DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Arguments/REMARKS correspondence submitted on 02/04/2026.
Claims 1, 6, & 36-37 are pending and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/REMARKS, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, & 36-37 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further search and inquiry.
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.
Claims 1, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordaychik (US20190363843) in view of Jung et al (US20190261281), in further view of MolavianJazi et al (US20200229104A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gordaychik teaches a method performed by a network device of, comprising:
generating downlink control information (DCI) including a first transmission power control (TPC) command value and a second TPC command value ([0057], [0060]-[0062], discloses that a DCI format may include “different TPC values”, e.g. DCI format 2_6 may include different TPC values and/or different UL group cancellation values; this explicitly teaches inclusion of multiple TPC values within a single DCI format; further description of multiple DCI formats (3_x, 4_x) can each include different TPC command structures and parameters, and that any DCI format may incorporate any scheduling parameter as a component, thereby encompassing inclusion of multiple TPC commands in one DCI structure; further teaches use of two TPC commands…provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions” that may be accumulated, evidencing handling multiple TPC command values together to form an effective transmission control—jointly encoding or utilizing multiple TPC values associated with one control signaling event); and
transmitting, to the terminal device, the DCI including the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value ([0057], [0060]-[0062], discloses that a DCI format may include “different TPC values”, e.g. DCI format 2_6 may include different TPC values and/or different UL group cancellation values; this explicitly teaches inclusion of multiple TPC values within a single DCI format; further description of multiple DCI formats (3_x, 4_x) can each include different TPC command structures and parameters, and that any DCI format may incorporate any scheduling parameter as a component, thereby encompassing inclusion of multiple TPC commands in one DCI structure; further teaches use of two TPC commands…provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions” that may be accumulated, evidencing handling multiple TPC command values together to form an effective transmission control—jointly encoding or utilizing multiple TPC values associated with one control signaling event),
wherein one of the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value to be applied for one of a plurality of power control adjustment states associated with Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmissions scheduled by the DCI ([0061]-[0062], discloses that TPC values can be accumulated to form a transmit power level command and are related to uplink shared channel transmissions (PUSCH); it also states the UE may use TPC commands for determining transmission parameters such as repetition factor—which corresponds to “power control adjustment l”).
But Gordaychik fails to explicitly teach power control adjustment.
However, Jung provides this teaching for power control adjustment ([0026]-[0028], [0117]-[0120] [Wingdings font/0xE0] (i) DCIs that carry group/multiple TPC commands for indicated TCI/SRI/SSB/DM-RS (DCI context) to power control parameter sets/states (OL/PL/CL indices {j, qd, l}) used for PUSCH ([0041]-[0042], [0111]-[0116], [0082]); these passages directly support the limitation that at least one of the two TPC command values is applied for at least one of the plurality of power control adjustment states associated with PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Jung independently teaches that group TPC commands for PUSCH can be carried in a single DCI (DCI format 2_2/2_3) and that a UE is configured by higher layers (or by DCI/activation context such as TCI/SRI/DM-RS quasi-co-location) with mappings to specific power-control parameter sets (OL/PL/CL indices) {j, qd, l}, which are applied to PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teaches: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while Jung supplies the contextual mapping and operational need to apply sets, or different processing timelines). Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state: one would naturally encode multiple TPCs in the DCI and have the UE apply at least one of those TPC values to the PC parameters set indicated by the DCI context (Jung), yielding the claimed behavior without inventive step beyond the ordinary skill in the art.
However, Gordaychik and Jung fails to teach but MolavianJazi teaches wherein one of the first TPC command and second TPC command to be applied is determining, based on a sounding reference signal resource indicator (SRI) field in the DCI ([0041], [0049], teaches that where multiple TPC command values are associated with UL transmissions, the UE uses the SRI field included in DCI format 0_1 to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process index I, and the TPC command value δPUSCH is applied for that determined (multiple TPC command values, indexed by I); because I may be one of a first TPC command value and a second TPC command value; if the UE is provided SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl, the UE obstains a mapping between a set of values for the SRI field in DCI format 0_1 and the I value(s) provided by sri-PUSCH-ClosedLoopIndex further incorporating in express text TS 38.213)).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Jung independently teaches that group TPC commands for PUSCH can be carried in a single DCI (DCI format 2_2/2_3) and that a UE is configured by higher layers (or by DCI/activation context such as TCI/SRI/DM-RS quasi-co-location) with mappings to specific power-control parameter sets (OL/PL/CL indices) {j, qd, l}, which are applied to PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI. Lastly, MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine these teachings: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state.
Regarding claim 36, Gordaychik teaches a network device, comprising:
a processor ([0227] processor) configured to generate downlink control information (DCI) including a first transmission power control (TPC) command value and a second TPC command value ([0057], [0060]-[0062], discloses that a DCI format may include “different TPC values”, e.g. DCI format 2_6 may include different TPC values and/or different UL group cancellation values; this explicitly teaches inclusion of multiple TPC values within a single DCI format; further description of multiple DCI formats (3_x, 4_x) can each include different TPC command structures and parameters, and that any DCI format may incorporate any scheduling parameter as a component, thereby encompassing inclusion of multiple TPC commands in one DCI structure; further teaches use of two TPC commands…provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions” that may be accumulated, evidencing handling multiple TPC command values together to form an effective transmission control—jointly encoding or utilizing multiple TPC values associated with one control signaling event); and
a transmitter ([0028], Abstract, transmitter) configured to transmit, the DCI including to the terminal device, the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value ([0057], [0060]-[0062], discloses that a DCI format may include “different TPC values”, e.g. DCI format 2_6 may include different TPC values and/or different UL group cancellation values; this explicitly teaches inclusion of multiple TPC values within a single DCI format; further description of multiple DCI formats (3_x, 4_x) can each include different TPC command structures and parameters, and that any DCI format may incorporate any scheduling parameter as a component, thereby encompassing inclusion of multiple TPC commands in one DCI structure; further teaches use of two TPC commands…provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions” that may be accumulated, evidencing handling multiple TPC command values together to form an effective transmission control—jointly encoding or utilizing multiple TPC values associated with one control signaling event),
wherein one of the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value to be applied for one of a plurality of power control adjustment states associated with Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmissions scheduled by the DCI ([0061]-[0062], discloses that TPC values can be accumulated to form a transmit power level command and are related to uplink shared channel transmissions (PUSCH); it also states the UE may use TPC commands for determining transmission parameters such as repetition factor—which corresponds to “power control adjustment states”).
But Gordaychik fails to fully disclose power control adjustment.
However, Jung provides this teaching for power control adjustment ([0026]-[0028], [0117]-[0120] [Wingdings font/0xE0] (i) DCIs that carry group/multiple TPC commands for indicated TCI/SRI/SSB/DM-RS (DCI context) to power control parameter sets/states (OL/PL/CL indices {j, qd, l}) used for PUSCH ([0041]-[0042], [0111]-[0116], [0082]); these passages directly support the limitation that at least one of the two TPC command values is applied for at least one of the plurality of power control adjustment states associated with PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Jung independently teaches that group TPC commands for PUSCH can be carried in a single DCI (DCI format 2_2/2_3) and that a UE is configured by higher layers (or by DCI/activation context such as TCI/SRI/DM-RS quasi-co-location) with mappings to specific power-control parameter sets (OL/PL/CL indices) {j, qd, l}, which are applied to PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teaches: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while Jung supplies the contextual mapping and operational need to apply sets, or different processing timelines). Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state: one would naturally encode multiple TPCs in the DCI and have the UE apply at least one of those TPC values to the PC parameters set indicated by the DCI context (Jung), yielding the claimed behavior without inventive step beyond the ordinary skill in the art.
However, Gordaychik and Jung fails to teach but MolavianJazi teaches wherein one of the first TPC command and second TPC command to be applied is determining, based on a sounding reference signal resource indicator (SRI) field in the DCI ([0041], [0049], teaches that where multiple TPC command values are associated with UL transmissions, the UE uses the SRI field included in DCI format 0_1 to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process index I, and the TPC command value δPUSCH is applied for that determined (multiple TPC command values, indexed by I); because I may be one of a first TPC command value and a second TPC command value; if the UE is provided SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl, the UE obstains a mapping between a set of values for the SRI field in DCI format 0_1 and the I value(s) provided by sri-PUSCH-ClosedLoopIndex further incorporating in express text TS 38.213)).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Jung independently teaches that group TPC commands for PUSCH can be carried in a single DCI (DCI format 2_2/2_3) and that a UE is configured by higher layers (or by DCI/activation context such as TCI/SRI/DM-RS quasi-co-location) with mappings to specific power-control parameter sets (OL/PL/CL indices) {j, qd, l}, which are applied to PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI. Lastly, MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine these teachings: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state.
Regarding claim 37, Gordaychik teaches a terminal device, comprising:
a receiver ([0022] receiver) configured to receive, from a network device, downlink control information (DCI) including a first transmission power control (TPC) command value and a second TPC command value ([0057], [0060]-[0062], discloses that a DCI format may include “different TPC values”, e.g. DCI format 2_6 may include different TPC values and/or different UL group cancellation values; this explicitly teaches inclusion of multiple TPC values within a single DCI format; further description of multiple DCI formats (3_x, 4_x) can each include different TPC command structures and parameters, and that any DCI format may incorporate any scheduling parameter as a component, thereby encompassing inclusion of multiple TPC commands in one DCI structure; further teaches use of two TPC commands…provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions” that may be accumulated, evidencing handling multiple TPC command values together to form an effective transmission control—jointly encoding or utilizing multiple TPC values associated with one control signaling event);
a processor ([0227] processor) configured to apply at least one of the first TPC command and the second TPC command for at least one of plurality of power control adjustment states associated with Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmissions scheduled by the DCI ([0057], [0060]-[0062], discloses that a DCI format may include “different TPC values”, e.g. DCI format 2_6 may include different TPC values and/or different UL group cancellation values; this explicitly teaches inclusion of multiple TPC values within a single DCI format; further description of multiple DCI formats (3_x, 4_x) can each include different TPC command structures and parameters, and that any DCI format may incorporate any scheduling parameter as a component, thereby encompassing inclusion of multiple TPC commands in one DCI structure; further teaches use of two TPC commands…provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions” that may be accumulated, evidencing handling multiple TPC command values together to form an effective transmission control—jointly encoding or utilizing multiple TPC values associated with one control signaling event);
wherein the terminal device is configured to determine power of the PUSCH transmissions ([0058], [0062], Preferably, as power is reduced via TPC…power is increased…and “A UE may accumulate TPC values to form a transmit power level command”; A modified transmission power control method may be used to transmit data; showing the UE determines transmission power for PUSCH based on received TPC commands. The determination is described).
But Gordaychik fails to fully teach power control adjustment.
However, Jung provides this teaching for power control adjustment ([0026]-[0028], [0117]-[0120] [Wingdings font/0xE0] (i) DCIs that carry group/multiple TPC commands for indicated TCI/SRI/SSB/DM-RS (DCI context) to power control parameter sets/states (OL/PL/CL indices {j, qd, l}) used for PUSCH ([0041]-[0042], [0111]-[0116], [0082]); these passages directly support the limitation that at least one of the two TPC command values is applied for at least one of the plurality of power control adjustment states associated with PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Jung independently teaches that group TPC commands for PUSCH can be carried in a single DCI (DCI format 2_2/2_3) and that a UE is configured by higher layers (or by DCI/activation context such as TCI/SRI/DM-RS quasi-co-location) with mappings to specific power-control parameter sets (OL/PL/CL indices) {j, qd, l}, which are applied to PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teaches: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while Jung supplies the contextual mapping and operational need to apply sets, or different processing timelines). Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state: one would naturally encode multiple TPCs in the DCI and have the UE apply at least one of those TPC values to the PC parameters set indicated by the DCI context (Jung), yielding the claimed behavior without inventive step beyond the ordinary skill in the art.
However, Gordaychik fails to teach but MolavianJazi teaches wherein one of the first TPC command and second TPC command to be applied is determining, based on a sounding reference signal resource indicator (SRI) field in the DCI, one of the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value ([0041], [0049], teaches that where multiple TPC command values are associated with UL transmissions, the UE uses the SRI field included in DCI format 0_1 to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process index I, and the TPC command value δPUSCH is applied for that determined (multiple TPC command values, indexed by I); because I may be one of a first TPC command value and a second TPC command value; if the UE is provided SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl, the UE obstains a mapping between a set of values for the SRI field in DCI format 0_1 and the I value(s) provided by sri-PUSCH-ClosedLoopIndex further incorporating in express text TS 38.213)).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Jung independently teaches that group TPC commands for PUSCH can be carried in a single DCI (DCI format 2_2/2_3) and that a UE is configured by higher layers (or by DCI/activation context such as TCI/SRI/DM-RS quasi-co-location) with mappings to specific power-control parameter sets (OL/PL/CL indices) {j, qd, l}, which are applied to PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI. Lastly, MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine these teachings: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordaychik (US20190363843) in view of MolavianJazi et al (US2020022910A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gordaychik teaches a method performed by a terminal device, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network device, downlink control information (DCI) including a first transmission power control (TPC) command value and a second TPC command value ([0057], [0062], TPC command information may also be provided in a DCI format; for example, if two TPC commands are provided prior to two PUSCH transmissions, both TPC commands may be accumulated before transmitting, —disclosure of DCI including multiple TPC commands (two) and supports receipt of first and second TPC commands within or related to DCI);
applying the one of the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value for one of a plurality of power control adjustment states associated with Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmissions scheduled by the DCI ([0058], [0062], A UE may accumulate TPC values to form a transmit power level command…For example, if two TPC commands are provided…both TPC commands may be accumulated before transmitting…The UE may alternatively delay the second TPC command until after transmitting the first PUSCH; A TPC may be signaled and multiplied by or added to a value which represents the channel prediction—description the application of one or more TPC commands (accumulating or delaying) and explicitly ties this behavior to PUSCH transmissions; adjustment states are implied by applying commands selectively and modifying power across different scheduled transmissions); and
determining power of the PUSCH transmissions ([0058], [0062], Preferably, as power is reduced via TPC…power is increased…and “A UE may accumulate TPC values to form a transmit power level command”; A modified transmission power control method may be used to transmit data; showing the UE determines transmission power for PUSCH based on received TPC commands. The determination is described).
However, Gordaychik fails to teach but MolavianJazi teaches determining, based on a sounding reference signal resource indicator (SRI) field in the DCI, one of the first TPC command value and the second TPC command value ([0041], [0049], teaches that where multiple TPC command values are associated with UL transmissions, the UE uses the SRI field included in DCI format 0_1 to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process index I, and the TPC command value δPUSCH is applied for that determined (multiple TPC command values, indexed by I); because I may be one of a first TPC command value and a second TPC command value; if the UE is provided SRI-PUSCH-PowerControl, the UE obstains a mapping between a set of values for the SRI field in DCI format 0_1 and the I value(s) provided by sri-PUSCH-ClosedLoopIndex further incorporating in express text TS 38.213)).
Gordaychik teaches that DCI formats can include multiple TPC values and explicitly contemplates cases where more than one TPC command is present and may be accumulated or applied across UL transmissions ([0057], [0060]-[0062]). Lastly, MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine these teachings: Gordaychik supplies a clear mechanism for encoding multiple TPC command values within a single DCI and describes how multiple TPCs can be accumulated/applied, while MolavianJazi teaches that a UE uses the SRI field in DCI to determine the corresponding closed-loop power control process/index, thereby determining which TPC command value applies for the uplink transmission. Combining them is a straightforward and expected design choice to reduce signaling overhead and enable DCI-based selection/application of TPCs to the appropriate PUSCH power-control state.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights