DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 10 are amended.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s main arguments and examiner’s response to those arguments:
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 7-8), filed on 02/04/2026, with respect to claim 1, ‘Claim 1 recites: wherein the metrics are calculated based on the positional information and the transmission power information … Withdrawal of the rejection as for claim 1 is respectfully requested’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, examiner would like to mention that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Acedo teaches calculate metrics for a PCI planning algorithm for jointly reducing signal collisions to minimize interference (Acedo: [Title], [Abstract], [FIG.3], [Page 4, Col 2], [Page 5, Col 1], [Page 9, Col 1]) and location of base stations (Acedo: [Page 7, Col 1]). Akihara teaches obtain positional information and transmission power information on a wireless device forming a cell (Akihara: [0007]). Therefore, combination of Acedo and Akihara teaches wherein the metrics are calculated based on the positional information and the transmission power information.
Acedo’s algorithm would calculate interferences (metrics) based on the obtained transmission power and position information of cells since it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the receive power of cell <i> from cell <j> would equal to transmission power of cell <j> subtract path loss between cell <i> and cell <j>, where path loss would be a function of distance between cell <i> and cell <j>, the longer the distant, the larger the path loss, the less the receive power with same transmission power, and the less the interference.
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 6-8), filed on 02/04/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 3-10 have been considered but are not convincing. The claim rejections to claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 USC § 103 are not withdrawn.
This Office Action is made Final.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Andrade et al. (US 20230164574 A1), hereinafter “Andrade”, in view of Acedo-Hernández et al (“A PCI planning algorithm for jointly reducing reference signal collisions in LTE uplink and downlink”), hereinafter “Acedo”, in view of Akihara et al. (US 20070173259 A1), hereinafter “Akihara”.
Per claim 1 and 10:
Regarding claim 1, Andrade teaches ‘A communication control apparatus’ (Andrade: [0077]: “the controller 608 can trigger the PCI optimization”); ‘comprising: a memory ’ (Andrade: [FIG.10]: “MEMORY”); ‘a communication interface (IF)’ (Andrade: [FIG.12]: “NETWORK ADAPTOR”); ‘connected to a baseband device forming a wireless communication system that includes a plurality of cells’ (Andrade: [FIG.12]: connected to “REMOTE COMPUTERS” via “WAN” or “LAN”; [FIG.3]: baseband device: “Cell A”, “Cell B”, “Cell C”; [0161]: “wireless communication technology”; would connect to a computer such a baseband device); ‘the communication IF transmitting and receiving data to and from the baseband device’ ([FIG.10]: “TRANSMITTER/RECEIVER COMPONENT”; [0159]: “transmits and/or receives data”); ‘cell identifiers being set to reduce interference between the plurality of cells’ (Andrade: [0041]: “PCI planning should consider following Mod to reduce interference”; [0044]: “the neighbor cell should not have PCIs having the same Mod 30 value to ensure the uplink inter cell interference”); ‘processor circuitry’ (Andrade: [FIG.10]: “PROCESSOR”; [0157]: “electronic circuitry”); ‘coupled to the memory’ (this is implied);
‘configured to:
‘first remainders of divisions of a cell identifier by the first value and first remainders of divisions of a cell identifier by the second value’ (Andrade: [0042]: “The PCI Mod 3 rule is based on a relationship between PCI and sequence generated by PSS”, the first value “3”; [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule is based on subs-carrier positions of DMRS for PBCH”, the second value “4”; [0042]: PCI mod(3) remainder 0, 1, 2; [0046]: PCI mod(4) remainder 0, 1, 2, 3);
‘determine a second remainder of a division of the cell identifier by the least common multiple of the first value and second value, by using the first remainders of the divisions of the cell identifier by the first value and the first remainders of the divisions of the cell identifier by the second value’ (Andrade: [0042]: “The PCI Mod 3 rule” for PSS; [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule” for DMRS of PBCH; [0074]: “avoiding module-k PCI conflicts for top neighbors”; [0042]: PCI mod(3) remainder 0, 1, 2; [0046]: PCI mod(4) remainder 0, 1, 2, 3; [0040]-[[0065]: may determine PCI mod(k) remainder to align with remainder of mod(3) and mod(4); Mod(k) rule implicitly teaches that a PCI, which satisfies mod (12) rule (least common multiple of 3 and 4) with aligned remainder, would satisfy both mod(3) rule and mod(4) rule and so may avoid PCI conflicts for both PSS and DMRS of PBCH);
‘determine a third remainder of a division of the cell identifier by the least common multiple of the first value, the second value, and a third value, by using the second remainder’, (Andrade: [0042]: “The PCI Mod 3 rule” for PSS; [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule” for DMRS for PBCH; [0044]: “Mod 30 value to ensure the uplink inter cell interference”; [0074]: “avoiding module-k PCI conflicts for top neighbors”; [0040]-[[0065]: may determine PCI mod(k) remainder to align with the second remainder; mod(k) rule implicitly teaches a PCI, which satisfies mod (60) (least common multiple of 3, 4 and 30) with aligned remainder, would satisfy mod(3) rule, mod(4) rule and mod(30) rule and so may avoid PCI conflicts for PSS, DMRS of PBCH and UL intercell interference);
‘determine a cell identifier that satisfies the third remainder’ (Andrade: [0040]-[0065]: may determine a PCI such that PCI mod(k) remainder satisfies the third remainder).
Regarding claim limitations, ‘by using metrics related to a first value and a second value’ and ‘a metric related to the third value’, Andrade teaches determine PCI by minimizing issues with some performance indicator such as quantity of handovers of user equipment between two or more nodes, but fails to expressly teach by using metrics related to a first value and a second value, and a metric related to the third value (Andrade: [0047]: “Cell A is a top neighbor of cell B only if a given threshold for a given key performance indicator (KPI) is reached”; [0098]: “the performance indicator can be a defined quantity of handovers of user equipment between two or more nodes”; [0033]: “The higher priority assignment is determined based on the first performance indicator”; [0066]: “minimizes issues and outages”).
However, Acedo in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘by using metrics related to a first value and a second value’ (Acedo: [Fig.3]: “PCI graph”, “DL RS graph”, “UL RS graph”; [Page 5, Col 1]: “mod 6 (or mod 3)” for DLRS, “PCI mod 30” for ULRS, “minimizes the objective function”, equation (10)-(12); the objective function includes metric related to both N (6 or 3) and 30); ‘positional information’ (Acedo: [Page 7, Col 1]: “the location of the corresponding base stations”); determining PCI by minimizing an objective function with metrics such as number of handover (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”, equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the object function incudes number of handover; [Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”); and a PCI planning algorithm for jointly reducing reference signal collisions with consideration to minimize interference (Acedo: [Page 9, Col 1]: “a proper PCI plan should not only reduce the number of collisions between cells, but also avoid those with the largest interference”; [Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”; [Title]: “A PCI planning algorithm for jointly reducing reference signal collisions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching of determining PCI by minimizing an objective function with metrics such as number of handover with that of Andrade in order to allocate PCI based on handover measurements (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”, equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the object function incudes number of handover; [Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”).
Combination of Andrade and Acedo teaches ‘a metric related to the third value’. Acedo’s objective function only includes two mod(k): mod 6 (or mod 3) and mod 30. But Andrade teaches mod(4) rule to avoid PCI conflicts for DMRS of PBCH (Andrade: [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule” for DMRS of PBCH). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend Acedo’s objective function to include mod(4) rule in order to avoid PCI conflicts for DMRS of PBCH too. Therefore, combination of Andrade and Acedo thus may be considering teaching a metric related to the third value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching of determining PCI by minimizing an objective function with metrics such as number of handover with that of Andrade in order to allocate PCI based on handover measurements (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”, equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the object function incudes number of handover; [Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”).
Combination of Andrade and Acedo does not expressly teach ‘obtain positional information and transmission power information on a wireless device forming a cell’ and ‘wherein the metrics are calculated based on the positional information and the transmission power information’.
However, Akihara in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘obtain positional information and transmission power information on a wireless device forming a cell’ (Akihara: [0007]: “an autonomous cell shaping method, by which a newly-installed wireless base station autonomously determines a radio frequency and a transmission power level, includes the steps of collecting, in an on-demand manner, cell setting information including position information, transmission power information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akihara’s teaching with that of combination of Andrade and Acedo to calculate metrics based on the positional information and the transmission power information, in order to achieve autonomous cell shaping (see reference quotes in element above). (Acedo’s algorithm would calculate interferences (metrics) based on the obtained transmission power and position information of cells since it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the receive power of cell <i> from cell <j> would equal to transmission power of cell <j> subtract path loss between cell <i> and cell <j>, where path loss would be a function of distance between cell <i> and cell <j>, the longer the distant, the larger the path loss, the less the receive power with same transmission power, and the less the interference).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the method implemented by the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Andrade, Acedo and Akihara teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘obtain handover information indicating a number of handovers carried out by a terminal device between cells’ (Andrade: [0098]: “the performance indicator can be a defined quantity of handovers of user equipment between two or more nodes”, may obtain a number of handovers carried out by a terminal device between cells).
Andrade does not expressly teach, but Acedo teaches ‘the metrics are calculated based on the handover information’ (Acedo: equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the objective function incudes number of handover; [Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching with that of Andrade in order to allocate PCI based on handover measurements (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”).
Regarding claim 4, combination of Andrade and Acedo teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘the first remainders, respectively for the first value and the second value’ (Andrade: [0042]: “The PCI Mod 3 rule is based on a relationship between PCI and sequence generated by PSS”, the first value “3”; [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule is based on subs-carrier positions of DMRS for PBCH”, the second value “4”; [0042]: PCI mod(3) remainder 0, 1, 2; [0046]: PCI mod(4) remainder 0, 1, 2, 3; ; [0040]-[0065]: may determine PCI mod(k) remainder to align with remainder of mod(3) and mod(4)).
Andrade does not expressly teach, but Acedo teaches ‘determine values that minimize the metrics’ (Acedo: [Fig.3]: “PCI graph”, “DL RS graph”, “UL RS graph”; [Page 5, Col 1]: “mod 6 (or mod 3)” for DLRS, “PCI mod 30” for ULRS, “minimizes the objective function”, equation (10)-(12); the object function includes metric related to both N (6 or 3) and 30; [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”; may determine values that minimize the metrics to obtain the first remainders, respectively for the first value and the second value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching with that of Andrade to determine a remainder value respectively for the first value and the second value by minimize the object function in order to avoid PCI collision and confusion while reducing Reference Signal (RS) collisions based on handover measurements (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements. The method aims at avoiding PCI collision and confusion problems, while reducing Reference Signal (RS) collisions between neighbor cells”).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Andrade, Acedo and Akihara teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘the third value as the third remainder, the value being from values satisfying the second remainder’ (Andrade: [0042]: “The PCI Mod 3 rule” for PSS; [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule” for DMRS of PBCH; [0044]: “Mod 30 value to ensure the uplink inter cell interference”; [0074]: “avoiding module-k PCI conflicts for top neighbors”; [0040]-[0065]: may determine PCI mod(k) remainder to align with the second remainder).
Andrade does not expressly teach, but Acedo teaches ‘determine value that minimizes the metric’ (Acedo: [Fig.3]: “PCI graph”, “DL RS graph”, “UL RS graph”; [Page 5, Col 1]: “mod 6 (or mod 3)” for DLRS, “PCI mod 30” for ULRS, “minimizes the objective function”, equation (10)-(12); the object function includes metric related to both N (6 or 3) and 30; [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the object function incudes number of handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching with that of Andrade to extend Acedo’s objective function to include mod(4) rule when determine a remainder value by minimizing the metric related to the third value in order to avoid PCI conflicts for DMRS of PBCH too based on handover measurements (Andrade: [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule” for DMRS of PBCH. Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Andrade, Acedo and Akihara teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘identify a value obtained by adding the third remainder to a multiple of the least common multiple of the first value, second value, and third value as the cell identifier’, (Andrade: [0042]: “The PCI Mod 3 rule” for PSS; [0043]: “The PCI Mod 4 rule” for DMRS for PBCH; [0044]: “Mod 30 value to ensure the uplink inter cell interference”; [0074]: “avoiding module-k PCI conflicts for top neighbors”; [0040]-[0065]: may determine a PCI aligned to mod(3) rule, mod(4) rule and mod(30) rule; mod(k) rule implicitly teaches a PCI, which satisfies mod (60) (least common multiple of 3, 4 and 30) with aligned remainder, would satisfy mod(3) rule, mod(4) rule and mod(30) rule and so may avoid PCI conflicts for PSS, DMRS of PBCH and UL intercell interference).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Andrade, Acedo and Akihara teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘execute update to the cell identifier that has been determined’ (Andrade: [FIG.5A]: “Original PCIS ---> New PCIS”, may update the PCIs with new PCIs that has been determined).
Andrade does not expressly teach, but Acedo teaches ‘compare evaluation values before and after change of a cell identifier to the cell identifier that has been determined’ (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”; equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the objective function incudes number of handover; [Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”, may re-evaluate the objective function and compare the evaluation value before and after PCI change);
‘the evaluation values each corresponding to the sum of metrics related respectively to the first value, the second value, and the third value’ (Acedo: equation (11)-(12): sum of metrics related to all cells (mod 1), mod 6 (or mod 3) and mod (30));
‘in a case where the evaluation value after the change of the cell identifier is improved’ (Acedo: Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”; equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the objective function incudes number of handover; may determine new PCI allocation with better minimal number of handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching with that of Andrade to adjust PCI allocation by minimize an objective function with metrics such as number of handover in response to the change of handover measurements (Acedo: [Abstract]: “allocating Physical Cell Identifiers (PCI) to cells in a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system based on handover and cell load measurements”).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Andrade, Acedo and Akihara teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 7 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘update the cell identifier’ (Andrade: [FIG.5A]: “Original PCIS ---> New PCIS”).
Andrade does not expressly teach, but Acedo teaches ‘compare a value obtained by subtracting a predetermined value from the evaluation value before the change of the cell identifier and the evaluation value after the change of the cell identifier’ (Acedo: equation (2) and (4); [Page 3, Col 2]: “where δss is a parameter for decoupling the assignment of sequence group from the assignment of PCI”; may subtract a predetermined value (-δss); may compare a value obtained by subtracting a predetermined value from value from the evaluation value before the change of the cell identifier and the evaluation value after the change of the cell identifier).
‘where the evaluation value after the change of the cell identifier is smaller than the value as a result of the comparison’ (Acedo: Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”; equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the objective function incudes number of handover; may determine new PCI allocation with better minimal number of handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching with that of Andrade to subtract a predetermined value from the evaluation value in order to consider sequence-group hopping while determining PCI allocation (Acedo: equation (4), [Page 3, Col 2]: “where δss is a parameter for decoupling the assignment of sequence group from the assignment of PCI. If sequence-group hopping is disabled, u = fss”).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Andrade, Acedo and Akihara teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 7 (discussed above).
Andrade teaches ‘the number of cells having cell identifiers to be changed’ (Andrade:[0073]: “the number of cells for which the PCI is to be changed”); ‘update the cell identifier’ (Andrade: [FIG.5A]: “Original PCIS ---> New PCIS”).
Andrade does not expressly teach, but Acedo teaches ‘compare the evaluation value before the change of the cell identifier and an added value obtained by adding a value to the evaluation value after the change of the cell identifier’ (Acedo: [Page 2, Col 1]: “PCI planning is solved by a multi-level refinement graph partitioning algorithm”, may repartition with added value obtained by adding a value to the evaluation value after the change of the cell identifier);
‘in a case where the added value is smaller than the evaluation value before the change of the cell identifier as a result of the comparison’ (Acedo: Page 5, Col 1]: “minimizes the objective function”; equation (8)-(9); [Page 4, Col 2]: “number of handovers between neighbor cells i and j”, the objective function incudes number of handover; may determine new PCI allocation with better minimal number of handover).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Acedo’s teaching with that of Andrade to add a number of nodes having PCI to be changed and re-minimize the objective function and adjust PCI allocation in case of a smaller minimal value in order to refine the nodes partition for PCI allocation (Acedo: “PCI planning is solved by a multi-level refinement graph partitioning algorithm”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Interference Modeling and Performance Evaluation of Heterogeneous Cellular Networks” see [Page 2133].
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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462