF”) that contain substantially the same limitations as recited in claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 27-30 and are also rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated or, in the alternative, obvious by the same teachings of Jung.
Claim(s) 35-39 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of a device cause the device to perform operations, the operations comprising substantially the same limitations as recited in claim(s) 1-4 and 27 respectively and are also rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated or, in the alternative, obvious by the same teachings of Jung.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is directed to 5G VN group creation and management in conjunction with PDU session management in the context of the 3GPP specifications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. C. Neurauter, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-3918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/G. C. Neurauter, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights