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 12/16/2025.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-14 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and 10 have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to the independent claims (pages 7-11) in a reply filed 12/16/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On page7-11 of the remarks, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #109bis-e Electronic, 20-30 April 2020 (uploaded on 04/09/2020), R2-2003226; hereinafter “NPL1”) in view of Wu et al. (US 20210212085 A1; hereinafter “Wu”) and in further view of Wu. (US 20220417791 A1; hereinafter “Wu2”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
NPL1 does not disclose the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority
D2 does not disclose "the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority"
Neither NPL1 nor D2 discloses "cancel the transmission of the second PUSCH when the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority and the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH are partially or fully overlapping in the time domain"
Wu2 does not disclose "determining an uplink grant corresponding to the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)….as an uplink grant of a low priority"
Wu2 does not disclose or suggest determining "by the media access control (MAC) layer"
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), it's still not clear why the applicant argues NPL1 does not disclose the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority. The examiner specifically referred to "In case CG collides with DG of the same PHY priority, DG is prioritized at PHY and if CG transmission was ongoing, it is cancelled" in section 2.4 of NPL1 in which DG maps to "first PUSCH" and CG maps to "second PUSCH" and DG and CG are scheduling mechanisms for PUSCH. This part specifically teaches "first PUSCH and second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority" and since they collide in the time domain due to having same PHY layer priority, they must overlap or partially overlap in the time domain.
Regarding (2), as mentioned in the previous office action, Wu teaches determining that “the priority corresponding to each of the N uplink channels is the same” [0106] and this priority may correspond to the logical channel and/or MAC CE priority. Since NPL1 teaches determining the physical layer priority of two PUSCHs, the combination of the teachings from NPL1 and Wu teaches the concept of determining that two PUSCHs have identical physical layer priority.
Regarding (3), the combination of the teachings of NPL1 and Wu teach "cancel the transmission of the second PUSCH when the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority and the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH are partially or fully overlapping in the time domain". NPL1 teaches cancelling a CG transmission if CG and DG have the same PHY priority and Wu teaches a terminal equipment that cancels transmission of another PUSCH if the priority level is the same. Even though Wu doesn't explicitly teach "physical layer priority", it's obvious to combine the "physical layer priority" teaching of NPL1 with the teachings of Wu to perform this method
Regarding (4), in [0046], Wu2 mentions "In a case that sending times of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCH) of two uplink grants overlap to cause a transmission collision, priorities of the uplink grants are determined based on priorities of logical channels corresponding to data contained in medium access control (MAC) protocol data units (PDU) generated based on the uplink grants. A MAC PDU generated based on the higher-priority uplink grant is sent first, and that for a lower-priority uplink grant is no longer sent", which teaches overlapping uplink grants of PUSCH and determining the priority of these grants based on MAC PDU data.
Regarding (5), since the priority of these uplink grants is based on the MAC PDU data, the determining is done "by the media access control (MAC) layer"
On page 12 of the remarks, in regard to the dependent claims, the Applicant states that the claims are allowable at least due to the deficiencies of the ground of rejection applied to the independent claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner kindly refer the Applicant to the reasoning pertaining to the independent claims, detailed above.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #109bis-e Electronic, 20-30 April 2020 (uploaded on 04/09/2020), R2-2003226; hereinafter “NPL1”) in view of Wu et al. (US 20210212085 A1; hereinafter “Wu”) and in further view of Wu. (US 20220417791 A1; hereinafter “Wu2”)
As to claim 1:
NPL1 discloses:
A method comprising:
cancel the transmission of the second PUSCH when the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority and the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH are partially or fully overlapping in the time domain, (“Therefore. the following summarizes how the physical layer deals with various kinds of grants when doing
prioritization:”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 18]) (“In case CG collides with DG of the same PHY priority ➔ DG is prioritized at PHY and if CG transmission
was ongoing, it is cancelled (considering the timeline restrictions)”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 18]) (Examiner’s Note: DG maps to “first PUSCH” and CG maps to “second PUSCH”) (“If, after resolving overlapping for PUCCH and/or PUSCH
transmissions of a same priority index”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 17])
perform: not considering, by a media access control (MAC) layer, an uplink grant with which the second PUSCH associates as a prioritized uplink grant, so as not to transfer a PDU of the second PUSCH to a physical layer; (“The MAC should be specified in a way such that. in cases where there is already one MAC PDU
delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority.”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 21]) (Examiner’s Note: this is applicable to the case where CG is cancelled and DG is prioritized which means MAC only generates another MAC PDU for the prioritized transmission and does not consider the cancelled transmission i.e. CG transmission)
and considering, by the MAC layer, an uplink grant with which the first PUSCH associates as a prioritized uplink grant; (“The MAC should be specified in a way such that. in cases where there is already one MAC PDU
delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority.”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 21]) (“in case grants have the same PHY priority, DG is always prioritized regardless of its LCH-based
priority and regardless of its LCH-based priority and regardless of when it was delivered from MAC to PHY (two overlapping DGs are not allowed)”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 18])
obtaining a PDU of the first PUSCH; and transferring the PDU of the first PUSCH to the physical layer. (“The MAC should be specified in a way such that. in cases where there is already one MAC PDU delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority.”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 21]) (“in case grants have the same PHY priority, DG is always prioritized regardless of its LCH-based
priority and regardless of its LCH-based priority and regardless of when it was delivered from MAC to PHY (two overlapping DGs are not allowed)”, NPL1 [section 2.4, page 18])
NPL1 as described above does not explicitly teach:
A terminal equipment comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and processor circuitry configured to: cancel the transmission of the second PUSCH when the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority and the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH are partially or fully overlapping in the time domain,
However, Wu further teaches a terminal equipment that cancels transmission of another PUSCH if the priority level is the same which includes:
A terminal equipment comprising: a transmitter (“FIG. 8 is a structural diagram of another terminal device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 8, the terminal device 800 includes but is not limited to: a radio frequency unit 801, a network module 802, an audio output unit 803, an input unit 804, a sensor 805, a display unit 806, a user input unit 807, an interface unit 808, a memory 809, a processor 810, a power supply 811, and other components”, Wu [0288]) configured to transmit a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or a second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (“For example, when it is determined that priorities corresponding to a PUSCH#1, a PUSCH#2, and a PUSCH#3 are the same (for example, priorities of logical channels corresponding to data included in the PUSCH#1, the PUSCH#2, and the PUSCH#3 are the same), and a quantity of uplink channels that can be sent simultaneously is 2, the terminal device may randomly select two uplink channels from the PUSCH#1, the PUSCH#2, and the PUSCH#3 for sending.”, Wu [0107]), and processor circuitry (“FIG. 8 is a structural diagram of another terminal device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 8, the terminal device 800 includes but is not limited to: a radio frequency unit 801, a network module 802, an audio output unit 803, an input unit 804, a sensor 805, a display unit 806, a user input unit 807, an interface unit 808, a memory 809, a processor 810, a power supply 811, and other components”, Wu [0288]) configured to: cancel the transmission of the second PUSCH when the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical (“It should be noted that simultaneous sending of the foregoing N uplink channels may mean that sending of the foregoing N uplink channels overlaps in time.”, Wu [0050]) (“In this embodiment of the present disclosure, when the uplink channel includes the PUSCH, the service information corresponding to the uplink channel may include the service type information corresponding to the data included in the PUSCH, where the service type information corresponding to the data included in the PUSCH may include but is not limited to at least one of the following: the information corresponding to the logical channel of the data included in the PUSCH, the type of the MAC control element (CE), and the priority of the MAC CE”, Wu [0065]) (“when the priority corresponding to each of the N uplink channels is the same, randomly selecting M uplink channels from the N uplink channels for sending, where M is a quantity of uplink channels that can be sent simultaneously..”, Wu [0106]) (Examiner’s Note: When the priority of N uplink channels is the same, M uplink channels are selected which means at least one PUSCH transmission is cancelled.)
NPL1 and Wu are analogous because they pertain to managing priorities of multiple PUSCHs.
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 a terminal equipment that cancels transmission of another PUSCH if the priority level is the same as described in Wu into NPL1. By modifying the method to include a terminal equipment that cancels transmission of another PUSCH if the priority level is the same as taught by Wu, the benefits of improved collision management (Wu [0106] and NPL1 [section 2.4, page 17]) are achieved.
The combination of NPL1 and Wu as described above does not explicitly teach:
determining an uplink grant corresponding to the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) by the media access control (MAC) layer as an uplink grant of a low priority;
However, Wu2 teaches determining the priority of another uplink grant as low priority which includes:
determining an uplink grant corresponding to the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) by the media access control (MAC) layer as an uplink grant of a low priority; (“In a case that sending times of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCH) of two uplink grants overlap to cause a transmission collision, priorities of the uplink grants are determined based on priorities of logical channels corresponding to data contained in medium access control (MAC) protocol data units (PDU) generated based on the uplink grants. A MAC PDU generated based on the higher-priority uplink grant is sent first, and that for a lower-priority uplink grant is no longer sent.”, Wu2 [0046]) (“If there is no transmittable data of CG1 at the second moment, for example, the data 1 of CG1 has been sent by using another uplink grant before the second moment, a PUSCH without transmittable data is determined as low priority according to protocol prescription or network configuration. In this case, the priority of CG1 at the second moment is lower than that at the first moment, and the priority of CG2 at the second moment is higher than that of CG1. It can be learned that, in this case, not only the priority of CG1 at the second moment is lower than that at the first moment, but also a comparison result between CG1 and CG2 at the second moment is different from that at the first moment.”, Wu2 [0095])
NPL1, Wu2, and Wu are analogous because they pertain to managing priorities of multiple PUSCHs.
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 determining the priority of another uplink grant as low priority as described in Wu2 into NPL1 as modified by Wu. By modifying the method to include determining the priority of another uplink grant as low priority as taught by Wu2, the benefits of improved collision management (Wu [0106], Wu2 [0095], and NPL1 [section 2.4, page 17]) are achieved.
As to claim 2:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 1, wherein, a moment when the physical layer of the terminal equipment receives data of the second PUSCH from the MAC layer is later than a moment when data of the first PUSCH are received. (NPL1 P. 20, Nokia: The MAC should be specified in a way such that, in cases where there is already one MAC PDU (= first PDU for the first PUSCH) delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU (= second PDU for the second PUSCH) if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority; indicates that the MAC PDU of the second PUSCH is received later than the MAC PDU of the first PUSCH).
As to claim 3:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 1, wherein, the first PUSCH is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) scheduled by a first downlink control information (DCI), and the second PUSCH is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG). (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 3. In case CG with low PHY priority collides with DG (dynamic grant scheduled by DCI) with high PHY priority -> DG is prioritized at PHY and if CG transmission was ongoing, it is cancelled (considering the timeline restrictions)).
As to claim 4:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 1, wherein, the first PUSCH is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG), and the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG). (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 2. In case CG with high PHY priority (corresponding to a first PUSCH) collides with CG with low PHY priority (corresponding to a second PUSCH) -> CG with high priority is prioritized, PHY layer does not consider the case where there would be ongoing CG transmission to be interrupted.).
As to claim 5:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 1, wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to determine, when the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH have identical physical layer priority and the first PUSCH and the second PUSCH are partially or fully overlapping in the time domain, the transmission of the second PUSCH, an uplink grant to which the second PUSCH corresponds as an uplink grant of a not high priority, and not generate the PDU of the second PUSCH, by the MAC layer. (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 2. In case CG with high PHY priority (corresponding to a first PUSCH) collides with CG with low PHY priority (corresponding to a second PUSCH) -> CG with high priority is prioritized, PHY layer does not consider the case where there would be ongoing CG transmission to be interrupted; P. 20, Sec. 2.4: Ericsson: Firstly, we think MAC PDU should not be generated, as it is clear at the time of decision that this MAC PDU will not be delivered by the PHY…NOTE: An uplink grant, which by PHY grant prioritization will not be transmitted due to overlapping with another ongoing transmission, is considered as a de-prioritized uplink grant; P. 20, Nokia: The MAC should be specified in a way such that, in cases where there is already one MAC PDU (= first PDU for the first PUSCH) delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU (= second PDU for the second PUSCH) if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority; indicates not generating the PDU of the second PUSCH, by the MAC layer.)
As to claim 6:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 5, wherein, the first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) scheduled by downlink control information (DCI) or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG), and the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG). (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 2. In case CG with high PHY priority (corresponding to a first PUSCH) collides with CG with low PHY priority (corresponding to a second PUSCH) -> CG with high priority is prioritized, PHY layer does not consider the case where there would be ongoing CG transmission to be interrupted; P. 20, Sec 2.4: Nokia: The MAC should be specified in a way such that, in cases where there is already one MAC PDU delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority.). The claim is written in an alternative form with species forming a Markush group representing a genus; the prior art document discloses one of the species (the first PUSCH scheduled by CG) which anticipates the genus (MPEP 2131.02).
As to claim 8:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 1, wherein, the processor circuitry is further configured to determine, when the first PUSCH can be transmitted by the physical layer of the terminal equipment, whether to obtain a PDU for the first PUSCH, by the media access control (MAC) layer. (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 2. In case CG with high PHY priority (corresponding to a first PUSCH) collides with CG with low PHY priority (corresponding to a second PUSCH) -> CG with high priority is prioritized, PHY layer does not consider the case where there would be ongoing CG transmission to be interrupted; P. 18: Samsung: Our understanding is not to generate the MAC PDU (of the second PUSCH), because it cannot be transmitted in PHY, similar to the case of de-prioritized MAC PDU that only one (actually transmitted) MAC PDU is generated; P. 20, Nokia: The MAC should be specified in a way such that, in cases where there is already one MAC PDU (= first PDU for the first PUSCH) delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU (= second PDU for the second PUSCH) if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority; indicates a case of determining to obtain the PDU of the first PUSCH.).
As to claim 10:
NPL1 discloses:
The terminal equipment according to claim 8, wherein, the first PUSCH is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) scheduled by downlink control information (DCI) or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG), and the second PUSCH is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a configuration grant (CG). (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 2. In case CG with high PHY priority (corresponding to a first PUSCH) collides with CG with low PHY priority (corresponding to a second PUSCH) -> CG with high priority is prioritized, PHY layer does not consider the case where there would be ongoing CG transmission to be interrupted; P. 18: Samsung: Our understanding is not to generate the MAC PDU (of the second PUSCH), because it cannot be transmitted in PHY, similar to the case of de-prioritized MAC PDU that only one (actually transmitted) MAC PDU is generated;). The claim is written in an alternative form with species forming a Markush group representing a genus; the prior art document discloses one of the species (the first PUSCH scheduled by CG) which anticipates the genus (MPEP 2131.02).
As to claim 11:
NPL1 discloses:
The apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to: when there exists no physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of another configuration grant (CG) of a higher priority at least partially overlapping the second PUSCH in the time domain, there exists no physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a higher priority or an identical priority scheduled by downlink control information (DCI) at least partially overlapping the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in the time domain, and there exists no physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmitted by a scheduling request (SR) of a higher priority at least partially overlapping the second physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), determine that an uplink grant to which the second PUSCH corresponds as an uplink grant of a high priority. (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 4.In case CG (corresponding to the first PUSCH) collides with DG (corresponding to the second PUSCH) of the same PHY priority -> DG (corresponding to the second PUSCH) is prioritized at PHY and if CG transmission was ongoing, it is cancelled (considering the timeline restrictions); P. 20: Vivo: 1)We should firstly clarify that in which cases (e.g. collisions between CG and CG) the MAC would generate two MAC PDUs. 2) We should allow the PHY pre-emption for later higher priority CG; P. 21: PHY specification can be modified to consider the CG as higher priority than DG (CG and DG are overlapping) on receiving the MAC instruction for transmitting the second MAC PDU of CG; P. 26: 3> if sr-DataPrioritzation is configured and if there is no overlapping PUCCH resource with an SR transmission where the priority of the logical channel that triggered the SR is higher than the priority of the uplink grant; 4> this uplink grant is a prioritized uplink grant: 4> the other overlapping uplink grant(s), if any, is a de-prioritized uplink grant; indicates prioritizing the uplink grant to which the second PUSCH corresponds to when there is no other CG or SR of a higher priority.).
As to claim 12:
NPL1 discloses:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to: determine an uplink grant to which the first PUSCH corresponds as an uplink grant of a high priority, and generate the data of the first PUSCH, by the media access control (MAC) layer. (NPL1 P. 17, Sec. 2.4: 1.In case CG with high PHY priority (= the first uplink grant with high priority) collides with DG with low PHY priority(= the second uplink grant with low priority) -> CG is prioritized at PHY, if transmission related to DG was ongoing, it is cancelled. 2. In case CG with high PHY priority (corresponding to a first PUSCH) collides with CG with low PHY priority (corresponding to a second PUSCH) -> CG with high priority is prioritized, PHY layer does not consider the case where there would be ongoing CG transmission to be interrupted. 3. In case CG with low PHY priority collides with DG with high PHY priority -> DG is prioritized at PHY and if CG transmission was ongoing, it is cancelled (considering the timeline restrictions); P. 18: Samsung: Our understanding is not to generate the MAC PDU (of the second PUSCH), because it cannot be transmitted in PHY, similar to the case of de-prioritized MAC PDU that only one (actually transmitted) MAC PDU is generated; P. 20, Nokia: The MAC should be specified in a way such that, in cases where there is already one MAC PDU (= first PDU for the first PUSCH) delivered to PHY for transmission, the MAC should only generate another MAC PDU (= second PDU for the second PUSCH) if and only if it has higher LCH priority and its grant has higher PHY priority; indicates a case of configuring to obtain the data of the first PUSCH by the MAC layer of the terminal equipment.).
As to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected following the same rationale as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 13 recites corresponding features to those in claim 1, from the perspective of a base station. Wu further discloses a base station comprising a processor and a receiver coupled to the processor configured to perform similar functions ([0368] and FIG. 9, a network side device 900 with a processor 901 and a memory 902).
As to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 13. Claim 14 recites similar features as in claims 1 and 13, from the perspective of a system comprising a terminal and a base station.
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 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