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 .
The amendment filed 9/2/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210368534 A1) in view of Agardh et al. (Pub. No.: US 20220030436 A1), hereafter respectively referred to as Sato and Agardh.
In regard to Claim 1, Sato teaches An apparatus (terminal device 20, Para. 48, 133, FIGS. 1, 5), comprising: a transmitter (a transmitting unit 104, Para. 133, FIG. 5), the transmitter comprising: a first radio transceiver (a radio transmitting unit 1050, Para. 133, FIG. 5. The IFFT unit 1049 generates the OFDM symbol. The radio transmitting unit 1050 appends a cyclic prefix (CP) to the OFDM symbol to generate a baseband digital signal, Para. 142, FIG. 5), supporting a first number of Spatial Streams (SS) (FIG. 2 is an example of that, the subcarrier interval is 15 kHz, one frame is composed of 10 slots, one subframe is composed of 1 slot, and one slot is composed of 14 OFDM symbols, Para. 99, FIG. 2. DCI format 1_1 may notify of MIMO, Para. 72) for a first Transmission (Tx) opportunity of wireless transmission (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant A, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(A) Transmission opportunity) to a receiver (base station device 10, Para. 48, FIG. 1).
Sato teaches a second radio transceiver (a radio transmitting unit 1050, Para. 133, FIG. 5. The IFFT unit 1049 generates the OFDM symbol. The radio transmitting unit 1050 appends a cyclic prefix (CP) to the OFDM symbol to generate a baseband digital signal, Para. 142, FIG. 5), supporting a second number of SS (FIG. 2 is an example of that, the subcarrier interval is 15 kHz, one frame is composed of 10 slots, one subframe is composed of 1 slot, and one slot is composed of 14 OFDM symbols, Para. 99, FIG. 2. DCI format 1_1 may notify of MIMO, Para. 72) for a second Tx opportunity of wireless transmission (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant B, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(B) Transmission opportunity Before correction) to the receiver (base station device 10, Para. 48, FIG. 1), wherein the first Tx opportunity starts earlier than the second Tx opportunity (FIG. 11 shows the start of CG(A) Transmission opportunity occurring prior to the start of CG(B) Transmission opportunity Before correction, Para. 175, FIG. 11).
Sato teaches perform one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity until the first Tx opportunity ends (FIG. 11 illustrates the situation when the configured uplink grant A and the configured uplink grant B are set with the same conflict between the transmission opportunities. Firstly, when transmission opportunities A #01 and B #00 conflict, the transmission opportunity B #00 is shifted to the timing at the end of transmission opportunity of A #01, Para. 175, FIG. 11); and aborting the first Tx opportunity when the second Tx opportunity starts.
Sato teaches the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities (FIG. 11 illustrates the situation when the configured uplink grant A and the configured uplink grant B are set with the same conflict between the transmission opportunities, Para. 175, FIG. 11).
Although Sato teaches perform one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity until the first Tx opportunity ends, Sato fails to teach a controller, configured to determine whether power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second Tx opportunities exceeds a threshold, and in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second Tx opportunities exceeding the threshold, perform one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity, and although Sato teaches power consumption of SS utilization and the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities, Sato fails to teach wherein there is no deferring or aborting in response to the power consumption of SS utilization, in the use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities, not exceeding the threshold.
Agardh teaches a controller, configured to determine whether power consumption of SS utilization (determine an average power on the spectrum, Para. 37. A communication link can be characterized with one or more transmit properties such as transmit power, modulation scheme, coding scheme, Para. 39) in the first and second Tx opportunities (a budget of transmit time resources (TTRs), Para. 4. Each node may have a budget of TTRs, Para. 32, FIG. 1. It may be possible to share the TTRs between the first node and the second node, Para. 41, FIG. 1. TTRs of a budget associated with a spectrum access restriction imposed on one of the multiple nodes may be used by multiple nodes, Para. 42) exceeds a threshold (if the average power exceeds a threshold, Para. 37), and in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second Tx opportunities exceeding the threshold (if the average power exceeds a threshold, Para. 37), perform one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity (the node attempting to access the spectrum may postpone transmission by a back-off time duration, Para. 37).
Agardh teaches wherein there is no deferring or aborting in response to the power consumption of SS utilization (For the transmission intervals 201-203, the respective LBT procedure 250 succeed (otherwise the AP 101 would not transmit), Para. 61, FIGS. 1, 3), in the use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities (It may be possible to share the TTRs between the first node and the second node, Para. 41, FIG. 1. TTRs of a budget associated with a spectrum access restriction imposed on one of the multiple nodes may be used by multiple nodes, Para. 42), not exceeding the threshold (a respective spectral power density may remain below a predefined threshold, Para. 61, FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agardh with the teachings of Sato since Agardh provides a technique for permitting multiple nodes transmit in similar time resources in relation to a power threshold involving a spectrum, which can be introduced into the system of Sato to permit terminal devices with conflicting transmission opportunities to transmit in overlapping time resources when transmission satisfy a power threshold, and to shift transmission opportunities when the power involved in time resources exceeds the power threshold.
In regard to Claim 10, Sato teaches the first Tx opportunity is a first time duration (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant A, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(A) Transmission opportunity) for which the first radio transceiver (a radio transmitting unit 1050, Para. 133, FIG. 5. The IFFT unit 1049 generates the OFDM symbol. The radio transmitting unit 1050 appends a cyclic prefix (CP) to the OFDM symbol to generate a baseband digital signal, Para. 142, FIG. 5) is allowed to perform wireless transmission (In a CG (Configured UL Grant) (A) transmission opportunity, each square represents a transmission opportunity (TO) using resources for transmitting uplink data assigned by each configured uplink grant, Para. 168, FIG. 11), and the second Tx opportunity is a second time duration (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant B, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(B) Transmission opportunity Before correction) for which the second radio transceiver (a radio transmitting unit 1050, Para. 133, FIG. 5. The IFFT unit 1049 generates the OFDM symbol. The radio transmitting unit 1050 appends a cyclic prefix (CP) to the OFDM symbol to generate a baseband digital signal, Para. 142, FIG. 5) is allowed to perform wireless transmission (In a CG (B) transmission opportunity, each square represents a transmission opportunity (TO) using resources for transmitting uplink data assigned by each configured uplink grant, Para. 168, FIG. 11).
In regard to Claim 11, Sato teaches A method, comprising: providing, by a transmitter, a first radio transceiver (terminal device 20, Para. 48, FIGS. 1, 5. A radio transmitting unit 1050, Para. 133, FIG. 5. The IFFT unit 1049 generates the OFDM symbol. The radio transmitting unit 1050 appends a cyclic prefix (CP) to the OFDM symbol to generate a baseband digital signal, Para. 142, FIG. 5) supporting a first number of Spatial Streams (SS) (FIG. 2 is an example of that, the subcarrier interval is 15 kHz, one frame is composed of 10 slots, one subframe is composed of 1 slot, and one slot is composed of 14 OFDM symbols, Para. 99, FIG. 2. DCI format 1_1 may notify of MIMO, Para. 72) for a first Transmission (Tx) opportunity of wireless transmission (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant A, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(A) Transmission opportunity) to a receiver (base station device 10, Para. 48, FIG. 1).
Sato teaches providing, by the transmitter, a second radio transceiver (terminal device 20, Para. 48, FIGS. 1, 5. A radio transmitting unit 1050, Para. 133, FIG. 5. The IFFT unit 1049 generates the OFDM symbol. The radio transmitting unit 1050 appends a cyclic prefix (CP) to the OFDM symbol to generate a baseband digital signal, Para. 142, FIG. 5) supporting a second number of SS (FIG. 2 is an example of that, the subcarrier interval is 15 kHz, one frame is composed of 10 slots, one subframe is composed of 1 slot, and one slot is composed of 14 OFDM symbols, Para. 99, FIG. 2. DCI format 1_1 may notify of MIMO, Para. 72) for a second Tx opportunity of wireless transmission (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant B, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(B) Transmission opportunity Before correction) to the receiver (base station device 10, Para. 48, FIG. 1), wherein the first Tx opportunity starts earlier than the second Tx opportunity (FIG. 11 shows the start of CG(A) Transmission opportunity occurring prior to the start of CG(B) Transmission opportunity Before correction, Para. 175, FIG. 11).
Sato teaches performing, by the transmitter, one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity until the first Tx opportunity ends (FIG. 11 illustrates the situation when the configured uplink grant A and the configured uplink grant B are set with the same conflict between the transmission opportunities. Firstly, when transmission opportunities A #01 and B #00 conflict, the transmission opportunity B #00 is shifted to the timing at the end of transmission opportunity of A #01, Para. 175, FIG. 11); and aborting the first Tx opportunity when the second Tx opportunity starts.
Sato teaches the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities (FIG. 11 illustrates the situation when the configured uplink grant A and the configured uplink grant B are set with the same conflict between the transmission opportunities, Para. 175, FIG. 11).
Sato fails to teach determining, by the transmitter, whether power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second Tx opportunities exceeds a threshold; and in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second opportunities exceeding the threshold, performing, by the transmitter, one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity, and although Sato teaches the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities, Sato fails to teach wherein there is no deferring or aborting in response to the power consumption of SS utilization, in the use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities, not exceeding the threshold.
Agardh teaches determining, by the transmitter (UEs 102-104, Para. 55, FIG. 1), whether power consumption of SS utilization (determine an average power on the spectrum, Para. 37. A communication link can be characterized with one or more transmit properties such as transmit power, modulation scheme, coding scheme, Para. 39) in the first and second Tx opportunities (a budget of transmit time resources (TTRs), Para. 4. Each node may have a budget of TTRs, Para. 32, FIG. 1. It may be possible to share the TTRs between the first node and the second node, Para. 41, FIG. 1. TTRs of a budget associated with a spectrum access restriction imposed on one of the multiple nodes may be used by multiple nodes, Para. 42) exceeds a threshold (if the average power exceeds a threshold, Para. 37); and in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second Tx opportunities exceeding the threshold (if the average power exceeds a threshold, Para. 37), performing, by the transmitter, one of the following: deferring the second Tx opportunity (the node attempting to access the spectrum may postpone transmission by a back-off time duration, Para. 37).
Agardh teaches wherein there is no deferring or aborting in response to the power consumption of SS utilization (For the transmission intervals 201-203, the respective LBT procedure 250 succeed (otherwise the AP 101 would not transmit), Para. 61, FIGS. 1, 3), in the use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities (It may be possible to share the TTRs between the first node and the second node, Para. 41, FIG. 1. TTRs of a budget associated with a spectrum access restriction imposed on one of the multiple nodes may be used by multiple nodes, Para. 42), not exceeding the threshold (a respective spectral power density may remain below a predefined threshold, Para. 61, FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agardh with the teachings of Sato since Agardh provides a technique for permitting multiple nodes transmit in similar time resources in relation to a power threshold involving a spectrum, which can be introduced into the system of Sato to permit terminal devices with conflicting transmission opportunities to transmit in overlapping time resources when transmission satisfy a power threshold, and to shift transmission opportunities when the power involved in time resources exceeds the power threshold.
In regard to Claim 20, Sato teaches the first Tx opportunity is a first time duration (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant A, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(A) Transmission opportunity) for which the first radio transceiver (terminal device 20, Para. 48, FIG. 1) is allowed to perform wireless transmission (In a CG (Configured UL Grant) (A) transmission opportunity, each square represents a transmission opportunity (TO) using resources for transmitting uplink data assigned by each configured uplink grant, Para. 168, FIG. 11), and the second Tx opportunity is a second time duration (transmission opportunities of configured uplink grants. Configured uplink grant B, Para. 175, FIG. 11. FIG. 11 shows CG(B) Transmission opportunity Before correction) for which the second radio transceiver (terminal device 20, Para. 48, FIG. 1) is allowed to perform wireless transmission (In a CG (B) transmission opportunity, each square represents a transmission opportunity (TO) using resources for transmitting uplink data assigned by each configured uplink grant, Para. 168, FIG. 11).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Agardh, and further in view of Fodor et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160278095 A1), hereafter referred to as Fodor.
In regard to Claim 2, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the controller.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the controller is further configured to reduce the first number of SS for the first Tx opportunity or the second number of SS for the second Tx opportunity, in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second opportunities exceeding the threshold.
Fodor teaches the controller is further configured to reduce the first number of SS for the first Tx opportunity or the second number of SS for the second Tx opportunity (in response to the received load indication (DMLI/DMOI), the network node 111, 112 may reduce the transmission power of the user equipments. Performed in combination with reducing the number of spatial streams, Para. 114, FIG. 1. Received load indication is an interference overload indication, e.g. DMOI, for the at least one PRR. Reducing the total number of spatial streams scheduled on the at least one PRR that is indicated in the DMOI, Para. 124, FIG. 1. The user equipment in the first set of user equipments 123, 124, 125, 126, 143, may autonomously reduce its transmit power by a certain amount, for example, below a determined or pre-defined threshold, Para. 138, FIG. 1), in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second opportunities exceeding the threshold (when the received load indication is high, the user equipment in the first set of user equipments 123, 124, 125, 126, 143, may autonomously reduce its transmit power, Para. 138, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fodor with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Fodor provides a technique for controlling power related to usage of wireless media by reducing the number of spatial streams, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit the situation where transmissions can be conducted though conflicting transmission opportunities by reducing the number of transmissions in the conflicting resources for sharing of resources by wireless devices.
In regard to Claim 3, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the apparatus.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the reduced first number of SS or the reduced second number of SS comprise at least one SS.
Fodor teaches the reduced first number of SS or the reduced second number of SS comprise at least one SS (adjusting the number of spatial streams used by the cellular and/or D2D communications of the user equipments in the first set of user equipments 123, 124, 125, 143, 144 on the at least one PRR at least partly based on the at least one received load indication, Para. 106, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fodor with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Fodor provides a technique for controlling power related to usage of wireless media by reducing the number of spatial streams, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit the situation where transmissions can be conducted though conflicting transmission opportunities by reducing the number of transmissions in the conflicting resources for sharing of resources by wireless devices.
In regard to Claim 12, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the first Tx opportunity.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach reducing, by the transmitter, the first number of SS for the first Tx opportunity or the second number of SS for the second Tx opportunity, in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second opportunities exceeding the threshold.
Fodor teaches reducing, by the transmitter, the first number of SS for the first Tx opportunity or the second number of SS for the second Tx opportunity (in response to the received load indication (DMLI/DMOI), the network node 111, 112 may reduce the transmission power of the user equipments. Performed in combination with reducing the number of spatial streams, Para. 114, FIG. 1. Received load indication is an interference overload indication, e.g. DMOI, for the at least one PRR. Reducing the total number of spatial streams scheduled on the at least one PRR that is indicated in the DMOI, Para. 124, FIG. 1. The user equipment in the first set of user equipments 123, 124, 125, 126, 143, may autonomously reduce its transmit power by a certain amount, for example, below a determined or pre-defined threshold, Para. 138, FIG. 1), in response to the power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second opportunities exceeding the threshold (when the received load indication is high, the user equipment in the first set of user equipments 123, 124, 125, 126, 143, may autonomously reduce its transmit power, Para. 138, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fodor with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Fodor provides a technique for controlling power related to usage of wireless media by reducing the number of spatial streams, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit the situation where transmissions can be conducted though conflicting transmission opportunities by reducing the number of transmissions in the conflicting resources for sharing of resources by wireless devices.
In regard to Claim 13, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the method.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the reduced first number of SS or the reduced second number of SS comprise at least one SS.
Fodor teaches the reduced first number of SS or the reduced second number of SS comprise at least one SS (adjusting the number of spatial streams used by the cellular and/or D2D communications of the user equipments in the first set of user equipments 123, 124, 125, 143, 144 on the at least one PRR at least partly based on the at least one received load indication, Para. 106, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fodor with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Fodor provides a technique for controlling power related to usage of wireless media by reducing the number of spatial streams, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit the situation where transmissions can be conducted though conflicting transmission opportunities by reducing the number of transmissions in the conflicting resources for sharing of resources by wireless devices.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Agardh, and further in view of Marupaduga et al. (Patent No.: US 11711737 B1), hereafter referred to as Marupaduga.
In regard to Claim 4, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the controller.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach, before the second Tx opportunity starts, the controller is further configured to determine a power headroom below the threshold, and the deferring of the second Tx opportunity is performed in response to the power headroom not sufficing for a power consumption of utilizing only one SS in the second Tx opportunity.
Marupaduga teaches, before the second Tx opportunity starts, the controller is further configured to determine a power headroom below the threshold, and the deferring of the second Tx opportunity is performed in response to the power headroom not sufficing for a power consumption of utilizing only one SS in the second Tx opportunity (the uplink usage requirement of wireless device 130 meets a threshold and/or the power headroom is below a threshold, and preventing or delaying a handover of the wireless device 130 to access nodes, Col. 5, lines 38-45, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Marupaduga with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Marupaduga provides a technique for delaying the time of a communication connection when a power headroom is below a threshold, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit a time delay of a transmission opportunity in response to determining that a power headroom of a terminal is below a threshold and that may negatively impact wireless transmissions.
In regard to Claim 14, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the method.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach before the second Tx opportunity starts, determining, by the transmitter, a power headroom below the threshold; wherein the deferring of the second Tx opportunity is performed in response to the power headroom not sufficing for a power consumption of utilizing only one SS in the second Tx opportunity.
Marupaduga teaches before the second Tx opportunity starts, determining, by the transmitter, a power headroom below the threshold; wherein the deferring of the second Tx opportunity is performed in response to the power headroom not sufficing for a power consumption of utilizing only one SS in the second Tx opportunity (the uplink usage requirement of wireless device 130 meets a threshold and/or the power headroom is below a threshold, and preventing or delaying a handover of the wireless device 130 to access nodes, Col. 5, lines 38-45, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Marupaduga with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Marupaduga provides a technique for delaying the time of a communication connection when a power headroom is below a threshold, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit a time delay of a transmission opportunity in response to determining that a power headroom of a terminal is below a threshold and that may negatively impact wireless transmissions.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Agardh, and further in view of Gou et al. (Pub. No.: US 20230039461 A1), hereafter referred to as Gou.
In regard to Claim 5, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the first Tx opportunity.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the aborting of the first Tx opportunity is performed in response to data traffic in the first Tx opportunity having a lower priority than data traffic in the second Tx opportunity.
Gou teaches the aborting of the first Tx opportunity is performed in response to data traffic in the first Tx opportunity having a lower priority than data traffic in the second Tx opportunity (As shown in FIG. 5, in a case where the first uplink transmission (low priority) overlaps with the second uplink transmission (high priority) in the time domain, time domain symbols of the first uplink transmission is wholly or partially cancelled, Para. 46, FIG. 5. The sequence of the third uplink transmission and the second uplink transmission scheduled by the DCI is consistent with the sequence of transmission opportunities, Para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gou with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Gou provides a technique for cancelling lower priority transmissions involving transmission opportunities, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to ensure that a transmission of a transmission opportunity is cancelled to yield to a transmission of higher priority.
In regard to Claim 15, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the first Tx opportunity.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the aborting of the first Tx opportunity is performed in response to data traffic in the first Tx opportunity having a lower priority than data traffic in the second Tx opportunity.
Gou teaches the aborting of the first Tx opportunity is performed in response to data traffic in the first Tx opportunity having a lower priority than data traffic in the second Tx opportunity (As shown in FIG. 5, in a case where the first uplink transmission (low priority) overlaps with the second uplink transmission (high priority) in the time domain, time domain symbols of the first uplink transmission is wholly or partially cancelled, Para. 46, FIG. 5. The sequence of the third uplink transmission and the second uplink transmission scheduled by the DCI is consistent with the sequence of transmission opportunities, Para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gou with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Gou provides a technique for cancelling lower priority transmissions involving transmission opportunities, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to ensure that a transmission of a transmission opportunity is cancelled to yield to a transmission of higher priority.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Agardh, and further in view of Behnamfar et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210345238 A1), hereafter referred to as Behnamfar.
In regard to Claim 6, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the controller.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the threshold is configured for thermal throttling of the controller.
Behnamfar teaches the threshold is configured for thermal throttling of the controller (one or more power management stages can comprise one or more of the following techniques associated with a restricted NR mode: (b) employing a reduced number of spatial streams, Para. 68. Power management stage can be based on a first threshold value for the power status (e.g., first temperature, etc.), Para. 77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gou with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Gou provides a technique for controlling power of communications through temperature measurements, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit the power of wireless transmissions to be controlled based on the temperature impacted by the power of the wireless transmissions performed by the devices.
In regard to Claim 16, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the method.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the threshold is configured for 2 thermal throttling of a controller of the transmitter.
Behnamfar teaches the threshold is configured for 2 thermal throttling of a controller of the transmitter (one or more power management stages can comprise one or more of the following techniques associated with a restricted NR mode: (b) employing a reduced number of spatial streams, Para. 68. Power management stage can be based on a first threshold value for the power status (e.g., first temperature, etc.), Para. 77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gou with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Gou provides a technique for controlling power of communications through temperature measurements, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit the power of wireless transmissions to be controlled based on the temperature impacted by the power of the wireless transmissions performed by the devices.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Agardh, and further in view of Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (Pub. No.: US 20210076269 A1), hereafter referred to as Awoniyi-Oteri.
In regard to Claim 7, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the transmitter.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the transmitter is a Wireless-Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Station (STA) operating in a non-Access Point (AP) mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi AP.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches the transmitter is a Wireless-Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Station (STA) operating in a non-Access Point (AP) mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi AP (with reference to FIG. 3, at 405, base station 105-e and UE 115-c may establish a first communication link, Para. 141, FIG. 4. The described techniques may be applicable to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 (Wi-Fi), Para. 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Awoniyi-Oteri with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Awoniyi-Oteri provides a technique for conducting wireless communications that is applicable to various protocol such as Wi-Fi, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit devices to conduct wireless communications through Wi-Fi.
In regard to Claim 8, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the transmitter.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the transmitter is a Wi-Fi STA operating in an AP mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches the transmitter is a Wi-Fi STA operating in an AP mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA (base station 105-e may re-transmit the packet to base station 105-f at 445. For example, base station 105-e may forward the packet (e.g., the second message) to base station 105-f over a wireless backhaul link, Para. 145, FIG. 4. The described techniques may be applicable to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 (Wi-Fi), Para. 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Awoniyi-Oteri with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Awoniyi-Oteri provides a technique for conducting wireless communications that is applicable to various protocol such as Wi-Fi, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit devices to conduct wireless communications through Wi-Fi.
In regard to Claim 9, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the transmitter.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the transmitter is a Wi-Fi AP, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches the transmitter is a Wi-Fi AP, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA (with reference to FIG. 3, at 405, base station 105-e and UE 115-c may establish a first communication link, Para. 141, FIG. 4. The described techniques may be applicable to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 (Wi-Fi), Para. 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Awoniyi-Oteri with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Awoniyi-Oteri provides a technique for conducting wireless communications that is applicable to various protocol such as Wi-Fi, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit devices to conduct wireless communications through Wi-Fi.
In regard to Claim 17, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the transmitter.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the transmitter is a Wireless-Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Station (STA) operating in a non-Access Point (AP) mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi AP.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches the transmitter is a Wireless-Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Station (STA) operating in a non-Access Point (AP) mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi AP (with reference to FIG. 3, at 405, base station 105-e and UE 115-c may establish a first communication link, Para. 141, FIG. 4. The described techniques may be applicable to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 (Wi-Fi), Para. 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Awoniyi-Oteri with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Awoniyi-Oteri provides a technique for conducting wireless communications that is applicable to various protocol such as Wi-Fi, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit devices to conduct wireless communications through Wi-Fi.
In regard to Claim 18, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the transmitter.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the transmitter is a Wi-Fi STA operating in an AP mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches the transmitter is a Wi-Fi STA operating in an AP mode, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA (base station 105-e may re-transmit the packet to base station 105-f at 445. For example, base station 105-e may forward the packet (e.g., the second message) to base station 105-f over a wireless backhaul link, Para. 145, FIG. 4. The described techniques may be applicable to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 (Wi-Fi), Para. 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Awoniyi-Oteri with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Awoniyi-Oteri provides a technique for conducting wireless communications that is applicable to various protocol such as Wi-Fi, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit devices to conduct wireless communications through Wi-Fi.
In regard to Claim 19, as presented in the rejection of Claim 11, Sato in view of Agardh teaches the transmitter.
Sato in view of Agardh fails to teach the transmitter is a Wi-Fi AP, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA.
Awoniyi-Oteri teaches the transmitter is a Wi-Fi AP, and the receiver is a Wi-Fi STA (with reference to FIG. 3, at 405, base station 105-e and UE 115-c may establish a first communication link, Para. 141, FIG. 4. The described techniques may be applicable to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 (Wi-Fi), Para. 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Awoniyi-Oteri with the teachings of Sato in view of Agardh since Awoniyi-Oteri provides a technique for conducting wireless communications that is applicable to various protocol such as Wi-Fi, which can be introduced into the system of Sato in view of Agardh to permit devices to conduct wireless communications through Wi-Fi.
Response to Arguments
I. New Citations of References Responsive to the Amendment
Sato teaches in Para. 133 and in FIG. 5, terminal device 20 includes a transmitting unit 104, and this is substantively the same as An apparatus, comprising: a transmitter of Claim 1.
In addition, Sato teaches in Para. 133 and in FIG. 5, transmitting unit 104 includes a radio transmitting unit 1050 in relation to one frame is composed of 10 slots and one slot is composed of 14 OFDM symbols (Para. 99, FIG. 2), and this is substantively the same as a first radio transceiver, supporting a first number of Spatial Streams (SS) and a second radio transceiver, supporting a second number of SS of Claim 1. The examiner notes the limitations of Claim 1 do not require that a first radio transceiver and a second radio transceiver are always different and separate radio transceivers. In other words, the limitations of Claim 1 do not preclude a first radio transceiver and a second radio transceiver from being the same radio transceiver.
II. Arguments for the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 11 of the Remarks presents the argument that For instance, for the claimed first and second radio transceivers, the Office refers to a terminal device. However, the terminal device 20 of Sato is not disclosed as comprising a first radio transceiver, supporting a first number of Spatial Streams (SS) for a first Transmission (Tx) opportunity of wireless transmission to a receive AND a second radio transceiver, supporting a second number of SS for a second Tx opportunity of wireless transmission to the receiver, wherein the first Tx opportunity starts earlier than the second Tx opportunity. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes the limitations of Claim 1 do not require that a first radio transceiver and a second radio transceiver are always different and separate radio transceivers. In other words, the limitations of Claim 1 do not preclude a first radio transceiver and a second radio transceiver from being the same radio transceiver. As a result, a radio transmitting unit 1050 of Sato utilized with respect to transmission of one frame composed of 10 slots and one slot is composed of 14 OFDM symbols (Para. 99, FIG. 2), is substantively the same as a first radio transceiver, supporting a first number of Spatial Streams (SS) and a second radio transceiver, supporting a second number of SS of Claim 1.
Pages 11-12 of the Remarks present the argument that Additionally, Applicant submits that the Office has erred as a matter of law with regard to the claimed first number of Spatial Streams (SS) and second number of SS. … Given MPEP 2111.01, Applicant notes the following example excerpts (using all or partial portions from paragraphs cited below) from the specification: … [0004] ...For example, IEEE 802.11n supports Multiple Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) which is a technique for multiplying the capacity of a radio link using multiple transmission and receiving antennas to form multiple Spatial Streams (SS) to exploit multipath propagation. Later in IEEE 802.11ac, Multi-User (MU) transmission is supported, which uses spatial degrees of freedom via a MU-MIMO scheme in a downlink ( DL) direction from an Access Point (AP) to Stations (STAs)... . This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, features of the Specification cannot be read into the claims. If there are clarifying features of the Specification concerning MIMO of IEEE 802.11n and MU-MIMO of IEEE 802.11ac with respect to Spatial Streams that are not taught by Sato and Agardh, these clarifying features are not positively recited in the language of Claim 1. Adding the word “Spatial” before the word “stream” does not require features of MIMO of IEEE 802.11n or MU-MIMO of IEEE 802.11ac to be read into Claim 1.
Page 13 of the Remarks presents the argument that In contrast, the Office interpretation uses OFDM symbols from differently located terminal devices, which is faulty on at least two accounts. First, there is not a single mention of OFDM symbols in Applicant's specification, so it cannot reasonably be alleged that the specification serves as a “glossary” for the Office interpretation. This argument misapprehends the rejection of Claim 1, and is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 presents a series of Slots of Sato, each composed of a series of OFDM symbols, as teaching Spatial Streams of Claim 1. The limitations of Claim 1 do not clearly exclude a series of OFDM symbols within a Slot of Sato from teaching a type of “Spatial Stream” of Claim 1, and the limitations of Claim 1 do not clearly exclude a series of Slots each composed of OFDM symbols of Sato from teaching a type of “Spatial Streams” of Claim 1. If there are clarifying features of the Specification concerning Spatial Streams that exclude Slots composed of OFDM symbols of Sato, these clarifying features are not positively recited in the language of Claim 1.
A series of Slots each composed of OFDM symbols from a terminal device of Sato, is different and separate from the slots of a different terminal device in a different location in space within coverage 10a of base station device 10. As a result, the series of Slots each composed of OFDM symbols from the terminal device of Sato, is substantively the same as Spatial Streams of Claim 1.
Pages 13-14 of the Remarks present the argument that Secondly, the Office uses the different spatial locations of two different terminal devices, whereas the claim recites the spatial streams from a transmitter having a first transceiver and a second transceiver, not two separate and independent terminal devices. This argument misapprehends the rejection of Claim 1, and is not persuasive. The different spatial locations between two different terminal devices of Sato show that their respective transmissions have different spatial characteristics. A terminal device of Sato provides a transmission of Slots, each composed of OFDM symbols, that has spatial characteristics different from a transmission of a different terminal device within coverage 10a of base station device 10, and as a result, the Slots transmitted from the terminal device of Sato are substantively the same as Spatial Streams of Claim 1.
Page 14 of the Remarks presents the argument that The Office interpretation clearly does not adopt an interpretation that is consistent with the specification, which is an interpretation that corresponds to how the invention is described in the specification. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that, although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, features of the Specification cannot be read into the claims. If there are clarifying features of the Specification concerning MIMO of IEEE 802.11n and MU-MIMO of IEEE 802.11ac with respect to Spatial Streams that are not taught by Sato and Agardh, these clarifying features are not positively recited in the language of Claim 1. Adding the word “Spatial” before the word “stream” does not require features of MIMO of IEEE 802.11n or MU-MIMO of IEEE 802.11ac to be read into Claim 1.
Page 15 of the Remarks presents the argument that FIG. 1 “schematically illustrates nodes and communication links between the nodes according to various examples” (see, e.g., paragraph [0017], and FIG. 3 “schematically illustrates TTRs and a balance of a budget of an associated DC restriction according to various examples”, neither of which disclose or suggests anything about wherein there is no deferring or aborting in response to the power consumption of SS utilization, in the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities, not exceeding the threshold. This argument is not persuasive. Agardh teaches in cited Para. 37: “if the average power exceeds a threshold, the node attempting to access the spectrum may postpone transmission by a back-off time duration” (emphasis added). Agardh then teaches in cited Para. 61: “For the transmission intervals 201-203, the respective LBT procedure 250 succeed (otherwise the AP 101 would not transmit). For example, a respective spectral power density may remain below a predefined threshold” (emphasis added). This shows that when a spectral density of Agardh exceeds a threshold, a transmission is postponed by a back-off time duration, but when a spectral density is below a threshold, a transmission is performed with no postponement by a back-off time duration, and this is substantively the same as there is no deferring in response to the power consumption of SS utilization not exceeding the threshold of Claim 1.
Page 16 of the Remarks presents the argument that Even assuming arguendo the underlined immediately above discloses or suggests “where a planned transmission of AP 101 is maintained when a respective spectral power density remains below a predefined threshold”, the spectral power density does not disclose or suggest power consumption of SS utilization, in the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities, not exceeding the threshold. This argument is not persuasive. Agardh teaches in cited Para. 41: “it may be possible to share the TTRs between the first node and the second node” (emphasis added). The transmit time resources (TTRs) of Agardh are substantively the same as transmit Tx opportunities of Claim 1, and the sharing of multiple TTRs between a first node and a second node of Agardh is substantively the same as the use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities of Claim 1.
Page 16 of the Remarks presents the argument that Indeed, the power spectral density may be simply the current transmission of one of the nodes. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites: “the transmitter comprising: a first radio transceiver, supporting a first number of Spatial Streams (SS) for a first Transmission (Tx) opportunity of wireless transmission to a receiver; a second radio transceiver, supporting a second number of SS for a second Tx opportunity of wireless transmission to the receiver, wherein the first Tx opportunity starts earlier than the second Tx opportunity; and a controller, configured to determine whether power consumption of SS utilization in the first and second Tx opportunities exceeds a threshold … deferring the second Tx opportunity until the first Tx opportunity ends” (emphasis added). Claim 1 recites transceivers supporting respective Spatial Streams, which are for respective Transmission opportunities, but Claim 1 does not clearly recite that the second radio transceiver is actually performing a transmission of Spatial Streams for the second Tx opportunity. Although the second radio transceiver is supporting a second number of SS for a second Tx opportunity, and could possibly be transmitting the second number of SS for the second Tx opportunity, Claim 1 does not explicitly require that the second number of SS is actually being transmitted in the second Tx opportunity by the second radio transceiver.
As a result, the language of Claim 1 permits the possibility that only the first radio transceiver is actually transmitting a first number of Spatial Streams that it supports for the first Transmission (Tx) opportunity, while the second radio transceiver is only supporting (without transmitting) the second number of SS for the second Tx opportunity, and then deferring the second Tx opportunity until the first Tx opportunity ends.
Page 16 of the Remarks presents the argument that Paragraph [0037] of Agardh discloses in part (emphasis added) “channel sensing may be employed to determine an average power on the spectrum; if the average power exceeds a threshold, the node attempting to access the spectrum may postpone transmission by a back-off time duration”, which may simply be the average of a single node, which incidentally, is not discloses as providing spatial streams as that term is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art based on Applicant's specification. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that Agardh never explicitly teaches that a respective spectral power density is confined to a single node, and Agardh never explicitly teaches that a respective spectral power density may simply be the average of a single node. FIG. 1 of Agardh shows multiple nodes 101-104 within network 100, and this indicates that a respective spectral power density of Agardh is formed from the operation of the multiple nodes 101-104 within network 100, and there is no teaching of Agardh clearly indicating otherwise.
Pages 16-17 of the Remarks present the argument that Notably, paragraph [0061] of Agardh, as emphasized above, discloses in part that “The purpose of the LBT process 250 is to avoid collision between two nodes 101-104 attempting to access the spectrum contemporaneously”. It stands to reason that, should there be two nodes attempting access, then LBT is intended to avoid that circumstance of simultaneous Tx opportunities. This argument is not persuasive. FIG. 1 of Agardh shows multiple nodes 101-104 within network 100, and this indicates that a respective spectral power density of Agardh is formed from the operation of the multiple nodes 101-104 within network 100, and there is no teaching of Agardh clearly indicating otherwise. Although LBT may intend to avoid collision to between two nodes, LBT is not limited to two nodes, and LBT of Agardh will also avoid collision among all nodes 101-104 operating within network 100.
Page 17 of the Remarks presents the argument that The back-off procedure appears to be an attempt to try again to see if the LBT process results in a success or not. In other words, to the extent the Office is treating the transmissions of two nodes as Tx opportunities, it is clear that Agardh is designed to avoid violations of LBT. This argument misapprehends the rejection of Claim 1, and is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 is not treating the transmissions of two nodes as Tx opportunities. The rejection of Claim 1 presents transmit time resources (TTRs) of Agardh as teaching transmit Tx opportunities of Claim 1, and the sharing of multiple TTRs between a first node and a second node of Agardh is substantively the same as the use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities of Claim 1. The examiner notes that the limitations of Claim 1 do not clearly exclude involvement of LBT processes.
Page 18 of the Remarks presents the argument that FIG. 11 is, like all other examples of embodiments in Sato, an example of selecting of only one of the transmit opportunities for transmission. This argument is not persuasive. Sato teaches in Para. 176 and FIG. 11: “As described above, according to the present implementation, when performing uplink data transmission using a plurality of configured uplink grants in one serving cell or one BWP, even when the transmission opportunities of the respective configured uplink grants conflict with each other, transmission can be performed appropriately” (emphasis added). This indicates that transmissions are performed in both CG(A) Transmission opportunity and CG(B) Transmission opportunity in FIG. 11 of Sato.
Page 18 of the Remarks presents the argument that Further, as explained above, the embodiments of Agardh do not even allow for simultaneous transmissions, as evidenced by the use of the LBT process (to the extent LBT is relied upon). This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not clearly require simultaneous transmissions. Although Claim 1 requires radio transceivers supporting respective numbers of Spatial Streams for respective Transmission opportunities, Claim 1 does not clearly require simultaneous transmissions of respective numbers of Spatial Streams through the respective Transmission opportunities.
Page 19 of the Remarks presents the argument that This mechanism is NOT the same as simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 presents the Sato reference as teaching the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities of Claim 1.
Page 19 of the Remarks presents the argument that Even assuming arguendo Agardh discloses the AP transmitting when the spectral power does not exceed a threshold, the claimed power consumption is in the context of simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 presents the Sato reference as teaching the simultaneous use of the first and second transmit Tx opportunities of Claim 1, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would see that the spectral power density threshold process of Agardh can be introduced into the arrangement of Sato to determine conflicting transmission opportunities by comparing a spectral power density with a threshold.
Pages 19-20 of the Remarks present the argument that Further, Agardh does not disclose spatial streams, and hence does not disclose in response to the power consumption of SS utilization not exceeding the threshold. This argument is not persuasive. A communication link in FIG. 1 of Agardh is substantively the same as a Spatial Stream of Claim 1, where FIG. 1 of Agardh shows multiple UEs 102-104 that each have a different location in an area of space near AP 101. As a result, a communication link of a UE that’s respectively located in a space near an AP of Agardh, is substantively the same as a Spatial Stream of Claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA Y SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30am-7pm ET.
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, CHIRAG G SHAH can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
Joshua Smith
/J.S./
11-1-2025
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights