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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 3/19/2026.
Claims 32-36 have been added.
Claims 1-3,7-10,15,17-19,22-28 and 31-36 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9-11 of the remarks, in regard to the independent claims, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 20230035866 (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Wong US 20240430042 (hereinafter “Wong”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
Neither Wang nor Wong discloses or suggest "semi-static configuration indicated in the RRC message is a channel specific configuration" and "determining to perform either the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for a set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on the semi-static configuration in the RRC message…."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), in [0116], Wong mentions that "the Mux indicator of the target PUCCH for carrying H #5 is enabled (e.g. via RRC configuration or dynamically indicated in DCI #1) which means that the multiplexing configuration specifically for the PUCCH carrying H#5 is configured via higher layer signaling (or semi-statically configured). This teaches "semi-static configuration indicated in the RRC message is a channel specific configuration" and "determining to perform either the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for a set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on the semi-static configuration in the RRC message…."
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 15, 17-19, 22-28, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 20230035866 (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Wong US 20240430042 (hereinafter “Wong”)
As to claim 1, 17, and 25 (claim 1 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 17 and 25):
Wang discloses:
A method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message that indicates a semi-static configuration (“To support intra-UE multiplexing/cancellation between different priorities in step 2, gNB can semi-statically enable this operation by RRC signaling.”, Wang [0162]) for the UE for one of:
intra-UE prioritization for overlapping uplink channels of different priorities, or intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities; (“A configured UE may transmit ‘high’ priority transmission and drop the ‘low’ priority transmission in UL in case of an overlap. However, always dropping ‘low’ priority transmission may be quite detrimental for spectral efficiency and UE perceived throughput for the ‘low’ priority transmission which may potentially carry high payload control information of one or multiple carriers. Hence, solution is necessary for efficient multiplexing of UL transmissions of ‘high’ and ‘low’ priority for a given UE which may provide better flexibility in resource management without sacrificing QoS requirements for either service types much.” Wang [0037])
wherein the semi-static configuration indicated in the RRC message is a channel specific configuration;
determining to perform either the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for a set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on the semi-static configuration in the RRC message and separate from dynamic signaling about a type of collision resolution;
and transmitting an uplink transmission including one or more of the set of overlapping uplink channels based, at least in part, on the semi-static configuration in the RRC message. (“if a UE is configured with semi-static indication of multiplexing, e.g., by RRC signaling, a DCI without the bit field of dynamic indication of multiplexing is treated as an indication of multiplexing. UE cancels a LP PUSCH, and transmits HP PUCCH, if the LP PUSCH is not in response to a DCI. For example, a LP PUSCH is a CG PUSCH.” Wang [0084])
Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the semi-static configuration indicated in the RRC message is a channel specific configuration;
determining to perform either the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for a set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on the semi-static configuration in the RRC message and separate from dynamic signaling about a type of collision resolution;
However, Wong further teaches separate determination for dynamic signaling for collision resolution which includes:
wherein the semi-static configuration indicated in the RRC message is a channel specific configuration; (“The Mux Indicator of the target PUCCH for carrying H #5 is Enabled (e.g. via RRC configuration or dynamically indicated in DCI #1) and so it acts as a target PUCCH for the deferred HARQ-ACKs from the drop L #2 and L #4, as represented by the arrow with the solid line 1214, which have different L1 priority to that of H #5. Therefore, the HARQ-ACKs from L #2 and L #4 are multiplex with that in H #5 and transmitted in the target PUCCH 1250.”, Wong [0116]) (Examiner’s Note: the mux indicator that is specifically for channel H#5 is configured via higher layer signaling which is semi-static)
determining to perform either the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for a set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on the semi-static configuration in the RRC message and separate from dynamic signaling about a type of collision resolution; (“As described above with reference to FIG. 8, prioritization is used to handle intra-UE UL collisions where the Low L1 Priority (LP) PUCCH is dropped when it collides with a High L1 Priority (HP) PUCCH. A PUCCH typically carries HARQ-ACKs for multiple PDSCHs and hence when a PUCCH is dropped due to prioritization, the corresponding PDSCHs may be retransmitted which can consume downlink resources unnecessarily. Recognizing this, in Rel-17, multiplexing of UCIs with different L1 priorities is introduced to avoid dropping of LP HARQ-ACKs.”, Wong [0093]) (“When intra-UE UL transmissions of different L1 priorities collide, whether to perform multiplexing (Rel-17) or prioritization (Rel-16) can be indicated by the gNB. For example, this can be RRC configured and/or dynamically indicated in the DCI. Some potential multiplexing indicator methods are disclosed in our co-pending European patent application number EP 20155210.6 [7].”, Wong [0098]) (“Multiplexing of different L1 priorities configuration for a PUCCH or PUSCH is referred to in the following description as “Multiplexing Indicator” or “Mux Indicator” as described in our co-pending European patent application EP 20155210.6 [7], the content of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. As described in [7], the Mux Indicator can be set to enabled or disabled via RRC configuration or dynamic indicator in the DCI. For SPS, the Mux Indicator can be configured individually using RRC configuration or dynamically via the activation DCI.”, Wong [0105]) (Examiner’s Note: the UE determines to multiplex based on the indicator that is sent via RRC or dynamically via DCI which implies that the determination is separate) (“The Mux Indicator of the target PUCCH for carrying H #5 is Enabled (e.g. via RRC configuration or dynamically indicated in DCI #1) and so it acts as a target PUCCH for the deferred HARQ-ACKs from the drop L #2 and L #4, as represented by the arrow with the solid line 1214, which have different L1 priority to that of H #5. Therefore, the HARQ-ACKs from L #2 and L #4 are multiplex with that in H #5 and transmitted in the target PUCCH 1250.”, Wong [0116]) (Examiner’s Note: the mux indicator that is specifically for channel H#5 is configured via higher layer signaling which is semi-static)
Wang and Wong are analogous because they pertain to handling intra-UE collisions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include separate determination for dynamic signaling for collision resolution as described in Wong into Wang. By modifying the method to include separate determination for dynamic signaling for collision resolution as taught by Wong, the benefits of improved handling of intra-UE collisions (Wong [0105] and Wang [0037]) are achieved.
As to claim 2 and 18 (claim 2 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 18):
Wang discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the RRC message indicates the semi-static configuration (“To support intra-UE multiplexing/cancellation between different priorities in step 2, gNB can semi-statically enable this operation by RRC signaling.”, Wang [0162]) for the intra-UE prioritization for the overlapping uplink channels and the transmitting the uplink transmission includes transmitting a higher priority channel and dropping transmission of a lower priority from the overlapping uplink channels based on the semi-static configuration. ((“A configured UE may transmit ‘high’ priority transmission and drop the ‘low’ priority transmission in UL in case of an overlap. However, always dropping ‘low’ priority transmission may be quite detrimental for spectral efficiency and UE perceived throughput for the ‘low’ priority transmission which may potentially carry high payload control information of one or multiple carriers. Hence, solution is necessary for efficient multiplexing of UL transmissions of ‘high’ and ‘low’ priority for a given UE which may provide better flexibility in resource management without sacrificing QoS requirements for either service types much.” Wang [0037])
As to claim 3 and 19 (claim 3 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 19):
Wang discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the RRC message indicates the semi-static configuration (“To support intra-UE multiplexing/cancellation between different priorities in step 2, gNB can semi-statically enable this operation by RRC signaling.”, Wang [0162]) for the intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels, and the transmitting the uplink transmission includes multiplexing a higher priority channel and a lower priority channel from the overlapping uplink channels based on the semi-static configuration. (“For example, if one HP PUCCH overlaps with more than one LP UL channel, and the dynamic indication for HP PUCCH indicates no multiplexing, UE drops the overlapped LP UL channels. If the dynamic indication for HP PUCCH indicates multiplexing, and the overlapped LP UL channels includes LP PUCCH, UE multiplex LP PUCCH with HP PUCCH according to the indication.” Wang [0163])
As to claim 7 and 22 (claim 7 is the method claim of the apparatus in claim 22):
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of overlapping uplink channels includes a first uplink channel that is RRC configured without a dynamic grant (“PUSCH transmission can be based on dynamic UL grant or without UL grant, e.g., configured grant. PUCCH transmission can be based on dynamic DL assignment or without DL assignment, e.g., PUCCH for SPS PDSCH HARQ-ACK. PUCCH or PUSCH transmission can be of high or low priority”, Wang [0040]) and a second uplink channel having a lower priority than the first uplink channel, the method further comprising: receiving an additional RRC parameter that indicates to: multiplex the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities, or cancel at least one of the set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities, wherein the UE determines to perform either the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for the set of overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on the additional RRC parameter. (“To support intra-UE multiplexing/cancellation between different priorities in step 2, gNB can semi-statically enable this operation by RRC signaling. gNB can also semi-statically enable dynamic indication for enabling/disabling multiplexing between different priorities by RRC signaling.”, Wang [0162]) (“For example, if one HP PUCCH overlaps with more than one LP UL channel, and the dynamic indication for HP PUCCH indicates no multiplexing, UE drops the overlapped LP UL channels.” Wang [0163])
As to claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein the additional RRC parameter is associated with the first uplink channel that is RRC configured without the dynamic grant. (“PUSCH transmission can be based on dynamic UL grant or without UL grant, e.g., configured grant. PUCCH transmission can be based on dynamic DL assignment or without DL assignment, e.g., PUCCH for SPS PDSCH HARQ-ACK. PUCCH or PUSCH transmission can be of high or low priority”, Wang [0040])
As to claim 9 :
The method of claim 8, wherein the additional RRC parameter is a channel specific configuration. (“PUSCH transmission can be based on dynamic UL grant or without UL grant, e.g., configured grant. PUCCH transmission can be based on dynamic DL assignment or without DL assignment, e.g., PUCCH for SPS PDSCH HARQ-ACK. PUCCH or PUSCH transmission can be of high or low priority”, Wang [0040])
As to claim 10:
The method of claim 8, wherein the semi-static configuration is a UE specific configuration. (“if a UE is configured with semi-static indication of multiplexing, e.g., by RRC signaling, a DCI without the bit field of dynamic indication of multiplexing is treated as an indication of multiplexing.”, Wang [0084])
As to claim 15:
Wang discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the RRC message indicates the semi-static configuration for the UE for the intra-UE prioritization for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities or the intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities based on an RRC parameter indicating the intra-UE multiplexing being enabled or not enabled. (“gNB can also semi-statically enable dynamic indication for enabling/disabling multiplexing between different priorities by RRC signaling. If the dynamic indication is configured, UE expects a bit field in DCI can explicitly or implicitly enable/disable multiplexing between different priorities.”, Wang [0162])
As to claim 23:
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 10.
As to claim 24:
Wang discloses:
The apparatus of claim 17, further including: at least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (“The processors 1910 may include, for example, a processor 1912 and a processor 1914.”, Wang [0241])(“The communication resources 1930 may include interconnection or network interface controllers, components, or other suitable devices to communicate with one or more peripheral devices 1904”, Wang [0243]) and configured to receive the RRC message (“To support intra-UE multiplexing/cancellation between different priorities in step 2, gNB can semi-statically enable this operation by RRC signaling.”, Wang [0162]) and transmit the uplink transmission. (“if a UE is configured with semi-static indication of multiplexing, e.g., by RRC signaling, a DCI without the bit field of dynamic indication of multiplexing is treated as an indication of multiplexing. UE cancels a LP PUSCH, and transmits HP PUCCH, if the LP PUSCH is not in response to a DCI. For example, a LP PUSCH is a CG PUSCH.” Wang [0084])
As to claim 26:
Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the network node.
As to claim 27:
Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2 from the perspective of the network node.
As to claim 28:
Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3 from the perspective of the network node.
As to claim 31:
Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein when an RRC parameter associated with multiplexing uplink transmissions with different priorities is enabled in the RRC message, the RRC message indicates that the UE is to perform the intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels of different priorities, and when the RRC parameter is not enabled, the RRC message indicates that the UE is to perform the intra-UE prioritization for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities.
However, Wong further teaches enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein when an RRC parameter associated with multiplexing uplink transmissions with different priorities is enabled in the RRC message, the RRC message indicates that the UE is to perform the intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels of different priorities, and when the RRC parameter is not enabled, the RRC message indicates that the UE is to perform the intra-UE prioritization for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities. (“When intra-UE UL transmissions of different L1 priorities collide, whether to perform multiplexing (Rel-17) or prioritization (Rel-16) can be indicated by the gNB. For example, this can be RRC configured and/or dynamically indicated in the DCI. Some potential multiplexing indicator methods are disclosed in our co-pending European patent application number EP 20155210.6 [7].”, Wong [0098]) (“Multiplexing of different L1 priorities configuration for a PUCCH or PUSCH is referred to in the following description as “Multiplexing Indicator” or “Mux Indicator” as described in our co-pending European patent application EP 20155210.6 [7], the content of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. As described in [7], the Mux Indicator can be set to enabled or disabled via RRC configuration or dynamic indicator in the DCI. For SPS, the Mux Indicator can be configured individually using RRC configuration or dynamically via the activation DCI.”, Wong [0105])
Wang and Wong are analogous because they pertain to handling intra-UE collisions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as described in Wong into Wang. By modifying the method to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as taught by Wong, the benefits of improved handling of intra-UE collisions (Wong [0105] and Wang [0037]) are achieved.
As to claim 32:
Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein each of multiple channels has a separate indication of the semi-static configuration for the one of the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities.
However, Wong further teaches enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein each of multiple channels has a separate indication of the semi-static configuration for the one of the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities. (“The Mux Indicator of the target PUCCH for carrying H #5 is Enabled (e.g. via RRC configuration or dynamically indicated in DCI #1) and so it acts as a target PUCCH for the deferred HARQ-ACKs from the drop L #2 and L #4, as represented by the arrow with the solid line 1214, which have different L1 priority to that of H #5. Therefore, the HARQ-ACKs from L #2 and L #4 are multiplex with that in H #5 and transmitted in the target PUCCH 1250.”, Wong [0116]) (Examiner’s Note: the mux indicator that is specifically for channel H#5 is configured via higher layer signaling which is semi-static)
Wang and Wong are analogous because they pertain to handling intra-UE collisions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as described in Wong into Wang. By modifying the method to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as taught by Wong, the benefits of improved handling of intra-UE collisions (Wong [0105] and Wang [0037]) are achieved.
As to claim 33:
Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 32, wherein the semi-static configuration for the one of the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing is configurable for high priority channels and not configurable for low priority channels.
However, Wong further teaches enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization which includes:
The method of claim 32, wherein the semi-static configuration for the one of the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing is configurable for high priority channels and not configurable for low priority channels. (“In another embodiment, only HP HARQ-ACK can enable UCI multiplexing of different L1 priorities. In this embodiment, only if all HP HARQ-ACKs have Mux Indicator set as Enabled, then only LP HARQ-ACK can be multiplexed into the same PUCCHs. That is the Mux Indicator for LP HARQ-ACK is not utilized.”, Wong [0124]) (Examiner’s Note: the mux indicator for low priority channel is not utilized and only high priority channels can enable UCI multiplexing)
Wang and Wong are analogous because they pertain to handling intra-UE collisions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as described in Wong into Wang. By modifying the method to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as taught by Wong, the benefits of improved handling of intra-UE collisions (Wong [0105] and Wang [0037]) are achieved.
As to claim 34:
Wang discloses:
The method of claim 32, wherein the semi-static configuration for the one of the intra-UE prioritization or the intra-UE multiplexing is configurable for both high priority channels and low priority channels. (“To support intra-UE multiplexing/cancellation between different priorities in step 2, gNB can semi-statically enable this operation by RRC signaling. gNB can also semi-statically enable dynamic indication for enabling/disabling multiplexing between different priorities by RRC signaling.”, Wang [0162]) (Examiner’s Note: the Examiner interpreted this claim as being able to semi-statically configure all HP and LP channels as a whole)
As to claim 35:
Wang discloses:
The method of claim 32, wherein the uplink transmission includes the one or more of the set of overlapping uplink channels based on the semi-static configuration being consistent across each high priority channel of the set of overlapping uplink channels. (“In another example, if a UE is configured with semi-static indication of multiplexing, e.g., by RRC signaling, a DCI without the bit field of dynamic indication of multiplexing is treated as an indication of multiplexing. UE cancels a LP PUSCH, and transmits HP PUCCH, if the LP PUSCH is not in response to a DCI. For example, a LP PUSCH is a CG PUSCH.”, Wang [0084]) (Examiner’s Note: if multiplexing is enabled via semi-static indication, then all HP PUCCHs are transmitted over LP PUSCH which means the configuration is consistent across all HP PUSCHs)
As to claim 36:
Wang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 32, wherein the semi-static configuration is not consistent across each high priority channel of the set of overlapping uplink channels, and wherein the uplink transmission includes the one or more of the set of overlapping uplink channels based on the intra-UE prioritization based on at least one of high priority channel of the set of overlapping uplink channels being RRC configured with the semi-static configuration for the intra-UE prioritization for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities.
However, Wong further teaches enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization which includes:
The method of claim 32, wherein the semi-static configuration is not consistent across each high priority channel of the set of overlapping uplink channels, and wherein the uplink transmission includes the one or more of the set of overlapping uplink channels based on the intra-UE prioritization based on at least one of high priority channel of the set of overlapping uplink channels being RRC configured with the semi-static configuration for the intra-UE prioritization for the overlapping uplink channels of the different priorities. (“The Mux Indicator of the target PUCCH for carrying H #5 is Enabled (e.g. via RRC configuration or dynamically indicated in DCI #1) and so it acts as a target PUCCH for the deferred HARQ-ACKs from the drop L #2 and L #4, as represented by the arrow with the solid line 1214, which have different L1 priority to that of H #5. Therefore, the HARQ-ACKs from L #2 and L #4 are multiplex with that in H #5 and transmitted in the target PUCCH 1250.”, Wong [0116]) (Examiner’s Note: the mux indicator that is specifically for channel H#5 is configured via higher layer signaling which is semi-static)
Wang and Wong are analogous because they pertain to handling intra-UE collisions.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as described in Wong into Wang. By modifying the method to include enabling and disabling multiplexing and intra-UE prioritization as taught by Wong, the benefits of improved handling of intra-UE collisions (Wong [0105] and Wang [0037]) are achieved.
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 ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights