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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(a) Regarding the TR 24.831 based rejection, the applicants argue that “first, the combination inherits all the deficiencies of TR 24.821 identified above - neither TR 24.821 nor TS 23.122 teaches triggering PLMN selection upon detecting a transition between an extraterritorial international area and a national area for NTN access, nor does either reference teach affirmatively applying an HPLMN list or EHPLMN list at highest priority in place of the RPLMN as the operative behavior upon such a transition. Second, TS 23.122 section 4.4.3.1.1 falls under the parent heading "At switch-on or recovery from lack of coverage" - a procedure that, by its own organizational placement, applies only at power-on or upon loss of coverage, not upon detecting a boundary-crossing transition event between an extraterritorial area and a national area.”
The examiner disagrees. The only support in the specification of the argument about the claimed “determining whether the UE supporting satellite access detected a transition” is found in 620 and 630 in Fig. 6 or 720 and 730 in Fig. 7. That is, the detecting of a transition is done by the location determination. On the other hand, TR 24.831 also discloses detecting a transition is by determining the UE location (see section 6.5.2, "It is assumed that the UE knows when it is located inside international areas ... A transition in and out of international areas should trigger a PLMN selection.”), which is consistent with the specification of the instant case. Further, regarding the argument that TS 23.122 does not teach the PLMN selection is performed upon detecting a boundary-crossing transition event between an extraterritorial area and a national area, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As explained above, TR 24.831 teaches triggering a PLMN selection in response to the UE detecting a transition between an internation al area and a national area. One of ordinary skill in the art would use any known or available useful and effective PLMAN selection method to reestablish network connection, particularly a PLMN selection method taught by a standard such as TS 23.122. Further, TR 24.831 in view of TS 23.122 teaches including a HPLMN list or an EHPLMN list in a higher priority PLMN list over a “not-considered” RPLMN. The claimed “apply a HPLMN list or an EHPLMN list in place of a most recently RPLMN” is met.
(b) Regarding the Sadique based rejection, the applicants make similar argument that (1) Sadique does not teach “UE detected a transition between an international area ... and a national area" and “PLMN selection is triggered "in response to the UE having detected the transition.", and (2) Sadique does not disclose applying an HPLMN list or EHPLMN list at highest priority in place of the RPLMN.
The examiner disagrees. The only support in the specification of the argument about the claimed “determining whether the UE supporting satellite access detected a transition” is found in 620 and 630 in Fig. 6 or 720 and 730 in Fig. 7. That is, the detecting of a transition is done by the location determination. On the other hand, as explained by the examiner in the pervious and current Office Actions, Sadique teaches detecting a transition is by determining the UE location (see claim 1, “determining whether location is in the international area”; also see Figs 7A-7D, 10A-10B and 11 show a UE transition through multiple national and international areas), which is consistent with the specification of the instant case. Further, regarding the second argument that Sadique does not disclose applying an HPLMN list or EHPLMN list at highest priority in place of the RPLMN., the examiner notes that the examiner relies on the teaching the teaching of Gros et al (EP3713309), not Sadique.
(c) Regarding the Prakasam based rejection, the applicants argue that neither Prakasam nor Niemi, individually or in combination, discloses triggering PLMN selection in response to a UE detecting a transition between an international area comprising an extraterritorial area outside any jurisdiction of a country and a national area, for NTN access.
The examiner disagrees. Prakasam discloses PLMN selection is triggered when a UE loses coverage in its home network and/or when the UE loses support because the UE roams into another network ([0091]). The UE is roaming in a foreign country ([0093]). That is, the loss of coverage due to transition between international area and national area triggers the PLMN selection by the UE. The Niemi reference is cited for the teaching of PLMN selection in international area and national area for non-terrestrial network (NTN) (abstract, [0004]). Therefore, contrary to the applicant’s argument, Prakasam in view of Niemi teaches the claimed limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, 22, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 24.821 v17.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project: Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Study on PLMN selection for satellite access (Release 17)” in view of 3GPP TS 23.122 V17.4.0, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) functions related to Mobile Station (MS) in idle mode (Release 17)", 24 September 2021, listed in IDS filed 03/02/2023.
Regarding claims 1 and 22, 3GPP TR 24.821 discloses a method and an apparatus (would inherently comprise elements at least like a memory, a processor in a UE to perform the claimed functions) of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining whether the UE transitioned between an international area and a national area (see section 6.5.2, "It is assumed that the UE knows when it is located inside international areas ... A transition in and out of international areas should trigger a PLMN selection.” and section 6.5.3, "New PLMN selection trigger (transition in/out of international area)") comprising an extraterritorial area outside any jurisdiction of a country, and a national area, for non-terrestrial network (NTN) access; (see sections 3 and 4, particularly section 4.3, "In Scenario C, shown in Figure 4.3-1, a satellite access cell spans across a country (Country A), its contiguous area (water or airspace) and leaks into adjacent international area." and section 4.4, "In Scenario D, shown in Figure 4.4-1, a satellite access cell is dedicated to the coverage of international areas. There may be leakage into Country A or its contiguous area.") and
triggering a public land mobile network (PLMN) selection of a network for receiving service, in response to the UE detecting transition between the international area and the national area (see section 6.5.2, "It is assumed that the UE knows when it is located inside international areas ... A transition in and out of international areas should trigger a PLMN selection.” and section 6.5.3, "New PLMN selection trigger (transition in/out of international area)").
3GPP TR 24.821 further discloses prioritizing a high priority PLMN list over a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN) during PLMN selection (see section 6.5.2, "The same procedure as for a PLMN selection upon switch-on should be followed. Additionally: ...the RPLMN is not considered."; and section 6.5.3, "Changes to the UE logic for eliminating candidate PLMNs during PLMN selection: ... the RPLMN is considered not available"; i.e., as RPLMN is not considered, other PLMNs are prioritized over RPLMN).
3GPP TR 24.821 does not specifically mention that the high priority PLMN list comprises a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list. However, 3GPP TS 23.122 teaches such limitation (see section 4.4.3.1.1, "The MS selects and attempts registration on other PLMN access technology combinations, if available and, for bullets i, ii, iii, iv, v, allowable, in the following order: i) either the HPLMN (if the EHPLMN list is not present or is empty) or the highest priority EHPLMN that is available (if the EHPLMN list is present)"). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a HPLMN list or an EHPLMN list in place of a most recently RPLMN so as to comply with the standard and to ensure the proper access to networks of a mobile device.
Regarding to claim 5, 3GPP TR 24.821 further discloses deleting an equivalent public land mobile network list, which was received from a last serving PLMN, prior to the PLMN selection (see section 6.5.2, "The same procedure as for a PLMN selection upon switch-on should be followed. Additionally: a) the equivalent PLMN is deleted”; and section 6.5.3. “Changes to the UE logic for eliminating candidate PLMNs during PLMN selection: the equivalent PLMN list is deleted”).
Regarding claim 10, 3GPP TR 24.821 teaches the claimed limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but does not specifically mention that the PLMN selection selects from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan. However, 3GPP TS 23.122 teaches such conventional PLMN selection techniques (see section 4.4.3.1, "At switch on, or following recovery from lack of coverage, the MS selects the registered PLMN ...If there is no registered PLMN, or if registration is not possible due to the PLMN being unavailable or registration failure, the MS follows one of the following two procedures depending on its PLMN selection operating mode... The MS selects and attempts registration on other PLMN/access technology combinations, if available and, for bullets i, ii, iii, iv, v, allowable, in the following order..."). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature that the PLMN selection selects from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan, so as to comply with the standard and to ensure the proper access to networks of a mobile device.
Regarding claims 11 and 26, 3GPP TS 23.122 teaches that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure defined for recovery from lack of coverage (see section 4.4.3.1, "At switch on, or following recovery from lack of coverage, the MS selects the registered PLMN ...If there is no registered PLMN, or if registration is not possible due to the PLMN being unavailable or registration failure, the MS follows one of the following two procedures depending on its PLMN selection operating mode... The MS selects and attempts registration on other PLMN access technology combinations, if available and, for bullets i, ii, iii, iv, v, allowable, in the following order...").
Regarding to claims 12 and 27, 3GPP TR 24.821 further teaches that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure that occurs upon completing a periodic search for a higher priority PLMN (see section 6.5.2, “During periodic search for higher priority PLMN inside international areas …” or section 6.7.2, "When the UE is performing periodic search for higher priority PLMN...").
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 24.821 v17.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project: Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Study on PLMN selection for satellite access (Release 17)” in view of Gros et al (EP3713309).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, 3GPP TR 24.821 discloses a method and an apparatus (would inherently comprise elements at least like a memory, a processor in a UE to perform the claimed functions) of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining whether the UE transitioned between an international area and a national area (see section 6.5.2, "It is assumed that the UE knows when it is located inside international areas ... A transition in and out of international areas should trigger a PLMN selection.” and section 6.5.3, "New PLMN selection trigger (transition in/out of international area)") comprising an extraterritorial area outside any jurisdiction of a country, and a national area, for non-terrestrial network (NTN) access; (see sections 3 and 4, particularly section 4.3, "In Scenario C, shown in Figure 4.3-1, a satellite access cell spans across a country (Country A), its contiguous area (water or airspace) and leaks into adjacent international area." and section 4.4, "In Scenario D, shown in Figure 4.4-1, a satellite access cell is dedicated to the coverage of international areas. There may be leakage into Country A or its contiguous area.") and
triggering a public land mobile network (PLMN) selection of a network for receiving service, in response to the UE detecting transition between the international area and the national area (see section 6.5.2, "It is assumed that the UE knows when it is located inside international areas ... A transition in and out of international areas should trigger a PLMN selection.” and section 6.5.3, "New PLMN selection trigger (transition in/out of international area)").
3GPP TR 24.821 further discloses prioritizing a high priority PLMN list over a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN) during PLMN selection (see section 6.5.2, "The same procedure as for a PLMN selection upon switch-on should be followed. Additionally: ...the RPLMN is not considered."; and section 6.5.3, "Changes to the UE logic for eliminating candidate PLMNs during PLMN selection: ... the RPLMN is considered not available"; i.e., as RPLMN is not considered, other PLMNs are prioritized over RPLMN).
3GPP TR 24.821 does not specifically mention that the high priority PLMN list comprises a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list. However, Gros et al teaches an automatic PLMN selection where UE register to the highest priority EHPLMN available and not return to the registered PLMN or equivalent PLMN. If the EHPLMN list is not present or is empty, and the HPLMN is available, the UE may register on the HPLMN and not return to the registered PLMN or equivalent PLMN (See paragraph [0008]). Thus, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list at a highest priority in place of a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN), so as to comply with the 3GPP standard ([0006]) and access preferred network.
Regarding to claim 5, 3GPP TR 24.821 further discloses deleting an equivalent public land mobile network list, which was received from a last serving PLMN, prior to the PLMN selection (see section 6.5.2, "The same procedure as for a PLMN selection upon switch-on should be followed. Additionally: a) the equivalent PLMN is deleted”; and section 6.5.3. “Changes to the UE logic for eliminating candidate PLMNs during PLMN selection: the equivalent PLMN list is deleted”).
Regarding to claims 12 and 27, 3GPP TR 24.821 further teaches that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure that occurs upon completing a periodic search for a higher priority PLMN (see section 6.5.2, “During periodic search for higher priority PLMN inside international areas …” or section 6.7.2, "When the UE is performing periodic search for higher priority PLMN...").
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 24.821 v17.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project: Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Study on PLMN selection for satellite access (Release 17)” in view of Gros et al (EP3713309) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above further in view of Park et al (US 2020/0137675).
Regarding claim 10, TR24.831 in view of Cros et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above but fail to teach that PLMN selection selects from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan. Park et al teaches such limitation (see [0355-0382], particularly [0365], [0367] and also see [0933]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the filing of the present application for the selection method of TR24.831/Grocs et al to select from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan, as taught by Park et al, so as to be able to access a preferred network.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 24.821 v17.0.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project: Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Study on PLMN selection for satellite access (Release 17)” in view of Gros et al (EP3713309) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above further in view of Zhang et al (US 2015/0351013).
3GPP TR 24.821 in view of Gros et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above except that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure defined for recovery from lack of service. Zhang et al teaches a method of selecting PLMN based on the determined geographic location (Abstract). The PLMN selection applies to scenarios including an out of service recovery state ([0052-0053]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the filing of the present application for the selection method of 3GPP TR 24.821 in view of Gros et al. to select PLMN based on a PLMN selection procedure defined for recovery from lack of service, so as to be able to access preferred network when the UE is turned on at a new location.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadique et al (US 12,010,614) in view of Gros et al (EP3713309).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Sadique et al discloses a method and an apparatus (see Col. 6, lines 11-19) of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining whether the UE transitioned between an international area and a national area (Figs 7A-7D, 10A-10B and 11 show a UE transition through multiple national and international areas; also claim 1, “determining whether location is in the international area”), comprising an extraterritorial area outside any jurisdiction of a country, and a national area, for non-terrestrial network (NTN) access (Figs 7A-7D, 10A-10B and 11; also see abstract) and
triggering a public land mobile network (PLMN) selection of a network for receiving service, in response to the UE having transitioned between the international area and the national area (Fig. 9, col. 17, line 28 - col. 19, line 37; Claim 1 “based on the determination that the current location is in the international area, … perform a PLMN search procedure …”; claim 3 ”based on a determination that the current location is not the internation area … perform PLMN selection …”).
Sadique et al. does not teach the PLMN selection applying a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list at a highest priority in place of a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN).
Gros et al teaches an automatic PLMN selection where UE register to the highest priority EHPLMN available and not return to the registered PLMN or equivalent PLMN. If the EHPLMN list is not present or is empty, and the HPLMN is available, the UE may register on the HPLMN and not return to the registered PLMN or equivalent PLMN (See paragraph [0008]). Thus, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list at a highest priority in place of a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN), so as to comply with the 3GPP standard ([0006]) and access preferred network.
Regarding claim 10, Sadique et al teaches that the PLMN selection selects from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan (col. 24, lines 57-59).
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Sadique et al teaches that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure that occurs upon completing a periodic search for a higher priority PLMN col. 21, lines 15-20).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadique et al (US 12,010,614) in view of Gros et al (EP3713309) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Park et al (US 2020/0137675).
Sadique et al in view of Gros et al discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above but fail to teach “deleting an equivalent public land mobile network list, which was received from a last serving PLMN, prior to the PLMN selection”. Park et al teach such limitation (see [0355-0382], particularly [0364]). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to delete an equivalent public land mobile network list, which was received from a last serving PLMN, prior to the PLMN selection, as disclosed by Park et al, so as to comply with the 3GPP standard ([0356]) and access preferred network.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadique et al (US 12,010,614) in view of Gros et al (EP3713309) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above further in view of Zhang et al (US 2015/0351013).
Sadique et al. in view of Gros et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above except that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure defined for recovery from lack of service. Zhang et al teaches a method of selecting PLMN based on the determined geographic location (Abstract). The PLMN selection applies to scenarios including an out of service recovery state ([0052-0053]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the filing of the present application for the selection method of Sadique et al. in view of Gros et al. to select PLMN based on a PLMN selection procedure defined for recovery from lack of service, so as to be able to access preferred network when the UE is turned on at a new location.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakasam et al (US2021/0297940) in view of Niemi et al (US2023/0379811) and Gros et al (EP3713309).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Prakasam et al discloses a method and apparatus (comprised of a processor and memory [0112]) of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
determining whether the UE transitioned between a foreign area and a national area (paragraphs [0091]- [0093] describe international roaming where UE finds that it loses coverage when it moves into another network); and
triggering a public land mobile network (PLMN) selection of a network for receiving service, in response to the UE having transitioned between the international area and the national area (see [0091]- [0093] describe UE is presented with a list of PLMN to select from).
Prakasam et al fails to specifically teach the “international roaming” is from outside jurisdiction or extraterritorial area and a national area for a non-territorial network (NTN) access. Niemi et al teach a mobile device, UE, that has an ability to communicate with a non-territorial network (NTN) covering an extraterritorial area as well as an ability to select a PLMN such that the UE performs PLMN selection in a country region or in an international region based on the capability (see Abstract, [0004]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the UE of Prakasam et al, equipped with a NTN access ability, to select a PLMN when the UE transitions to/from foreign area such as an extraterritorial area from/to national areas, so as to be able to access networks in there when the USE loses coverage after transition.
Prakasam et al. in view of Niemi et al. still does not teach the PLMN selection applying a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list at a highest priority in place of a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN).
Gros et al teaches an automatic PLMN selection where UE register to the highest priority EHPLMN available and not return to the registered PLMN or equivalent PLMN. If the EHPLMN list is not present or is empty, and the HPLMN is available, the UE may register on the HPLMN and not return to the registered PLMN or equivalent PLMN (See paragraph [0008]). Thus, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) list or an equivalent home public land mobile network (EHPLMN) list at a highest priority in place of a most recently registered PLMN (RPLMN), so as to comply with the 3GPP standard ([0006]) and access preferred network.
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Prakasam et al. teaches that the PLMN selection is based on a PLMN selection procedure defined for recovery from lack of coverage (paragraphs [0091]- [0093] describe international roaming where UE finds that it loses coverage when it moves into another network; also see 616, 618 in Fig. 6).
11. Claims 5, 10, 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakasam et al (US2021/0297940) in view of Niemi et al (US2023/0379811) and Gros et al (EP3713309) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above further in view of Park et al (US 2020/0137675).
Regarding Claim 5, Prakasam et al in view of Niemi et al and Gros et al discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above but fails to teach “deleting an equivalent public land mobile network list, which was received from a last serving PLMN, prior to the PLMN selection”. Park et al teach such limitation (see [0355-0382], particularly [0364]). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to delete an equivalent public land mobile network list, which was received from a last serving PLMN, prior to the PLMN selection, as disclosed by Park et al, so as to comply with the 3GPP standard [0356]) and be able to access networks.
Regarding claim 10, Prakasam et al in view of Niemi et al and Cros et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above but fail to teach that PLMN selection selects from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan. Park et al teaches such limitation (see [0355-0382], particularly [0365], [0367] and also see [0933]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the filing of the present application for the selection method of Prakasam/Niemi/Grocs et al to select from a list generated during a high priority PLMN scan, as taught by Park et al, so as to be able to access a preferred network.
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Prakasam et al in view of Niemi et al and Grocs et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter as discussed above but fail to teach that the PLMN selection that occurs upon completing a periodic search for a higher priority PLMN. Park et al teaches such limitation (see [0355-0382], particularly [0365], also see [0933]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the filing of the present application for the selection method of Prakasam/Niemi/Grocs et al to select PLMN upon completing a periodic search for a higher priority PLMN, as taught by Park et al, so as to access the most preferred network.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chieh M Fan whose telephone number is (571)272-3042. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 M-F.
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.
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.
/CHIEH M FAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights