DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. No Claim(s) have been amended; Claims 10 and 25 have been canceled; No Claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-9, 11-24, and 26-30 are subject to examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
The applicant argues in substance that KOSKINEN in view of TS38.743 does not teach the limitations of claim 1, especially regarding the limitation “the indication comprises an identifier of the second BS”. Rather, TS38.743 teaches the indication comprises an identifier of the gNB-DU of a BS.
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. TS38.743 specifically teaches the indication comprising an identifier a gNB-DU and the gNB-DU being a component of a gNB/base station. In this case, the base station is identified by the component. Additionally, under broadest reasonable interpretation, “an identifier of the second BS” is simply any sort of identification related to the second BS. Furthermore, in the specification filed 12/17/2021, while para 93 specifies that “the indication may include an identifier of a source cell served by the second logical IAB-DU…”, it also specifies that “the indication may include an identifier of a CUa”, wherein a CUa is also a component of a base station, without making it explicit whether only one or either of these identifiers can represent the ”an identifier of the second BS”. Therefore, an identifier of a component, such as the DU, of the BS is an identifier of the second BS. The examiner recommends further amending the limitations to include a specific identifier, such as physical cell identity (PCIs), New Radio Cell Global Identifier (NRCGI), New Radio Cell Identity (NCI), etc., alluded to in the specification filed 12/17/2021 para 92-95.
Regarding all other arguments presented by the applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the examiner directs the applicant to those response above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15, 17-21, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOSKINEN et al. (US 20220361067 A1) (see 892 05/09/2024), hereby referred to as KOSKINEN, in view of 3GPP (3GPP, Technical Specification 5G; NG-RAN; F1 Application Protocol (F1AP), ETSI, 2018, TS 138.473 v 15.3.0 Release 15) (see 892 10/17/2025), hereby referred to as TS38.743.
Claim 1:
KOSKINEN teaches a method for wireless communication by a first base station (BS) (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b item (“Donor gNB2”) the first base station), comprising: sending, to an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB)-node, a request message requesting to setup or modify a context for a child node of a first logical IAB-distributed unit (DU) of the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 323 (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) the request to modify context by setting up context for a child node/UE and item (“DU_b”) the first logical IAB-DU of the IAB node), wherein the first logical IAB-DU is associated with the first BS (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown in 323, the CU2 may provide a UE context setup request to the DU_b via the DU2 and the MT function. The UE context setup request may be an F1AP message…”) wherein the first logical IAB-DU/DU_b is associated with the first BS/CU2 of Donor gNB 2 through an F1 interface); sending an indication to the IAB-node that the child node is currently served by the IAB-node at a second logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) the indication of a UE that is currently served by DU_a and not DU_b (which is why setup and handover is necessary) and para 64 (“…DU_a may provide an RRC message to the UE to handover the UE to the DU_b…”) wherein the UE served by the IAB node at a second logical IAB-DU/DU_a), wherein the second logical IAB-DU is associated with a second BS (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown at 322…handover of UE(s) to a second DU of the IAB (and a handover of UE(s) from CU1 to CU2)…”) and para 64 (“…the CU1 may provide, to the DU_a…”) wherein the second BS/Donor gNB1 of CU1 is in communication/associated with the second logical IAB-DU/DU_a); and receiving an acknowledgment message from the IAB-node based at least in part on the indication to the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 324 (“F1AP: UE Context Setup Response (UE)”) the acknowledgment message in response to the indication/step 323).
While KOSKINEN teaches the indication (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) wherein the indication is part of the message requesting to setup or modify a context) and the second BS associated with the logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown at 322…handover of UE(s) to a second DU of the IAB (and a handover of UE(s) from CU1 to CU2)…”) and para 64 (“…the CU1 may provide, to the DU_a…”) wherein the second BS/Donor gNB1 of CU1 is associated with the second logical IAB-DU/DU_a), KOSKINEN does not explicitly disclose the indication comprises an identifier of the second BS.
TS38.473, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the indication comprises an identifier of the second logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (TS38.473: pg 26 section 8.3.3.2 Successful Operation “If the old gNB-DU UE F1AP ID IE is included in the UE CONTEXT RELEASE COMMAND message, the gNB-DU shall additionally release the UE context associated with the old gNB-DU UE F1AP ID.”) and section 8.3.4.1 (“The purpose of the UE Context Modification procedure is to modify the established UE Context, e.g. establishing, modifying and releasing radio resources.”) wherein a message for setting up or modifying a context can include identifying an old/source gNB-DU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second BS associated with the second logical IAB-DU of KOSKINEN with the indication of an identifier of the second logical IAB-DU of TS38.473, wherein the identifier of the second logical IAB-DU acts as an identifier of the associated second BS, for the benefit of successfully exchanging application data and providing information to establish context in cases of mobility (TS38.473: pg 26-29), the combination hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473.
Claim 2:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first logical IAB-DU is configured to manage a connection established between the IAB-node and the first BS (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown at 322…handover of UE(s) to a second DU of the IAB (and a handover of UE(s) from CU1 to CU2)…”) and para 64 (“…the CU1 may provide, to the DU_a…”) wherein the second BS/Donor gNB1 of CU1 is in communication with the second logical IAB-DU/DU_a for the IAB node), and wherein the second logic IAB-DU is configured to manage a connection established between the IAB-node and the second BS (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown in 323, the CU2 may provide a UE context setup request to the DU_b via the DU2 and the MT function. The UE context setup request may be an F1AP message…”) wherein the first logical IAB-DU/DU_b is associated with the first BS/CU2 of Donor gNB 2 through an F1 interface).
Claim 3:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request message comprises a context setup request message (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 323 (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) the request to set up context for a child node/UE).
Claim 4:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the acknowledgment message is a context setup response message (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 324 (“F1AP: UE Context Setup Response (UE)”) the acknowledgment message in response to the indication/step 323).
Claim 5:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the child node comprises a user equipment (UE) (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b item (“UE”) the child node).
Claim 6:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the indication to the IAB-node comprises an indication identifying the child node (TS38.473: Figure 8.3.4.3-1; and pg 27 (“…SRB to be Setup List IE…DRB To Be Setup list…”) wherein a child/UE node context is identified for setup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN with TS38.473 for the benefit of successfully exchanging application data and providing information to establish context in cases of mobility (TS38.473: pg 26-29).
Claim 15:
KOSKINEN teaches a method for wireless communication by an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB)-node (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b item (“IAB Node”) the IAB-node), comprising: receiving, from a first base station (BS), a request message to setup or modify a context for a child node of a first logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 323 (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) the request to modify/set up context for a child node/UE, item (“Donor gNB 2”) the first BS, and item (“DU_b”) the first logical IAB-DU of the IAB node), wherein the first logical IAB-DU is associated with the first BS (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown in 323, the CU2 may provide a UE context setup request to the DU_b via the DU2 and the MT function. The UE context setup request may be an F1AP message…”) wherein the first logical IAB-DU/DU_b is associated with the first BS/CU2 of Donor gNB 2 through an F1 interface); receiving, from the first BS, an indication that the child node is currently served by the IAB-node at a second logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) the indication of a UE that is currently served by DU_a and not DU_b (which is why setup and handover is necessary) and para 64 (“…DU_a may provide an RRC message to the UE to handover the UE to the DU_b…”) wherein the UE serves the IAB node at a second logical IAB-DU/DU_a), wherein the second logical IAB-DU is associated with a second BS (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown at 322…handover of UE(s) to a second DU of the IAB (and a handover of UE(s) from CU1 to CU2)…”) and para 64 (“…the CU1 may provide, to the DU_a…”) wherein the second BS/Donor gNB1 of CU1 is in communication/associated with the second logical IAB-DU/DU_a); performing admission control based at least in part on the indication (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 324 (“F1AP: UE Context Setup Response (UE)”) and para 59 (“…some…may use an explicit trigger indication…to trigger adoption of a previously received configuration…”) and para 61 (“Alternatively or in addition…For example a FQAP pre-configuration sent by the IAB DU…may be activated by the RRC message, or a F1Ap response to a pending F1AP request may be sent…”) wherein sending the UE Context Setup Response to the request is the admission control); and sending an acknowledgment message to the first BS based on the admission control (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 324 (“F1AP: UE Context Setup Response (UE)”) the acknowledgment message is received by the first BS as part of the admission control).
While KOSKINEN teaches the indication (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) wherein the indication is part of the message requesting to setup or modify a context) and the second BS associated with the logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (KOSKINEN: para 63 (“As shown at 322…handover of UE(s) to a second DU of the IAB (and a handover of UE(s) from CU1 to CU2)…”) and para 64 (“…the CU1 may provide, to the DU_a…”) wherein the second BS/Donor gNB1 of CU1 is associated with the second logical IAB-DU/DU_a), KOSKINEN does not explicitly disclose the indication comprises an identifier of the second BS.
TS38.473, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the indication comprises an identifier of the second logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (TS38.473: pg 26 section 8.3.3.2 Successful Operation “If the old gNB-DU UE F1AP ID IE is included in the UE CONTEXT RELEASE COMMAND message, the gNB-DU shall additionally release the UE context associated with the old gNB-DU UE F1AP ID.”) and section 8.3.4.1 (“The purpose of the UE Context Modification procedure is to modify the established UE Context, e.g. establishing, modifying and releasing radio resources.”) wherein a message for setting up or modifying a context can include identifying an old/source gNB-DU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second BS associated with the second logical IAB-DU of KOSKINEN with the indication of an identifier of the second logical IAB-DU of TS38.473, wherein the identifier of the second logical IAB-DU acts as an identifier of the associated second BS, for the benefit of successfully exchanging application data and providing information to establish context in cases of mobility (TS38.473: pg 26-29), the combination hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473.
Claim 17:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 15. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 2.
Claim 18:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 15. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 3.
Claim 19:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 15. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 4.
Claim 20:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 15. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 5.
Claim 21:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 15. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 6.
Claim 29:
KOSKINEN teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory (KOSKINEN: FIG. 7a item 14 (“Memory”) the memory); and one or more processors coupled to the memory (KOSKINEN: FIG. 7a item 12 (“Processor”) the processor coupled to memory).
For the further limitations, see rejection for claim 1.
Claim 30:
KOSKINEN teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory (KOSKINEN: FIG. 7b item 24 (“Memory”) the memory); and one or more processors coupled to the memory (KOSKINEN: FIG. 7b item 22 (“Processor”) the processor configured to memory).
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 15.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOSKINEN in view of TS38.473, hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473, and in further view of WU et al. (US 20230403617 A1) (see 892 05/09/2024), hereby referred to as WU.
Claim 7:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication identifying the child node comprises an indication of a mapping between a radio bearer (RB) configured at the second logical IAB-DU to another RB to be configured at the first logical IAB-DU for the child node.
WU teaches wherein the indication identifying the child node comprises an indication of a mapping between a radio bearer (RB) configured at the second logical IAB-DU to another RB to be configured at the first logical IAB-DU for the child node (WU: para 101 (“The target IAB-donor 108B can establish an UP association for a DRB of the UE 102…during…the UE Context procedure 570…”) and para 111 (“The UE Context Request message…can be the UE Context Set up…In other implementations, the UE context Request message…can be a UE Context Modification Request…The UE Context Request message includes…Traffic mapping information…The UE Context Request message may also include DRB to be Setup (or Modified) List…”) wherein UE context setup request can also indicate traffic mapping and DRB to be set up/modified with the child node, that was originally connected with the second logical IAB-DU, to the first logical IAB-DU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with WU, hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473-WU, for the benefit of reducing signaling load (WU: para 52).
Claim 8:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-WU teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the RB comprise a data RB (DRB) (WU: para 111 (“The UE Context Request message may also include DRB to be Setup (or Modified) List…”) wherein the RB is a DRB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with WU for the benefit of reducing signaling load (WU: para 52).
Claim 9:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-WU teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the indication identifying the child node comprises QoS information of an RB, BH RLC CH, or QoS flow configured at the second logical IAB-DU for the child node (WU: para 111 (“The UE Context Request message…can be the UE Context Set up…In other implementations, the UE context Request message…can be a UE Context Modification Request…The UE Context Request message includes…BH RLC Channel to Be Setup (or modified) List which may include…BH RLC CH QoS…”) wherein BH RLC CH QoS to be modified for the second logical node is indicated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with WU for the benefit of reducing signaling load (WU: para 52).
Claim 22:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 21. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 7.
Claim 23:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-WU teaches the method of claim 22. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 8.
Claim 24:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-WU teaches the method of claim 21. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 9.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOSKINEN in view of TS38.473, the combination hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473, and in further view of LIU et al. (US 20230199575 A1) (see 892 05/09/2024), hereby referred to LIU.
Claim 11:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 6 and the indication (KOSKINEN: FIG. 3b step 323 (“F1AP UE Context Setup Request (UE)”) the indication), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication identifying the child node comprises an identifier of a cell served by the second logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node.
LIU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the indication identifying the child node comprises an identifier of a cell served by the second logical IAB-DU of the IAB-node (LIU: para 244 (“…the target donor-CU sends the context setup request message (UE Context Setup Request) to the IAB-DU of the IAB node. The message carries the identifier of the terminal device in the cell served by the IAB-DU of the IAB node…the identifier may be a combination of the PCI and the C-RNTI, or may be a combination of the CGI and the C-RNTI…”) wherein the indication comprises identifier of a cell/CGI and C-RNTI served by the second logical IAB-DU of the IAB node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with LIU, hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473-LIU, for the benefit of ensuring normal transmission of data of a device after it is handed over (LIU: para 6).
Claim 12:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-LIU teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the identifier uniquely identifies the cell (LIU: para 244 (“…the target donor-CU sends the context setup request message (UE Context Setup Request) to the IAB-DU of the IAB node. The message carries the identifier of the terminal device in the cell served by the IAB-DU of the IAB node…the identifier may be a combination of the PCI and the C-RNTI, or may be a combination of the CGI and the C-RNTI…”) wherein the identifier is a unique combination of PCI and C-RNTI or CGI and C-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with LIU for the benefit of ensuring normal transmission of data of a device after it is handed over (LIU: para 6).
Claim 13:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-LIU teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the identifier comprises a new radio (NR) cell global identity (NCGI) or NR cell identity (NCI) (LIU: para 118 (“The technical solution…may be applied to…a new radio (NR) system…”) and para 244 (“…the target donor-CU sends the context setup request message (UE Context Setup Request) to the IAB-DU of the IAB node. The message carries the identifier of the terminal device in the cell served by the IAB-DU of the IAB node… may be a combination of the CGI and the C-RNTI…”) wherein the identifier comprises CGI for NR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with LIU for the benefit of ensuring normal transmission of data of a device after it is handed over (LIU: para 6).
Claim 14:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-LIU teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the identifier comprises a physical cell identifier (PCI) (LIU: para 244 (“…the target donor-CU sends the context setup request message (UE Context Setup Request) to the IAB-DU of the IAB node. The message carries the identifier of the terminal device in the cell served by the IAB-DU of the IAB node…the identifier may be a combination of the PCI and the C-RNTI…”) the identifier comprises PCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with LIU for the benefit of ensuring normal transmission of data of a device after it is handed over (LIU: para 6).
Claim 26:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 21. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 11.
Claim 27:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-LIU teaches the method of claim 26, wherein the identifier uniquely identifies the cell wherein the identifier uniquely identifies the cell (LIU: para 244 (“…the target donor-CU sends the context setup request message (UE Context Setup Request) to the IAB-DU of the IAB node. The message carries the identifier of the terminal device in the cell served by the IAB-DU of the IAB node…the identifier may be a combination of the PCI and the C-RNTI, or may be a combination of the CGI and the C-RNTI…”) wherein the identifier is a unique combination of PCI and C-RNTI or CGI and C-RNTI), and wherein the identifier comprises a new radio (NR) cell global identity (NCGI) or NR cell identity (NCI) (LIU: para 118 (“The technical solution…may be applied to…a new radio (NR) system…”) and para 244 (“…the target donor-CU sends the context setup request message (UE Context Setup Request) to the IAB-DU of the IAB node. The message carries the identifier of the terminal device in the cell served by the IAB-DU of the IAB node… may be a combination of the CGI and the C-RNTI…”) wherein the identifier comprises CGI for NR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with LIU for the benefit of ensuring normal transmission of data of a device after it is handed over (LIU: para 6).
Claim 28:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473-LIU teaches the method of claim 26. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 14.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOSKINEN in view of TS38.473, hereby referred to as KOSKINEN-TS38.473, and in further view of BYUN et al. (US 20220104088 A1) (see 892 10/17/2025), hereby referred to as BYUN.
Claim 16:
KOSKINEN-TS38.473 teaches the method of claim 15, but does explicitly teach wherein performing the admission control comprises reserving resources for serving the child node.
BYUN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein performing the admission control comprises reserving resources for serving the child node (BYUN: para 115 (“The establishment of F1 UE is initiated by the gNB-CU and accepted or rejected by the gNB-DU based on admission control criteria (e.g., resource not available)…This function can be also used to manage DRBs and SRBs, i.e., establishing, modifying and releasing DRB and SRB resources. The establishment and modification of DRB resources are triggered by the gNB-CU and accepted/rejected by the gNB-DU based on resource reservation information and QoS information provided to the gNB-DU. For each DRB to be setup or modified, the S-NSSAI may be provided…”) wherein admission control comprises reserving available resources for serving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified KOSKINEN-TS38.473 with BYUN for the benefit of mitigating interference while supporting route optimization (BYUN: para 8).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416