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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/8/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-36 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments canceling claims 1-20 and adding claims 21-36 further specifying PDCCH and monitoring.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22, 24, 29-30, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 21: lines 4-5 includes “determining a plurality of Y time slots” and “each of the plurality of Y time slots”, while lines 9, 12, 14-15, 23 include “the Y time slots”, and line 23 includes “each Y time slot”. Claim language should be unified to obviate indefinite issues (e.g. -the plurality of Y time slots- or -the determined Y time slots- for “the Y time slots”, -each Y time slot among the plurality of Y time slots- or -each of the determined Y time slots- or -each Y time slot among the determined Y time slots- for “each of the plurality of Y time slots” / “each Y time slot”, etc., as appropriate).
Regarding claim 22: lines 2 and 7 include “the Y time slots” which should be unified with claim 21. Further, line 6 includes “Y time slots” which renders the claim indefinite which is addressed below with 35 USC § 112(b) rejections.
Regarding claim 24: line 2 includes “the plurality of Y time slots” which should be unified with claim 21.
Regarding claim 29: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 30: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reasons as set forth in claim 22.
Regarding claim 32: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reasons as set forth in claim 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29-36 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claim 29, and thus also dependent claims 30-36 which depend from claim 29, are directed to a UE with “a processor”. Since these claims do not also recite a memory coupled to the processor, one skilled in the art could not “make and use the invention without undue experimentation” based on the general state of the art and direction provided in the present specification, therefore, these claims are not enabled. See MPEP 2164.01. Undue experimentation is evaluated in light of the Wands factors, which include, but are not limited to, nature of the invention, state of the prior art, level of one of ordinary skill, amount of direction provided by the inventor, and working examples. See MPEP 2164.01(a).
The definition of a processor, and the way in which one skilled in the art would understand a processor, is that it must access stored data (including program instructions) from a storage device, such as a memory, to execute the functions of the processor. (See e.g., “Central Processing Unit.” Pfaffenberger, Bryan. Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, Ninth Edition. New York: Hungry Minds, Inc., 2001, Print.) The specification as filed is consistent with the above-definition of processor, such as described with respect to Figure 4, memory 480, at para. [143, 145-147, 274], of the application. However, because the general state of the art does not ordinarily define processors without a memory, and because the present specification does not provide direction or examples on how to make and use the claimed processor absent a memory, one skilled in the art would need to undertake undue experimentation in order to make and use the device of Claims 29-36. Thus, these claims are not enabled under section 112, first paragraph. The examiner recommends amendments to claim 29 to include memory storing instructions executed by a processor, and to amend claim 33 correspondingly.
Claims 21-36 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.
Regarding claim 21: lines 14-15 includes “the UE monitors the PDCCH CSS only in the Y time slots and does not monitor the PDCCH CSS in a time slot that is not one of the Y time slots”. In a review of the specification, the limitation appears to be related to “a common search space is reserved only within each of the Y slots” of para. 80, however, the description does not relate to “monitor”, and nothing is found in the specification that limits monitoring to a specific time/time slot, or excludes monitoring at any time, much less “in a time slot that is not one of the Y time slots”. Accordingly, the above subject matter is not considered to describe 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention,
Regarding claims 22-28: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 21 and thus inheriting the same issues, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 29: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claims 30-36: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 29 and thus inheriting the same issues, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 29.
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.
Claims 21-36 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.
Regarding claim 21: lines 8-9 includes “a subset of candidate time slots among the Y time slots”, and lines 10-12 includes “selecting … a plurality of selected time slots from among the subset of candidate time slots, wherein each of the selected time slots is one of the Y time slots and defines a paging occasion” which, in looking to Fig. 6, whether the subset of candidate time slots are only Y time slots, or includes slots other than Y slots is unclear, and which, if any, time slot(s) is actually a paging occasion. In a review to determine the intent: A) “set”/“subset” was not found (and an improper “subset” includes the entire “set”) and thus how a “candidate time slot” relates to a “selected time slot” and a “Y slot” is not clear; and further B) a paging occasion (PO) being “defined” is not found and thus, it is unclear whether “selected time slots”: I) is a PO, II) somehow configures a PO; III) boarders / restricts a PO; or IV) something else. Examination continued on the assumption the time slots relate to a PO time slot. The examiner recommends further amendments to at least clarify which time slots are being determined/selected and which time slot(s) is/are a PO.
Regarding claim 22: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 21, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim line 21. Further, line 7 includes “the target time window includes more than Y time slots” which is unclear as to whether the target time window includes: A) time slots other than Y time slots; B) other periods besides time slots / Y time slots; C) an amount of Y time slots more than the total amount of the plurality of Y time slots; or D) something else. Examination continued on the assumption other time slots or other periods are included. The examiner respectfully recommends amendments specifying the claimed time periods such as explicitly claiming, e.g. -paging occasion (PO)-, -Discontinuous Reception (DRX) period-, -enhanced Discontinuous Reception (eDRX) period-, -candidate PO-, etc. as appropriate and supported in the disclosure as filed.
Regarding claim 23: the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 21, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim line 21. Further, line 3 introduces “K2 second-type windows”, however, line 5 includes “any two second-type time windows” which is unclear as to whether the limitation is intended to be A) “any two K2 second-type time windows”, B) “any two K2 second-type time windows among the determined K2 second type windows”, C) whether K2 is intended to be a numerical value, or D) something else. Examination continued on the assumption the limitation is related to K2 second-type windows.
Regarding claims 24-28: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 21, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim line 21.
Regarding claim 29: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 30: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 29, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim line 29. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 22.
Regarding claim 31: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 29, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim line 29. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding claims 32-36: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 29, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim line 29.
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) 21-26, 28-34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0317198 A1) hereinafter Lee in view of Murray et al. (US 2020/0404617 A1, made of record in the OA of 7/20/2022, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/453,880, filed 2/2/2017, No. 62/501,547, filed 5/04/2017, and No. 62/564,476, filed 9/28/2017) hereinafter Murray.
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches a method performed by a User Equipment (UE) for wireless communication (wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) 102; Figs. 1A-1B), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, first radio resource control (RRC) signaling including one or more information elements that are used for determining a plurality of Y time slots (configuration from base station (BS) via radio resource control (RRC) signaling; para. 171, subframes [Y time slots] determined by parameters specified by network and being a time period; para. [69-72, 206]), wherein each of the plurality of Y time slots is associated with a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (CSS) that is reserved for reception of Downlink Control Information (DCI) that is configured to schedule paging-related information (monitor Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) for Downlink Control Information (DCI); para. 68, DCI includes scheduling for paging message; para. 90, DCI in common search space (CSS); para. 134, monitor PDCCH based on subframe; para. 206); determining, based on an identifier associated with the UE, a subset of candidate time slots among the Y time slots (paging frame (PF) [subset] determined based on WTRU ID; para. 69-70, paging occasions (PO) determined from among PF [candidate] of subframes; para. 82); and selecting, based on the identifier and a predefined mapping rule, a plurality of selected time slots from among the subset of candidate time slots (multiple POs [selected time slots] determined based on WTRU ID, POs [selected time slots] per PF [candidate]; para. 69-70; para. 69-70, PO determined based on rules; para. [87, 170]), wherein each of the selected time slots is one of the Y time slots and defines a paging occasion (PO [selected time slots / paging occasion] within PF of subframes [Y time slots]; para. [70, 82]); and monitoring, in each of the selected time slots (monitor PO; para. 69-70 and Fig. 2), the PDCCH CSS for the DCI (monitor PDCCH for DCI; para. 68, DCI in CSS; para. 134), wherein the UE monitors the PDCCH CSS only in the Y time slots (WTRU monitors only PO; para. 87 and Fig. 2) and does not monitor the PDCCH CSS in a time slot that is not one of the Y time slots (WTRU monitors only one PO; para. 87 and Fig. 2); wherein the DCI includes at least one of: (i) scheduling information for a paging record (DCI includes paging records/message; para. [114, 130, 187], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); (ii) an indication of a change in system information (DCI includes monitor for system information change; para. 73); (iii) an indication associated with receiving information from a warning system (DCI includes monitor for earthquake and tsunami warning system (ETWS); para. 73); and (iv) an indication associated with receiving information from a commercial mobile alert system (DCI includes monitor for commercial mobile alert service (CMAS); para. 73).
While Lee discloses subframes, time and frequency resources, LTE, narrow band LTE, narrow band Internet of Things (IoT), and 10 ms frames, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each Y time slot has a specified subcarrier spacing and Cyclic Prefix length.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray teaches wherein each Y time slot has a specified subcarrier spacing (PO consisting of slots; para. [213, 261], subcarrier spacing (SCS) configured; para. [231, 261, 307, 309, 381, 386, 388, 499]) and Cyclic Prefix length (guard configurable in slot; para. 342, cyclic prefix-OFDM (CP-OFDM); Figs. [39A.2-39A.3, 39B2-39B.3, 40A.2, 40C.2-40C.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Murray to the system of Lee, where Lee’s coverage enhancement (para. 61-62) along with and Murray’s flexible paging burst (para. [14, 224]) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
Lee further teaches wherein the Y time slots belong to a target time window (PF including subframes; para. 82 and Fig. 2, paging window (PW) including subframes, paging hyper frame (PH) including subframes; para. [87, 139] and Fig. 2), the target time window being one of K1 first-type time windows that occur periodically (PF/PW/PH/discontinuous reception (DRX)/enhanced DRX (eDRX) occurring periodically; Fig. 2), wherein the periodicity of the K1 first-type time windows is predefined or configured (PH determined based on function of discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle; para. 87 and Fig. 2); wherein the identifier associated with the UE comprises a UE ID (WTRU ID being identifier of WTRU; para. 69), and the UE ID is used to determine the target time window from among the K1 first-type time windows (PH based on WTRU ID; para. 87, PH within eDRX; Fig. 2, PF based on WTRU ID; para. 69, PF within DRX, PF within PH; Fig. 2); and wherein the target time window includes more than Y time slots, and the first RRC signaling indicates the Y time slots within the target time window (configuration from BS via RRC signaling; para. 171, subframes [Y time slots] determined by parameters specified by network; para. [69-72, 206], PF includes PO [a Y time slot] among paging subframes [more than Y time slots]; para. 82).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 22.
Lee further teaches receiving, from the base station, second RRC signaling including one or more information elements that are used to determine K2 second-type time windows (parameters include discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle and extended DRX (eDRX) cycle; para. [147, 171]); wherein the K1 first-type time windows are evenly distributed over the K2 second-type time windows (DRX/eDRX includes PH/PF/PW; Fig. 2, PF according to DRX cycle, PH based on eDRX cycle; Fig. 2), and wherein any two second-type time windows are orthogonal (single DRX per DRX cycle, single eDRX per eDRX cycle; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 23.
Lee further teaches wherein the first RRC signaling that includes the one or more information elements that indicate the plurality of Y time slots and the second RRC signaling are the same RRC signaling (parameters for paging includes DRX cycle; para. 147, configuration via RRC signaling; para. 171).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
Lee further teaches receiving, from the base station, a paging record carried on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (WTRU receives PDSCH [from BS] carrying paging record; para. [34, 114]); wherein the paging record carries paging-related information (paging record includes paging message and paging information; para. 187), and the DCI indicates time-frequency resources occupied by the PDSCH (PDSCH received [time-frequency resources], decoded, and demodulated based on DCI; para. [08, 177]) that carries the paging record and a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) associated with the paging record (PDSCH [from BS] carrying paging record; para. [34, 114], PDSCH received, decoded, and demodulated [Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS)] based on DCI; para. [08, 177]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
While Lee discloses SS/PBCH transmission, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are configured to be Quasi Co-Located (QCL) with different Synchronization Signal/Physical Broadcast Channel (SS/PBCH) blocks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray further teaches wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are configured to be Quasi Co-Located (QCL) with different Synchronization Signal/Physical Broadcast Channel (SS/PBCH) blocks (Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) transmitted during Synchronization Signal (SS) blocks (SSB); para. 286, PO [selected time slot] time division multiplexed (TDMed) [any two] with SSB associated with Quasi Co-Located (QCL) property; para. 336 and Figs. 41-f2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Murray to the modified system of Lee and Murray, where Lee and Murray’s modified system along with and Murray’s flexible paging burst (para. [14, 224]) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different analog beams.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murray further teaches wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different analog beams (analog beamforming and beam sweeping [different beams] for coverage; para. 210 and Fig. 4, PO use of multiple beams over different time/frequency resources [different beams] for sweeping; para. [383-384, 386], PO [paging-related signal / selected time slot] associated with the beam for sweeping [not shared / different]; para. 323).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Murray to the modified system of Lee and Murray, where Lee and Murray’s modified system along with and Murray’s flexible paging burst (para. [14, 224]) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21, including UE (wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) 102; para. [21, 35] and Figs. 1A-1B: Lee): transmitter (transceiver 120; para. 36 and Fig. 1B: Lee); receiver (transceiver 120; para. 36 and Fig. 1B: Lee); processor (processor 118; para. 33 and Fig. 1B: Lee); downlink time slot (paging occasions (PO) [selected time slots / paging occasion] within paging frame (PF) [downlink] of subframes [Y time slots]; para. [70, 82], WTRU monitors only one PO; para. 87 and Fig. 2 showing PF, PW: Lee).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 22.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 24.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 25.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
Claim(s) 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Murray, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2019/0104498 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/567,125, filed 10/02/2017) hereinafter Jung.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lee and Murray teaches the limitation of previous claim 21.
While the combination of Lee and Murray discloses analog beamforming with subarray, the combination of Lee and Murray does not explicitly disclose wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different antenna port groups.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches wherein paging-related radio signals transmitted in any two of the selected time slots are transmitted via different antenna port groups (first PO [selected time slot] includes Control Resource Sets (CORESETs) for paging DCI, second PO includes CORESETs for paging DCI; para. 63, where CORESET for paging DCI are QCL associated with SS/PBCH Blocks and associated with antenna port/beam [antenna port group]; para. 61, where each SS block is associated with one TX antenna port/beam [different SS block/antenna port group]; para. 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Jun to the modified system of Lee and Murray, where Lee and Murray’s modified system along with and Jung’s determination of flexile resource allocation (para. 04 and para. 64) improves resource efficiency by improving paging reliability with improved coverage.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasukawa et al. (US 2017/0303247 A1) discloses a user apparatus, and control channel reception method.
Chen et al. (US 2018/0070332 A1) discloses a method and apparatus of enhanced paging.
Bhattad et al. (US 2018/0332533 A1) discloses a wake-up signal (WUS) and wake-up receiver (WUR) in a communication device.
Yang et al. (US 2020/0396723 A1) discloses an information transmission method and apparatus.
US Provisional Application No. 62/564,476 (Murray) is included in the instant OA; US Provisional Application Nos. 62/453,880 and 62/501,547 (Murray), made of record in the OA of 9/11/2025, are not included in the instant OA; US Provisional Application No. 62/567,125 (Jung), made of record in the OA of 7/21/2023, is not included in the instant OA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474