DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 01/28/26 has been received and entered in the case. The arguments against the previously applied prior art rejections are not deemed to be persuasive, and therefore such prior art rejections are maintained and repeated, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of claim 13, the word "cell" should be changed to --cells--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28-31 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose (USPAP 2023/0300723) in view of any one of Chen et al (USPAP 2023/0397019), Jeong et al (USPAP 2024/0314879) and Wanstedt et al (USPAP 2024/0373269), and further in view of Liu et al (USPAP 2024/0015645).
As to claim 1, Jose discloses
a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving system information (inherently in Jose, the user equipment receives information from the base station) comprising:
a first system information block SIB (the claimed first SIB can be read on SIB3, note paragraph [0023] of Jose which indicates that the RedCap user equipment receives information via SIB3 and/or SIB4 regarding which neighbor cells support it and which do not support it) that contains parameters related to intra-frequency cell reselection only (although Jose does not disclose this limitation, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that SIB3 can include only information related to intra-frequency cell reselection only, see paragraph [0102] of Liu et al as one example of this well-known concept) and identifies a set of intra-frequency neighbor cells (inherently or obviously in Jose as modified by Liu et al, the RedCap user equipment will receive an indication of a set of neighbor cells, i.e., a list of those neighbor cells that it is permitted to access, and this set of neighbor cells that it is permitted to access can obviously be either intra-frequency neighbor cells or inter-frequency neighbor cells, both types of neighbor cells typically being in the vicinity of the user equipment, and note in particular the disclosure by Jose on lines 4-13 of paragraph [0023] of reselection of neighbor cells using both intra-frequency reselection and inter-frequency reselection), and
a second SIB (the claimed second SIB can be read on SIB4, note paragraph [0023] of Jose which indicates that the RedCap user equipment receives information via SIB3 and/or SIB4 regarding which neighbor cells support it and which do not support it) that contains parameters related to inter-frequency cell reselection only (although Jose does not disclose this limitation, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that SIB4 can include information related to inter-frequency cell reselection only, see paragraph [0102] of Liu et al as one example of this well-known concept) and includes one or more indications of whether UEs in a reduced capability (RedCap) category are permitted to access respective inter-frequency neighbor cells (inherently or obviously in Jose as modified by Liu et al, when the RedCap user equipment receives the indication of which neighbor cells it is permitted to access and which neighbor cells it is not permitted to access, the user equipment will receive one or more indications of whether it is permitted to access respective neighbor cells, and such respective inter-frequency neighbor cells can obviously be either intra-frequency neighbor cells or inter-frequency neighbor cells, i.e., as noted above, both types of neighbor cells typically being in the vicinity of the user equipment, again note the disclosure by Jose on lines 4-13 of paragraph [0023] of reselection of neighbor cells using both intra-frequency reselection and inter-frequency reselection),
identifying, based at least in part on the one or more indications in the second SIB, a first set of inter-frequency neighbor cells for which access by the UEs in the RedCap category is permitted and a second set of inter-frequency neighbor cells that UEs in the RedCap category are barred from accessing (inherently or obviously in Jose as modified by Liu et al, the RedCap UE will identify first and second sets of either intra-frequency neighbor cells or inter-frequency neighbor cells, again both intra-frequency neighbor cells and inter-frequency neighbor cells will typically be in the vicinity of the user equipment (again note the disclosure by Jose on lines 4-13 of paragraph [0023] of reselection of neighbor cells using both intra-frequency reselection and inter-frequency reselection), where the first and second sets will be the neighbor cells that the RedCap user equipment is permitted to access and the neighbor cells that the RedCap user equipment is barred from accessing); and
performing one or more radio resource management RRM measurements on the first set of inter-frequency neighbor cells and refraining from performing the one or more RRM measurements on the second set of inter-frequency neighbor cells (although not disclosed by Jose in view of Liu et al, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from Jose as modified by Liu et al, as indicated above, in view of the teachings of any one of Chen et al, Jeong et al and Wanstedt et al, i.e., for the reason noted in the paragraph bridging pages 3-4 of the previous office action).
As to claims 4 and 5, when Jose as modified by Liu et al is further modified so that the RedCap UE only performs RRM measurements on those neighbor cells it is permitted to access, the RedCap UE will inherently or obviously receive a measurement configuration wherein the neighbor cells that the RedCapUE is permitted to access are identified based at least in part on the measurement configuration, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention that neighbor cells that a RedCap UE is permitted to access are identified based at least in part on a received measurement configuration, and the received measurement configuration will inherently or obviously exclude any neighbor cells that do not permit access by RedCap UEs.
As to claim 7, as indicated in the previous office actions, this claim is rejected using essentially the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1, and to the extent that Jose as modified by Liu et al and further modified by any one of Chen et al, Jeong et al and Wanstedt et al does not disclose that the network node receives information indicating which neighbor cells do not support access by the RedCap UE, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the serving cell obviously needs to know which of the neighbor cells in the vicinity of the user equipment support or do not support access by the RedCap user equipment, i.e., in order to be able to transmit to the user equipment the necessary system information which will let the RedCap UE know which of the neighbor cells support RedCap UEs and which do not.
As to claim 8, as indicated the previous office actions, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the neighbor cells which do or do not support RedCap UEs need a way of indicating this information to the currently serving neighbor cell, and one obvious way of providing such indication is to change a setting in the neighbor cell which would indicate to the serving neighbor cell that the neighbor cell does or does not support access by the RedCap UE, i.e., such was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 9, as indicated in the previous office actions, it was also old and well-known in the art that information transmitted from one access point to another is typically performed in a wireless communication system by the use of an operations, administration, and management interface or, alternatively, via inter-node messaging between the access points, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claims 11-15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 34, as indicated in the previous office actions, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 (note that the claimed memory and processors will be inherent in the network node and the user equipment of Jose and, regarding the amendment to claim 13, note that the measurement configuration received by the user equipment which excludes the second set of inter-frequency neighbor cells will inherently or obviously be responsive to the SIB indicating that the neighbor cell does not support access by RedCap UEs, as noted above in the rejection of claim 7, and such exclusion should obviously be applied prior to initiating any RRM measurements because, as also noted above, it would be wasteful of the UE's battery life to perform RRM measurements on those neighbor cells which the RedCap UE is not permitted to access, i.e., there would be no reason for the RedCap UE to perform such RRM measurements on those neighbor cells that it is barred from accessing, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized this).
As to claims 29 and 31, as indicated in the previous office actions, the SIB information in Jose would suggest to any person having ordinary skill in the art that the RedCap UE is permanently restricted from accessing the neighbor cells, the reason being that there is no indication in these references that access is only temporarily restricted, and such would suggest that the restriction is permanent (applicant should note, however, that both temporary access restriction and permanent access restriction were both equally old and well-known in the art of wireless communication networks before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention).
As to claim 30, as indicated in the previous office actions, in Jose information which indicates whether the RedCap UE is permitted to access the neighbor cell or cells will inherently be received from another network node, i.e., the base stations which send out such information to the RedCap UE will inherently receive such information from some other node in the network.
As to claim 33, as indicated in the previous office actions, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that measurement configuration information received by a user equipment typically includes information which indicates how often a UE should perform RRM measurements on the neighbor cells it wishes to access, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Astrom (USPAP 2019/0059011) in paragraph [0098], and Wong et al (USPAP 2022/0110063) in paragraph [0035].
As to claims 35 and 36, official notice is taken by the examiner that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to perform RRM measurements on inter-frequency neighbor cells while the user equipment (in this case, Jose's RedCap user equipment) is in either an idle mode or an inactive mode.
As to claim 37, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 13, i.e., as noted above, the inherent processor in Jose will inherently or obviously receive a measurement configuration that identifies one or more inter-frequency neighbor cells, and for each of the identified inter-frequency neighbor cells the processor will inherently or obviously determine whether system information indicates that RedCap UEs are permitted to access the cell, and will also inherently or obviously exclude from performing RRM measurements on those neighbor cells for which the system information indicates that access by RedCap UEs is not permitted, where such exclusion will inherently or obviously be prior to initiating any RRM measurement on the cell (because, as noted above, performing RRM measurements on those cells that the user equipment is not permitted to access would be wasteful of the battery life of the user equipment, i.e., there would be no reason to perform such RRM measurements on cells that the user equipment is not permitted to access).
4. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28-31 and 33-37 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Hoglund et al (USPAP 2023/0284131) or Ratasuk et al (USPAP 2023/0319841) in view of any one of Chen et al (USPAP 2023/0397019), Jeong et al (USPAP 20240314879) and Wanstedt et al (USPAP 2024/0373269) and further in view of Liu et al (USPAP 2024/0015645).
As to claim 1, the limitations recited on lines 1-14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection based on Jose in view of any one of Chen et al, Jeong et al and Wanstedt et al, and further in view of Liu et al, i.e., each of Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al also discloses the same teaching as Jose, note paragraphs [0006] through [0009] of Hoglund et al and paragraph [0045] of Ratasuk et al, where in each of these two additional references the network indicates to the RedCap UE which neighbor cells of a plurality of neighbor cells it is permitted to access and which neighbor cells of a plurality of neighbor cells it is not permitted to access.
Not disclosed by either Hoglund et al or Ratasuk et al in view of Liu et al is the limitation recited on the last three lines of claim 1. Such would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art because, as noted above, it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a RedCap UE typically performs RRM measurements on the neighbor cells it is in proximity to, and more specifically performs such RRM measurements in a relaxed manner, i.e., the RedCap performs such RRM measurements relatively infrequently in order to conserve power of the small battery that RedCap UEs typically use, three examples of a RedCap UE performing relaxed RRM measurements being disclosed in paragraph [0118] of Chen et al, paragraph [0082] of Jeong et al '879, and paragraph [0069] of Wanstedt et al. The motivation for only performing RRM measurements on the neighbor cells that the RedCap UE is permitted to access is, as noted above, it would obviously be wasteful of battery life for the RedCap UE to perform RRM measurements on neighbor cells that it is not allowed to access--as is well-known in the art of RedCap UEs, it is critical that RedCap UEs take steps to conserve battery life because RedCap UEs typically are relatively small sized devices with relatively small sized batteries and therefore it is essential to not unnecessarily waste the RedCap UE’s battery life by performing RRM measurements on those neighbor cells that the RedCap UE is barred from accessing.
As to claims 4 and 5, when either Hoglund et al or Ratasuk et al is modified as noted above using the teachings of Liu et al, and further modified so that the RedCap UE only performs RRM measurements on those neighbor cells it is permitted to access, the RedCap UE will inherently or obviously receive a measurement configuration wherein the neighbor cells that the RedCap UE is permitted to access are identified based at least in part on the measurement configuration, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention that neighbor cells that a UE is permitted to access are identified based at least in part on a received measurement configuration, and the received measurement configuration will inherently or obviously exclude any neighbor cells that do not permit access by RedCap UEs.
As to claim 7, as indicated in the previous office actions, this claim is rejected using essentially the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 1, and to the extent that Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al do not disclose that the network node receives information indicating which neighbor cells do not support access by the RedCap UE, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the serving neighbor cell obviously needs to know which of the neighbor cells in the vicinity of the user equipment support or do not support access by the RedCap user equipment, i.e., in order to be able to transmit to the user equipment the necessary system information which will let the RedCap UE know which of the neighbor cells support RedCap UEs and which do not.
As to claim 8, as indicated the previous office actions, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the neighbor cells which do or do not support RedCap UEs need a way of indicating this information to the currently serving cell, and one obvious way of providing such indication is to change a setting in the neighbor cell which would indicate to the serving cell that the neighbor cell does or does not support access by the RedCap UE, i.e., such was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 9, as indicated in the previous office actions, it was also old and well-known in the art that information transmitted from one access point to another is typically performed in a wireless communication system by the use of an operations, administration, and management interface or, alternatively, via inter-node messaging between the access points, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claims 11-15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28 and 34, as indicated in the previous office actions, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 (note that the claimed memory and processors will be inherent in the network node and the user equipment of Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al and, regarding the amendment to claim 13, note that the measurement configuration received by the user equipment which excludes the second set of inter-frequency neighbor cells will inherently or obviously be responsive to the SIB indicating that the neighbor cell does not support access by RedCap UEs, as noted above in the rejection of claim 7, and such exclusion should obviously be applied prior to initiating any RRM measurements because, as also noted above, it would be wasteful of the UE's battery life to perform RRM measurements on those neighbor cells which the RedCap UE is not permitted to access, i.e., there would be no reason for the RedCap UE to perform such RRM measurements on those neighbor cells that it is barred from accessing, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized this).
As to claims 29 and 31, as indicated in the previous office actions, the SIB information in Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al would suggest to any person having ordinary skill in the art that the RedCap UE is permanently restricted from accessing the neighbor cells, the reason being that there is no indication in these references that access is only temporarily restricted, and such would suggest that the restriction is permanent. Applicant should also note, however, that both temporary access restriction and permanent access restriction were both equally old and well-known in the art of wireless communication networks before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention.
As to claim 30, as indicated in the previous office actions, in Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al, information which indicates whether the RedCap UE is permitted to access the neighbor cell or cells will inherently be received from another network node, i.e., the base stations which send out such information to the RedCap UE will inherently receive such information from some other node in the network.
As to claim 33, as indicated in the previous office actions, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that measurement configuration information received by a user equipment typically includes information which indicates how often a UE should perform RRM measurements on the neighbor cells it wishes to access, two examples of this well-known concept being disclosed by Astrom (USPAP 2019/0059011) in paragraph [0098], and Wong et al (USPAP 2022/0110063) in paragraph [0035].
As to claims 35 and 36, as noted above, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to perform RRM measurements on inter-frequency neighbor cells while the user equipment (in this case, Jose's RedCap user equipment) is in either an idle mode or an inactive mode.
As to claim 37, the limitations of this claim are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claim 13, i.e., as noted above, the inherent processor in both Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al will inherently or obviously receive a measurement configuration that identifies one or more inter-frequency neighbor cells, and for each of the identified inter-frequency neighbor cells the processor will inherently or obviously determine whether system information indicates that RedCap UEs are permitted to access the cell, and will also inherently or obviously exclude from performing RRM measurements on those neighbor cells for which the system information indicates that access by RedCap UEs is not permitted, where such exclusion will inherently or obviously be prior to initiating any RRM measurement on the cell (because, as noted above, performing RRM measurements on those cells that the user equipment is not permitted to access would be wasteful of the battery life of the user equipment, i.e., there would be no reason to perform such RRM measurements on cells that the user equipment is not permitted to access).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 01/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that "the Office Action relies on subject matter disclosed in JOSE (e.g., paragraph [0023]) that does not appear in the provisional application to which JOSE claims priority (U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/061,212, filed August 5, 2020). A review of the provisional shows that it does not disclose the subject matter relied upon in the rejection."
This argument is not persuasive because the Jose provisional application 63/061,212 does in fact provide support for what it is being relied upon by the examiner, i.e., in the rejection above, Jose has only been relied upon to disclose (1) a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment, (2) receiving system information comprising first and second SIB information, and (3) the first and second SIB information being used to identify those neighbor cells for which access by the RedCap UEs is permitted and those neighbor cells for which access by the RedCap UEs is barred. Note that all of the remaining limitations in claim 1 are disclosed by either Liu et al (i.e., the limitations that parameters of the SIB are related to intra-frequency cell reselection only and inter-frequency cell reselection only), and any one of Chen et al, Wanstedt et al and Jeong et al (i.e., the limitations directed to performing RRM measurements on those neighbor cells that the user equipment is permitted to access and refraining from performing RRM measurements on those neighbor cells that the user equipment is not permitted to access).
Applicant should note the disclosure in provisional application 63/061,212 of the "network" and the "RedCap device" in the section entitled "Identification of a RedCap device to the NW", i.e., this disclosure provides support for the recitation in claim 1 of a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment, and applicant should note further the disclosure in the Jose provisional application of receiving system information comprising first and second system information blocks (SIB), i.e., note what is indicated on the last page of this provisional application where it is stated that SIB3 and/or SIB4 can be used to indicate the set of cells that support RedCap UEs, which provides support for the limitations of receiving system information comprising first and second SIB information, note that the first and second SIB information are used to identify those neighbor cells for which access by the RedCap UEs is permitted and those neighbor cells for which access by the RedCap UEs is barred. Finally, applicant should note that the Jose provisional application also provides support for the user equipment using different types of messaging in order to communicate to the network that it is a RedCap UE, again note the section entitled "Identification of a RedCap device to the NW" where the provisional application states that the user equipment can identify itself as a RedCap UE by signaling the identifier RedCap-UE to the network, where the identifier can be included within msg3, msgA or in msg5.
Applicant also argues that "HOGLUND, RATASUK, CHEN, JEONG, WANSTEDT, and LIU, taken alone or in combination, do not disclose at least "a second SIB that contains parameters related to inter-frequency cell reselection only and includes one or more indications of whether UEs in a reduced capacity (RedCap) category are permitted to access respective inter-frequency neighbor cells" and "refraining from performing the one or more RRM measurements on the second set of inter-frequency neighbor cells," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action does not point to any specific disclosure in HOGLUND, RATASUK, CHEN, or WANSTEDT that teaches these aspects. Rather, the Office Action appears to assume that inter-frequency RedCap access restrictions would be known or implied, but does not provide factual support or citation showing the required use of such indications in a second SIB or their role in controlling measurement behavior, particularly in the context of RedCap UEs. The Office Action also does not rely on JEONG, LIU, or the other secondary references to remedy the above-discussed deficiencies. Moreover, none of JEONG, LIU, or the remaining cited art discloses or suggests the use of inter-frequency RedCap access indications in a second SIB to govern measurement behavior, nor do they teach refraining from RRM measurement based on such access indications. Accordingly, these references do not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to HOGLUND, RATASUK, CHEN, or WANSTEDT."
This argument is not persuasive because, as noted in the rejection above, the two primary references Hoglund et al and Ratasuk et al have been relied on by the examiner for the same teaching as noted above with regard to Jose, i.e., a RedCap user equipment using first and second system information blocks (SIB) to communicate to the network that it is a RedCap UE, and that the network signals back to the RedCap UE information indicating which neighbor cells the RedCap UE are permitted to access and which neighbor cells it is barred from accessing. The limitations in the claims that the first SIB contains parameters related to intra-frequency cell reselection only and that the second SIB contains parameters related to inter-frequency cell reselection only, although not disclosed by Hoglund et al or Ratasuk et al, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from paragraph [0102] of Liu et al, as clearly indicated in the rejection above, and the limitations in the claims regarding performing RRM measurements only on those neighbor cells that the RedCap UE is permitted to access would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from any one of Chen et al, Jeong et al and Wanstedt et al, for the reasons indicated in the rejection above.
Action is Final
6. 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 February 9, 2026