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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/23/2025.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 – 15 and 17 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and/or second paragraph, set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 – 15 and 17 – 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operational signal bandwidth". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the discovered interferer". The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear since there are two interferers in the claim: “an interferer” in lines 7 – 8, and “out-of-band interferer” in line 10.
Claims 2 and 10 each recite the limitation "the interferer". The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear since there are two interferers in claim 1 (from which claims 2 and 10 depend): “an interferer” in lines 7 – 8, and “out-of-band interferer” in line 10.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the discovered interferer". The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear since there are two interferers in claim 1 (from which claim 9 depends): “an interferer” in lines 7 – 8, and “out-of-band interferer” in line 10.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the operational signal bandwidth". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 9, 10, 12 – 15, 17 and 19 – 21 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 18 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110090939 (Diener) in view of US 20130156140 (Chari).
Regarding claim 1, Diener teaches “A wireless device (shown in FIG 11 and 12 with corresponding description), comprising:
one or more antennas (antenna is an implicit part of the radio 12 in FIG 11. It is also explicitly shown in FIG 12);
a first receiver coupled to the one or more antennas and configured to receive an analog wireless communication signal (in FIG 11 and paragraphs 0070 – 0071: radio 12; and in FIG 12 and paragraph 0155: radio receivers 4000 and 4010. The wireless communication signal received by an antenna is inherently “analog”);
an analog-to-digital converter to convert the analog wireless communication signal to a digital wireless communication signal (FIG 11 and paragraph 0150: One or more analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) 18 convert the analog baseband signals output by the radio 12 to digital signals. FIG 12 and paragraph 0155: There is an ADC 18 that converts the output of the radio receiver to digital signals, which is then coupled to the SAGE 20 or other device capable of generating signal pulse data and spectrum.);
a spectrum analyzer to process the digital wireless communication signal for an interferer, the spectrum analyzer including one or more digital signal processors (DSP) configured to perform a spectral analysis on the digital wireless communication signal (paragraph 0150: One or more analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) 18 convert the analog baseband signals output by the radio 12 to digital signals. The SAGE 20 in FIG. 11 is shown as receiving input from the ADCs 18, therefore, “digital wireless communication signal”. Similarly in FIG 12. Paragraph 0074: The SAGE 20 obtains real-time information about the activity in a frequency band, and comprises “a spectrum analyzer” (SA) 22 “to perform a spectral analysis on the digital wireless communication signal”. Paragraph 0092: The classification engine 52 compares outputs of the SAGE 20 against data templates and related information of known signals in order to classify signals in the frequency based on energy pulse information detected by the SAGE. The classification engine 52 can detect, for example, signals that interfere with the operation of one or more devices. Therefore, since the classification engine 52 can detect interferers in the information sent from the spectrum analyzer 22, as part of the SAGE 20, it means that the information at the output of the spectrum analyzer 22 and thus SAGE 20 includes information on interferer which is the same as claimed “to process the digital wireless communication signal for an interferer”. With respect to the spectrum analyzer “including one or more digital signal processors (DSP)”, the digital signal processing is shown in FIG 7 with corresponding description and includes FFT unit, spectrum correction unit and all the parts included within the spectrum analyzer 22 and Signal Detector 23, as described in paragraphs 0074 – 0090. Digital signal processor is also shown as SAGE 20 and baseband section 14 in FIG 11 with corresponding description. For example, paragraph 0150: A baseband section 14 is coupled to the radio 12 and performs digital baseband processing of signals. Similarly, in FIG 12 digital signal processor is implemented as combination of SAGE 20 and processor 4040. For example, paragraph 0156: embedded processor 4040 performs local processing and may include the measurement engine 50, classification engine 52, location engine 54 and spectrum expert 56. In other words, all processing of the signal in Diener is performed in digital domain and thus all the components to do so comprise “one or more digital signal processors (DSP)”.)…”
“…a storage medium to store information pertaining to the discovered interferer (memory 28 in Fig. 7, 32 in Fig. 11 and memory 3004 in FIG 12 (“a storage medium”), and paragraphs 0066, 0076, 0092, 0148 all relating to storing the collected spectral information which thus includes any possible interferers.) and to aggregate spectral information over time (Par. 0066: the spectrum activity information can be accumulated (“aggregate spectral information over time”) and stored on a short-term basis or a long-term basis for subsequent analysis. For example, the long-term storage of spectrum activity information may be useful for data mining and other non-real-time processing applications, described further hereinafter.).”
Diener does not disclose “discover a presence of an out-of-band interferer by comparing (a) a first digital signal corresponding to a filtered baseband receive path configured to the operational signal bandwidth and (b) a second digital signal corresponding to a bypass path that bypasses a baseband low-pass filter.”
Chari in FIG 1 and 2 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0017 – 0018 teaches a case of presence of out-of-band interference. Particularly, Chari in FIG 4 and paragraphs 0026 – 0027 teaches one of I or Q signals received at the ADC 270 contains the unfiltered out-of-band interference signal (due to bypass of the LPF) (thus the signal at the output of the ADC 270 corresponds to the claimed “(b) a second digital signal corresponding to a bypass path that bypasses a baseband low-pass filter”) while the other of the I or Q signals received at the ADC 270 contains an attenuated/filtered (and hence weaker) out-of-band interference signal component (thus the signal at the output of the ADC 270 corresponds to the claimed “(a) a first digital signal corresponding to a filtered baseband receive path configured to the operational signal bandwidth”). Paragraph 0038 further teaches that if the bypass channel (the I or Q channel in bypass mode) has sufficiently high received power (greater than a threshold) compared to the non-bypass channel, then out of band interference should be suppressed. The wording “should be suppressed” means that an operation of “discover a presence of an out-of-band interferer” has been performed, and this is done “by comparing (a) … and (b)”.
In other words, Chari teaches “discover a presence of an out-of-band interferer by comparing (a) a first digital signal corresponding to a filtered baseband receive path configured to the operational signal bandwidth and (b) a second digital signal corresponding to a bypass path that bypasses a baseband low-pass filter.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Chari method of determination of presence of out-of-band interference in the system of Diener. Doing so would have allowed to determine presence of out-of-band interference and to select gain settings of receiver chains to alleviate distortion to receive signals due to saturation of components within the receiver chain (see Chari, paragraphs 0003 – 0004).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is for a method performed by a device claimed in claim 1 above. Since claims 1 and 18 have similar limitations, Diener in combination with Chari teaches all steps of the method claimed in claim 18 and, therefore, claim 18 is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Diener in combination with Chari teaches “wherein the interferer is an out-of-band interferer (Chari, par. 0017, 0018, 0027 and 0038).”
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Diener teaches “wherein information pertaining to the discovered interferer is sent to another device for further processing (paragraphs 0066, 0067, 0149, 0153, 0394 and 0512: the spectrum activity information (which inherently includes “information pertaining to the interferer”) may be reported remotely, to other devices to display, analyze and/or generate real-time alerts related to activity in the frequency band.).”
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Diener teaches “wherein the information pertaining to the interferer includes digital diagnostic information (turning to the applicant disclosure, paragraph 0031, for better understanding applicant’s usage of the expression “digital diagnostic information”, it may be seen that “The discovered out-of-band interferers are stored in memory 447 and can be sent to remote operators for diagnostics.” In other words, this simply represents transmission of information related to interferers in digital format for operators to see. With this in mind, Diener in paragraphs 0066, 0067, 0149, 0153, 0394 and 0512 teaches that the spectrum activity information may be reported remotely, to other devices to display, analyze and/or generate real-time alerts related to activity in the frequency band. Paragraph 0067: The signal classification information generated by processing the spectrum activity information may be reported to remote locations, and used to generate real-time alerts. For example, when an interference condition (presence of another signal in the frequency band of operation, adjacent frequency channel of operation, etc., of a device or network of devices in the frequency band) is detected, a real-time alert may be generated to advise a network administrator about the condition. The real-time alert may take the form of a graphical display, audio, email message, paging message, etc. The alert may include recommendations to a user or to a network administrator to make adjustments to a device or network of devices operating in the frequency band. All this represents “digital diagnostic information”).”
Regarding claim 12, Diener alone or in combination with Chari teaches “wherein the DSP is configured to cause a processing of communication signals along two or more processing chains (in Diener’s FIG 6, there are multiple processing chains shown: first chain includes processing signal along the line LPF – 10log|.|2 – Decim – RAM I/F; second chain includes processing signal along the line LPF – 10log|.|2 – Peak Detector – Pulse Detector – Decim – RAM I/F; third chain includes processing signal along the line LPF – 10log|.|2 – Peak Detector – Pulse Detector – RAM I/F; fourth chain includes processing signal along the line LPF – 10log|.|2 – Decim – Stats – RAM I/F.
Alternatively, when Diener is taken in view of Chari, the first “processing chain” is represented by components 220, 230, 240, 250, 260 and 270 in Chari’s FIG 4, and the second “processing chain” comprises 220, 230, switch 495, 250, 260 and 270 in Chari’s FIG 4).”
Regarding claim 13, Diener in combination with Chari teaches or fairly suggests “wherein a first processing chain includes at least one converter (when “a first processing chain” is mapped to components 220, 230, 240, 250, 260 and 270 in Chari’s FIG 4, there is an analog to digital converter 270), at least one amplifier (amplifiers 220, 250 and 260 in in Chari’s FIG 4), and at least one filter (filter 240 in in Chari’s FIG 4).”
Regarding claims 21 and 22, “further comprising an amplifier to amplify the analog wireless communication signal to provide an amplified wireless communication signal (In Diener, FIG 7 and paragraph 0075 disclose an automatic gain control block (AGC) block with, as shown in FIG 7, an arrow going to the Receive Signal Gain. Therefore, an amplifier, the gain of which is controlled by the AGC appears to be implicitly present (thus falling under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)). Alternatively, the Examiner takes an official notice that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement it to realize the function disclosed by Diener (thus falling under 35 U.S.C. 103). Still alternatively, when Diener is taken in view of Chari, this function is implemented in amplifiers 220, 250 and 260 in Chari’s FIG 4), the analog-to-digital converter to convert the amplified wireless communication signal to the digital wireless communication signal (as may be seen from FIG 7 of Diener, the received amplified signal is then supplied to ADC. Alternatively, when Diener is taken in view of Chari, this function is implemented in A/D 270 in Chari’s FIG 4).”
Claims 12 and 13 alternatively, and claims 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110090939 (Diener) in view of US 20130156140 (Chari) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140139286 (Laporte).
Regarding claim 12, with respect to “wherein the DSP is configured to cause a processing of communication signals along two or more processing chains”, although Diener teaches presence of a transmitter in the radio device of FIG 11 (paragraph 0150: The communication device includes the radio 12 that downconverts received radio frequency energy and upconverts signals for transmission), Diener does not disclose details or structural diagram of the transmitter, thus prompting a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for additional references for the working disclosure of a transmitter.
Laporte in FIG 1 and paragraph 0015 teaches a transmitter including a power amplifier and a conventional digital predistortion system. Paragraph 0002 teaches that typically, power amplifiers (PAs), used in transmitters, are most efficient when operated at or near saturation. However, the response of the power amplifier at or near the point of saturation is non-linear. As such, an output response of a power amplifier is non-linear and exhibits memory effects when the power amplifier is operating in the power amplifier's high-efficiency range. As stated in paragraph 0006, illustrated in FIG. 1 system 10 implements this digital predistortion approach to compensate for non-linearities of a power amplifier 12.
Therefore, since Diener does not provide any details regarding structure of the transmitter, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Laporte structural diagram for the transmitter with the conventional system to compensate for the nonlinearities generated by a power amplifier, as the transmitter portion of the device disclosed by Diener. Doing so would have simply filled in where Diener is silent (e.g. with respect to the structure of the transmitter) and allowed to compensate or effectively cancel the distortion caused by non-linearities of the power amplifier by means of the predistortion introduced by the predistorter (see Laporte, par. 0006).
Returning to specific limitations of claim 12, Diener teaches presence of a digital signal processor, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. FIG 11 also shows the baseband section 14 (a digital signal processor) which is coupled to a transmitter through digital to analog converter 16. On the other side, as was also explained above in this section, and based on Laporte, the transmission circuit would include a predistorter (PD) 18, which predistorts the up-sampled baseband input signal to provide a predistorted baseband input signal, and an adaptor 28 to adaptively configure the predistorter (see Laporte, FIG 1 and paragraphs 0006 – 0007), both operating in digital domain (thus performing “digital signal processing” or DSP). The predistortion, or non-linearities, introduced by the predistorter 18 compensates for the non-linearities of the power amplifier 12. Therefore, in view of Diener’s teaching that the baseband section 14 in FIG 11 (part of the “spectrum analyzer” and “one or more DSP” as was mapped above) coupled to the transmitter, and Laporte’s teaching of digital predistorter 18 and adaptor 28 (also being a “DSP”), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement Laporte’s function of digital predistortion as part of the functionality of the “one or more DSP”. In other words, “one or more digital signal processors” implemented as baseband section 14 of Diener of the combined system of Diener and Laporte would not only perform the functions of received signal processing, as in Diener, but also perform the function of predistortion described by Laporte. Combining these two functions within the “one or more DSP” would have simply been a matter of design choice, since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). This would also have allowed to reduce the number of different parts in the circuitry thus saving in costs and size of the equipment.
In view of this combination, the claim’s limitation are mapped in the following way: “wherein the DSP is configured to cause the processing of communication signals along two or more processing chains (Laporte, FIG 1 with corresponding description: The predistorter 18 predistorts the up-sampled baseband input signal to provide a predistorted baseband input signal. An adaptor 28 adaptively configures the predistorter 18 based on a time-aligned as well as gain and phase adjusted versions of the observation signal (SO). Since both the function of predistorter 18 and the function of adaptor 28 would be implemented using the combined “one or more DSP”, it would mean that “the DSP is configured to cause processing of communication signals along” the first processing chain comprising components 16, 20, 22, 24 and 12 as well as along the second processing chain comprising components 30 – 36 inside the observation receiver 26, as is required by the claim. The numbering of processing chains when mapped to the combined teaching of Diener and Laporte is purely arbitrary).”
Regarding claim 13, Diener in combination with Laporte teaches or fairly suggests “wherein a first processing chain includes at least one converter (when “the first processing chain” is mapped to components 16, 20, 22, 24 and 12 in FIG 1 of Laporte, as in the example given in the rejection of claim 12 above, there is an upconverter 20 and digital to analog converter 24), at least one amplifier (power amplifier 12 in FIG 1 of Laporte), and at least one filter (although no filter is shown in the first processing chain, using filters in transmission chain is well known in the art. In fact, usage of filters 158 and 164 in the transmission chain is shown in Laporte’s FIG 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize filters on as needed basis in the transmission chain of Laporte’s FIG 1 as well. Doing so would have allowed to filter out those signals and frequencies which are not to be transmitted.).”
Regarding claim 14, Diener in combination with Laporte teaches “further comprising a feedback path to direct processing of the communication signals to a second processing chain after a first processing chain (when “a first processing chain” is mapped to components 16, 20, 22, 24 and 12 in FIG 1 of Laporte, then see FIG 1 and paragraph 0007: The power amplifier output signal (corresponds to claimed “the communication signals” and “after a first processing chain”) is fed back into an observation receiver 26 (which is part of the second processing chain, as was mapped in the rejection of claim 12).).”
Regarding claim 15, Diener in combination with Laporte teaches “further comprising a transmitter (Diener teaches presence of a transmitter in the radio device of FIG 11 (paragraph 0150: The communication device includes the radio 12 that downconverts received radio frequency energy and upconverts signals for transmission); Laporte, FIG 1 with corresponding description describes transmission circuitry), the feedback path to provide a pre-distortion signal for the transmitter (Laporte, paragraph 0007: the feedback path starts with the output signal from the power amplifier 12 and comprises observation receiver 26. The output of the observation receiver 26 is an observation signal (SO). An adaptor 28 then adaptively configures the predistorter 18 based on a comparison of time-aligned as well as gain and phase adjusted versions of the observation signal (SO) and a reference signal (SR). In other words, the system provides “a pre-distortion signal for the transmitter”, as claimed).”
Regarding claim 17, Diener does not teach “wherein a comparison to a reference signal indicates a variance attributable to an error, wherein the DSP is further configured to provide an adaptive digital pre-distortion correction to adapt for the error.”
Although Diener teaches presence of a transmitter in the radio device of FIG 11 (paragraph 0150: The communication device includes the radio 12 that downconverts received radio frequency energy and upconverts signals for transmission), Diener does not disclose details or structural diagram of the transmitter, thus prompting a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for additional references for the working disclosure of a transmitter.
Laporte in FIG 1 and paragraph 0015 teaches a transmitter including a power amplifier and a conventional digital predistortion system. Paragraph 0002 teaches that typically, power amplifiers (PAs), used in transmitters, are most efficient when operated at or near saturation. However, the response of the power amplifier at or near the point of saturation is non-linear. As such, an output response of a power amplifier is non-linear and exhibits memory effects when the power amplifier is operating in the power amplifier's high-efficiency range. As stated in paragraph 0006, illustrated in FIG. 1 system 10 implements this digital predistortion approach to compensate for non-linearities of a power amplifier 12.
Therefore, since Diener does not provide any details regarding structure of the transmitter, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Laporte structural diagram for the transmitter with the conventional system to compensate for the nonlinearities generated by a power amplifier, as the transmitter portion of the device disclosed by Diener. Doing so would have simply filled in where Diener is silent (e.g. with respect to the structure of the transmitter) and allowed to compensate or effectively cancel the distortion caused by non-linearities of the power amplifier by means of the predistortion introduced by the predistorter (see Laporte, par. 0006).
Further, Diener teaches presence of a digital signal processor, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. FIG 11 also shows the baseband section 14 (a digital signal processor) which is coupled to a transmitter through digital to analog converter 16. On the other side, in Laporte, the transmission circuit includes a predistorter (PD) 18, which predistorts the up-sampled baseband input signal to provide a predistorted baseband input signal, and an adaptor 28 to adaptively configure the predistorter (see Laporte, FIG 1 and paragraphs 0006 – 0007), both operating in digital domain (thus performing “digital signal processing” or DSP). The predistortion, or non-linearities, introduced by the predistorter 18 compensates for the non-linearities of the power amplifier 12. Therefore, in view of Diener’s teaching that the baseband section 14 in FIG 11 (part of the “spectrum analyzer” and “one or more DSP” as was mapped above) coupled to the transmitter, and Laporte’s teaching of digital predistorter 18 and adaptor 28 (also being a “DSP”), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement Laporte’s function of digital predistortion as part of the functionality of the “one or more DSP”. In other words, “one or more digital signal processors” implemented as baseband section 14 of Diener of the combined system of Diener and Laporte would not only perform the functions of received signal processing, as in Diener, but also perform the function of predistortion described by Laporte. Combining these two functions within the “one or more DSP” would have simply been a matter of design choice, since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). This would also have allowed to reduce the number of different parts in the circuitry thus saving in costs and size of the equipment.
Going back to the limitations of claim 17, Laporte teaches “wherein a comparison to a reference signal indicates a variance attributable to an error (paragraph 0007: The output of the observation receiver 26 is an observation signal (SO). An adaptor 28 then adaptively configures the predistorter 18 based on a comparison of time-aligned as well as gain and phase adjusted versions of the observation signal (SO) and a reference signal (SR), which in this case is the up-sampled input signal input into the predistorter 18. Any difference between the two signals would represent “a variance attributable to an error” because of the nonlinearities generated by the power amplifier 12), wherein the DSP is further configured to provide an adaptive digital pre-distortion correction to adapt for the error (Laporte, paragraph 0007: the adaptor 28 (which is part of the DSP as was explained in the rejection of claim 12 in this section)) configures the coefficients of the predistorter 18 based on the comparison, thus “to adapt for the error”).”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648