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
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 06/26/2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 2, 3, 5-12, 16-20, 22, 25 and 28-30 are amended and Claims 2-30 are currently pending.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the 112(a), 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Claim 2 and 17, Applicant argues that Kedalagudde fails to disclose “information indicating a serving parameter indicative of a format to be used for communications with a neighboring UE”, as recited in amended independent claim 2. Specially, Applicant contends that Kedalagudde’s mapping table “makes no mention of which RAT to use for communications with a neighboring UE,” that the RAT indication “is not specific to any neighboring UE,” and that Kedalagudde establishes a data link with an RSU “after” determining to use a RAT based on an application category. Remarks, pp.11-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
First, Applicant’s own specification identifies the formats a UE may support as including “r1r, r15, r16, LTE, NR.” Spec [0059]. LTE and NR are RATs, so the specification treats a RAT as a format. Kedalagudde’s mapping table 1120 indicates the preferred RAT (e.g., the 5G RAT) for an application category. Kedalagudde [0092]-[0093]. V2X UE 1102 then uses that RAT to establish a data link with 5G RSU 1104 and communicates a message via the selected RAT. [0094].
5G RSU 1104 is a neighboring UE. Kadalagudde discloses that the Fig. 11 communications occur between V2X UE 1102 and RSUs of different RATs, and that “[t]he RSUs may be local or network-based (e.g., eNBs).” See [0091]. Kedalagudde identifies a local RSU as a UE, describing V2I transmission “between a vehicle and UED (RSU) 158”. [0028]. These communications are carried over the PC5 reference point, the direct proximity-based interface between devices. [0027]. Of the two disclosed alternatives, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage 5G RSU 1104 as a local, UE-type RSU. Accordingly, the RAT indicated by mapping table 1120 is a format to be used for communications with a neighboring UE, namely 5G RSU 1104.
Second, Applicant argues that the RAT indication of Kedalagudde “is not specific to any neighboring UE.” Claim 2, however, requires only a format “to be used for communications with a neighboring UE.” It does not require that the format be specific to, selected for, or uniquely associated with a particular neighboring UE. Applicant’s specification describes selecting a format based on formats indicated in messages received from neighboring UEs (Spec [0059]), but that feature is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Third, Applicant argues that Kedalagudde establish a data link with an RSU “after” determining to use a RAT. Claim 2 itself recites conveying the information indicating the service parameter, then generating a message “based at least in part on” that information, and then transmitting the message to the neighboring UE. Kedalagudde determines the preferred RAT from mapping table 1120, conveys that determination within V2X UE 1102, and then establishes the data link and communicates a message via the selected RAT. Kedalagudde [0093]-[0094]. This order is consistent with eh claimed sequence and does not distinguish the claim. Further, “convey” does not require transmission to another device. Applicant’s specification describes conveying information from an upper layer to a lower layer within the same UE. Spec [0057]-[0058].
For the above reasons, the Examiner believes the rejection should be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 17-19, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), hereinafter as “Ked”.
Regarding claim 2, Ked teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more processor; one or more memories coupled with the one ore more processor; and instructions stored in the one or more memory, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to:
convey information indicating a service parameter indicative of a format to be used for communications with a neighboring UE ([0092, “Each application that is registered with the V2X UE 1102 may at operation 1324 thus be mapped in accordance with the mapping table 1120”; Fig. 11, [0093], “the V2X UE 1102 may be capable of carrier aggregation and may have established a data link with both the 5G RSU 1104 using the 5G RAT and the DSRC RSU 1108 using the DSRC RAT. The V2X UE 1102 may initiate use of a first application (App03). The V2X UE 1102 may determine from the V2X category ID.fwdarw.RAT ID mapping table 1120 that App03 belongs to application category 2, for which use of the 5G RAT is preferred at operation 1326”; [0094], so the information indicating the preferred RAT is conveyed within the UE to the components that establish the link. The V2X category ID corresponds to the claimed service parameter and the 5G RAT corresponds to the claimed format, consistent with the Spec; it’s noted that convey information is interpreted to encompass providing the information within the UE, e.g., between components or layers of the apparatus, and does not require transmission to another device);
generate, based at least in part on the information indicating the service parameter indicative of the format to be used for communications with the neighboring UE, a message in the format; and transmit the message to the neighboring UE (see [0093]-[0094], “The V2X UE 1102 may then establish a data link for App03 with the 5G RSU 1104 using a first set of 5G subcarriers. Thus, at operation 1328 the V2X UE 1102 may communicate a message (data) via the selected RAT”; also see Fig. 11; it’s noted that the selected RAT would have its corresponding format).
Regarding claim 3, Ked further teaches the message is associated with a service and wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: select a service identifier associated with the service ([0113], “the mapping table provides a mapping between provider service identifiers (PSIDs) of the V2X applications to V2X application categories and an association between each V2X, application category and an associated RAT”).
Regarding claim 4, Ked further teaches the association between the service parameter and the service identifier is configured by the UE ([0093], “The V2X UE 1102 may determine from the V2X category ID.fwdarw.RAT ID mapping table 1120 that App03 belongs to application category 2, for which use of the 5G RAT is preferred at operation 1326”).
Regarding claim 8, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: generate the message as a version of multiple different versions of vehicle-to- everything (V2X) messages (Ked, [0090], Fig. 11 disclose a multi-RAT system; it’s noted that V2X UE generates different versions of messages depending on which RAT is selected).
Regarding claim 9, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: communicate a safety message associated with vehicle-based operations (Ked, [0089], V2V messages; it’s noted that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication is a wireless safety technology allowing vehicles to transmit data (position, speed, braking status) within a ~300-meter range, primarily to prevent crashes”).
Regarding claim 17, Ked et al (US 2019/0150082 A1) teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more processors; one or more memories coupled with the one or more processor; and
instructions stored in the one or more memories, wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to:
convey information indicating one or more parameters indicative of a radio access technology (RAT) to be used for communications with a neighboring UE ([0092, “Each application that is registered with the V2X UE 1102 may at operation 1324 thus be mapped in accordance with the mapping table 1120”; Fig. 11, [0093], “the V2X UE 1102 may be capable of carrier aggregation and may have established a data link with both the 5G RSU 1104 using the 5G RAT and the DSRC RSU 1108 using the DSRC RAT. The V2X UE 1102 may initiate use of a first application (App03). The V2X UE 1102 may determine from the V2X category ID.fwdarw.RAT ID mapping table 1120 that App03 belongs to application category 2, for which use of the 5G RAT is preferred at operation 1326”; [0094], so the information indicating the preferred RAT is conveyed within the UE to the components that establish the link. The V2X category ID corresponds to the claimed service parameter and the 5G RAT corresponds to the claimed format, consistent with the Spec; it’s noted that convey information is interpreted to encompass providing the information within the UE, e.g., between components or layers of the apparatus, and does not require transmission to another device); and
instantiate, based at least in part on the information indicating the one or more parameters indicative of the RAT to be used for communications with the neighboring UE, a channel for the communications with the neighboring UE according to the RAT (see [0093]-[0094], “The V2X UE 1102 may then establish a data link for App03 with the 5G RSU 1104 using a first set of 5G subcarriers. Thus, at operation 1328 the V2X UE 1102 may communicate a message (data) via the selected RAT”; also see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: select the one or more parameters indicative of the RAT to be used for the message based at least in part on the UE being configured to transmit the message to the neighboring UE via multiple protocols (Fig. 11, a V2X UE configured to transmit via three distinct protocols - LTE, 5G NR and DSRC; [0091]).
Regarding claim 19, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: identify one or more of a quality of service (QoS) metric, a proximity service (ProSe) per-packet priority (PPPP), a service identifier, or an identifier associated with a layer two identifier (L2ID), associated with the communications with the neighboring UE, wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more of the QoS metric, the PPPP, the service identifier, or the L2ID ([0135], “the RAT selection is dependent on the V2X UE requesting the RAT or a Quality of Service (QoS) at every packet transmission”).
Regarding claim 26, Ked further teaches the communications with the neighboring UE comprise one or more of a supported broadcast traffic function, a safety message function, a scheduling assignment, a carrier aggregation, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), or a transmission time interval (Ked, [0027], “V2X communications may contain four types: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)”, it’s noted that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication is a wireless safety technology allowing vehicles to transmit data (position, speed, braking status) within a ~300-meter range, primarily to prevent crashes”).
Regarding claim 27, Ked further teaches that the communications with the neighboring UE comprise a message associated with vehicle-based operations (Ked, [0027], “V2X communications may contain four types: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)”, it’s noted that Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication is a wireless safety technology allowing vehicles to transmit data (position, speed, braking status) within a ~300-meter range, primarily to prevent crashes”).
Regarding claim 28, Ked further teaches the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: access a preconfigured rule, a rule received from a network entity, or combinations thereof, to select the one or more parameters (Ked, [0140], receiving a geographically-limited, operator-independent mapping table from a radio access network (RAN), the mapping table comprising a mapping between groups of V2X applications each associated with a different application category and a different radio access technology (RAT) for the V2X application category, each grouping of the V2X applications based on fulfillment of a key performance indicator (KPI) for the associated V2X application category; it’s noted that said mapping table is preconfigured rule).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 16, 20-21, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), in view of 3GPP, “3GPP TS 23.285 version 14.2.0”.
Regarding claim 5, Ked teaches all of the limitations except that classifying the message based at least in part on a service identifier. 3GPP teaches the above limitation (page 18, Section 4.4.3.2, V2X messages are classified based on PSID or ITS-AID).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Ked’s system would necessarily consult and apply 3GPP as the governing standard – prior art in the same field of endeavor is presumptively combinable.
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned references further teach that the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: convey the information indicating the service parameter from a first layer of the UE to a second layer of the UE, the first layer being an upper layer with respect to the second layer (3GPP, page 20, 1st paragraph, “The application layer sets the PPPP for each V2X message when passing it to lower layer for transmission. The mapping of application layer V2X message priority to PPPP is configuration on the UE; it’s noted that the application layer (first layer/upper layer) passes PPPP parameters (RAT-indicative parameters ) to the lower access stratum layer (second/lower layer)).
Regarding claim 20, Kedalagudde teaches all of the limitations except that the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: configure each packet of one or more packets to indicate one or more of the QoS metric, the PPPP, the service identifier, or the L2ID, to a second layer that is a lower layer of the UE. 3GPP teaches the above limitation (page 20, 1st paragraph, “The application layer sets the PPPP for each V2X message when passing it to lower layer for transmission. The mapping of application layer V2X message priority to PPPP is configuration on the UE. The setting of the PPPP value should reflect the latency required in both UE and eNB, i.e. the low PDB is mapped to the high priority PPPP value”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to naturally incorporate the per-packet PPPP lower-layer indication mechanism of 3GPP, as this was the established standard V2X protocol architecture for passing per packet priority and identification parameter from the application layer to the access stratum for V2X sidelink transmission. No creative step beyond routine implementation would have been required.
Regarding claim 21, the aforementioned references further teach the QoS metric is associated with a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) QoS class identifier (VQI) (3GPP, page 20, Section 4.4.5.2, “QOS handling for V2X communication”, QCI 3 and QCI 79 can be used for the unicast delivery of V2X messages; it’s noted that QCI stands for QoS Class Identifiers ).
Regarding claim 30, the aforementioned references further teach the instructions are executable by the one or more processor to: convey the information indicating the one or more parameters from a first layer of the UE to a second layer of the UE, the first layer being an upper layer with respect to the second layer (3GPP, page 20, 1st paragraph, “The application layer sets the PPPP for each V2X message when passing it to lower layer for transmission. The mapping of application layer V2X message priority to PPPP is configuration on the UE; it’s noted that the application layer (first layer/upper layer) passes PPPP parameters (RAT-indicative parameters) to the lower access stratum layer (second/lower layer)).
Claims 6, 10-15 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), in view of Li et al (US 2019/0320475 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations as applied to Claim 2, Ked further teaches: determine that the UE supports communicating using a first format and a second format, the first format being a legacy format with respect to the second format (Ked, Fig. 11, format for LTE transmission could be viewed as legacy format comparing to format for 5G NR transmission).
Ked doesn’t explicitly teach that receive one or more messages from the neighboring UE; determine, based at least in part on the one or more messages, that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format; and select the second format for communications with the neighboring UE.
Li teaches that receive one or more messages from the neighboring UE; determine, based at least in part on the one or more messages, that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format; and select the second format for communications with the neighboring UE (Fig. 2 and 5, [0079]-[0081], “the NR UE may obtain the capability information from the sidelink signal previously transmitted by the second UE(s). For example, when the second UE transmits the sidelink signal using the LTE based sidelink transmission, the second UE may indicate its access capability in the sidelink signal. For example, the reserved bit in the LTE SCI, MAC header for LTE SL-SCH or PDCP header for LTE SLRB may be used for the capability information. The NR UE may store the capability information associated with the identification of the second UE. For another example, if the second UE transmits the sidelink signal using the NR based sidelink transmission, it indicates that the second UE supports the NR technology. The NR UE may detect Source Layer-2 ID/ProSe UE ID, and store the capability information of the second UE associated with the ID”, [0083], “In the case of the unicast communication and the multicast communication, the NR UE may determine its sidelink transmission according to the radio access technology supported by the destination UE(s)”; [0088], “the NR UE may transmit a sidelink signal using a sidelink resource configured by the network node serving the NR UE, e.g. eNB, according to the determined sidelink transmission mode”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kedalagudde with the teachings of Li to allow backward-compatible V2X communication that migrates to NR when the neighboring UE supports it.
Regarding Claim 11, the aforementioned references further teach that the instructions are executable by the processor one or more processors to: decode, for each received message, a scheduling assignment to determine that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format (Li, [0081], “the reserved bit in the LTE SCI”, SCH format 1 schdules the PSSCH, i.e., it is a scheduling assignment).
Regarding claim 12, The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions are executable by the processor one or more processors to: decode, for each received message, a header portion of the message to determine that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format (Li, [0081], “the reserved bit in the LTE SCI, MAC header for LTE SL-SCH or PDCP header for LTE SLRB may be used for the capability information”).
Regarding claim 13, The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the header portion of the message comprises a medium access control (MAC) header portion, a radio link control (RLC) header portion, or a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) header portion (Li, [0081], “the reserved bit in the LTE SCI, MAC header for LTE SL-SCH or PDCP header for LTE SLRB may be used for the capability information”).
Regarding claim 14, The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more messages are associated with safety messages configured according to the first format (Li, [0008], “carry time/event triggered V2x messages (e.g. cooperative awareness message (CAM), decentralized environment notification message (DENM)”).
Regarding claim 15, Ked in view of Li teaches the apparatus of claim 13, Li teaches that the one ore more messages received from the neighboring UE convey an indication that the neighboring UE supports communications using the second format UE (Li, Fig. 2 and 5, [0079]-[0081], “the NR UE may obtain the capability information from the sidelink signal previously transmitted by the second UE(s). For example, when the second UE transmits the sidelink signal using the LTE based sidelink transmission, the second UE may indicate its access capability in the sidelink signal), but does not expressly teach that the indication is conveyed by a service identifier.
However, Kedalagudde teaches service identifier (V2X application and category IDS) that are mapped to, and thereby indicate, a RAT, e.g., category 2 -> 5G RAT ([0092]-[0093]; mapping table).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to convey Li’s capability indication using a service identifier as taught by Kedalagudde. Both references use a single field in V2X signaling to indicate which RAT applies, and Kedalagudde’s service-identifier-to-RAT association is known way of encoding that information that V2X UEs already share ([0092]). This is a simple substitution of one known indicator for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Ked teaches all of the limitations except that including in the message a flag to indicate the service parameter.
Li teaches including in the message a flag to indicate the service parameter ([0081], “the reserved bit in the LTE SCI”, it’s noted that a single bit to signal it correspond to a flag).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kedalagudde to include a flag indicating the service parameter, as taught by Li. Li teaches that the flag informs neighboring UEs which RAT to use for communications with the transmitting UE. This avoids the communication failures that occur when a UE transmits using a RAT its peer cannot receive, e.g., NR-based sidelink to a legacy LTE UE, while allowing better-performance NR-based sidelink where the peer supports it. The combination is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, Ked teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 17, Ked further teaches that V2X UE 1102 communicates with neighboring UEs, including local, UE-type RSUs, over RATS including LTE and 5G(NR), and that the channel for the communications with the neighboring UE comprises a 5G( NR) channel ([0027], [0029, [0091]-[0094]).
Ked does not expressly teach instantiating an LTE channel for first communications with the neighboring UE, and generating a next generation NR channel dynamically based at least in part on receipt of a message from the neighboring UE triggering the generation of the next generation NR channel, wherein the channel for the communications with the neighboring UE comprising the next generation NR channel and is instantiated based at least in part on the generation of the next generation NR channel.
However, Li teaches instantiating an LTE channel for first communications with the neighboring UE, and generating a next generation NR channel dynamically based at least in part on receipt of a message from the neighboring UE triggering the generation of the next generation NR channel, wherein the channel for the communications with the neighboring UE comprising the next generation NR channel and is instantiated based at least in part on the generation of the next generation NR channel (Fig. 2 and 5, [0079]-[0081], “the NR UE may obtain the capability information from the sidelink signal previously transmitted by the second UE(s). For example, when the second UE transmits the sidelink signal using the LTE based sidelink transmission, the second UE may indicate its access capability in the sidelink signal. For example, the reserved bit in the LTE SCI, MAC header for LTE SL-SCH or PDCP header for LTE SLRB may be used for the capability information. The NR UE may store the capability information associated with the identification of the second UE. For another example, if the second UE transmits the sidelink signal using the NR based sidelink transmission, it indicates that the second UE supports the NR technology. The NR UE may detect Source Layer-2 ID/ProSe UE ID, and store the capability information of the second UE associated with the ID”, [0083], “In the case of the unicast communication and the multicast communication, the NR UE may determine its sidelink transmission according to the radio access technology supported by the destination UE(s)”; [0088], “the NR UE may transmit a sidelink signal using a sidelink resource configured by the network node serving the NR UE, e.g. eNB, according to the determined sidelink transmission mode”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kedalagudde with the teachings of Li to allow backward-compatible V2X communication that migrates to NR when the neighboring UE supports it.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedalagudde et al (US 2019/0150082 A1), in view of 3GPP, “3GPP TS 23.285 version 14.2.0”, further in view of Loehr et al (EP 3,148,285 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the aforementioned references teach all the limitations except that configure a virtual bearer to use for communications with the neighboring UE according to the one or more parameters.
Loehr teaches that configure a virtual bearer to use for communications with the neighboring UE according to the one or more parameters (see abstract, “relays the received protocol data unit to the remote user equipment using a second sidelink bearer that corresponds to the determined priority”; also see [0152], [0153], it’s noted that virtual bearer could be a radio bearer according to the specification).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize teaching of Loehr in the system disclosed by Ked in view of 3GPP for improving transmission efficiency, as both operate in the same ProSe/V2X sidelink domain and address complementary aspects of the same UE-to-UE communication configuration problem.
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned references further teach the virtual bearer comprises at least one of a logical bearer, or a radio bearer, or a long term evolution (LTE) vehicle-to- everything (V2X) bearer, or a set of next generation new radio (NR) bearers that are generated dynamically by a lower layer of the UE based on the one or more parameters selected by an upper layer, or a combination thereof (Loehr, see abstract “sidelink bearer” correspond to radio bearer; also see [0152], [0153]).
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned references further teach the virtual bearer is configured based on a message received from the neighboring UE (Loehr, [0153], “The relaying functionality of the relay UE is assisted in that the Remote UE provides the relay UE with an indication of a priority associated with protocol data units that are transmitted by the Remote UE. The priority indication is transmitted within a control packet from the Remote UE to the relay UE”).
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned references further teach the instructions are executable by the processor to: trigger, based on receipt of the message, an activation of an application associated with the virtual bearer (Loehr, see [0152], [0153]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
