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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 19, “the second MCS” lacks claim antecedent basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 12,1,4-11,15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0037464 A1 to Lim et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0363810 A1 to Luo et al.
As to claim 12, Lim discloses A system for adaptably assigning a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), comprising:
a base station having one or more antennas for receiving uplink messages from at least one user equipment (UE) and for transmitting downlink messages to the at least one UE, and a processor, the processor configured to (Fig. 1: Base station; paragraphs 17-19, disclosing BS performing disclosed method):
receive a first uplink message from the at least one UE, the first uplink message comprising a first channel condition report (paragraphs 17-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”);
based on the first channel condition report, determine a first level of interference for the at least one UE (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE);
determine an uplink radio condition for the at least one UE based on the first channel condition report and the first level of interference; and assign a first MCS to the at least one UE based on the uplink radio condition (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”, teaching this limitation)
Lim does not appear to explicitly disclose channel condition report comprising one or more UL measurement from the at least one UE.
Luo discloses channel condition report comprising one or more UL measurement from the at least one UE (Figs. 6C and 7, in particular 708, paragraphs 77, 79-88, in particular, paragraph 86, disclosing a UE 604/704 [the recited “at least one UE”] measuring the UL signal from another UE 644/744 that causes cross-UL-to-DL interference, where UE 604/704 then sends/”reports” that measured interference to the serving BS, such “cross-UL-to-DL interference” teaching an embodiment of “UL measurement” pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term)
Determine an UL radio condition for the at least one UE based on the one or more UL measurements (Figs. 6C and 7, in particular 708, paragraphs 77, 79-88, in particular, paragraph 86, disclosing a UE 604/704 [the recited “at least one UE”] measuring the UL signal from another UE 644/744 that causes cross-UL-to-DL interference, where UE 604/704 then sends/”reports” that measured interference to the serving BS, such “cross-UL-to-DL interference” teaching an embodiment of “UL measurement” pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term, further teaching such “cross-ul-DL interference” is an embodiment of an UL radio condition for the UE 604/704 from the another UD 644/744)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Luo, in conjunction with and to modify the combined teachings of Lim, to reject the limitations of this claim, by observing that the “cross-UL-to-DL interference” (an embodiment of “UL measurement”) is sent to the serving Base station much like the estimated CINR/”channel quality information” is sent to the BS in Lim, thus rendering it obvious for a PHOSITA to combine the teachings of Luo and Lim so that Luo’s “cross-UL-to-DL interference” may be incorporated in and/or sent in or together with the CINR/”channel quality information” [i.e., the “first channel condition report”] in Lim, to reject “receive a first uplink message from the at least one UE, the first uplink message comprising a first channel condition report comprising one or more UL measurements from the at least one UE”. Similar, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that Luo’s teaching of “Determine an UL radio condition for the at least one UE based on the one or more UL measurements” and Lim’s teaching of “determine an uplink radio condition for the at least one UE based on the first channel condition report and the first level of interference” are combinable to reject “determine an uplink radio condition for the at least one UE based on the first channel condition report comprising one or more uplink measurements and the first level of interference” since both Luo’s “cross-UL-to-DL interference” and Lim’s CINR/”channel quality information” are utilized to determine embodiments of uplink radio conditions. The cited references are in the same field of endeavor concerning wireless communication systems. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems. (Lim, paragraphs 1-19; Madan, paragraphs 2-25; Luo, paragraphs 1-11, Figs. 6 and 7). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 1, see rejection for claim 12.
As to claim 4, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Lim further discloses wherein the first level of interference is a signal- to-noise and interference (SINR) value. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE)
As to claim 5, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Lim further discloses further receiving a second UL message from the at least one UE (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the recited method as discussed above in claim 1; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 6, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 5.
Lim further discloses wherein the second uplink message includes a second channel condition report from the at least one UE. (paragraphs 17-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 7, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 6.
Lim further discloses wherein the second channel condition report reflects different channel conditions than the first channel condition report (paragraphs 17-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 8, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 5.
Lim further discloses further comprising determining a second level of interference for the at least one UE. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 9, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 8.
Lim further discloses wherein the second level of interference is different than the first level of interference for the at least one UE. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 10, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 8.
Lim further discloses further comprising assigning a second MCS to the at least one UE based on the second channel condition report and the second level of interference. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 11, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 10.
Lim further discloses wherein the second MCS is different from the first MCS. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 15, see rejections for claims 4.
As to claim 16, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 12.
Lim further discloses further comprising receiving a second uplink message from the at least one UE, wherein the second uplink message includes a second channel condition report (paragraphs 17-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, teaching “second UL message” and this limitation)
used in determining a second level of interference for the at least one UE (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 17, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 16.
Lim further discloses further comprising assigning a second MCS to the at least one UE based on the second level of interference. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
Claim(s) 2-3,13-14,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0037464 A1 to Lim et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0363810 A1 to Luo et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0164206 A1 to Madan, et al.
As to claim 2, Lim and Luo teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Lim further discloses further comprising assigning at least one resource to the at least one UE (paragraph 72)
Lim does not appear to explicitly disclose resource block RB.
Madan discloses assigning RB to the UE (paragraphs 101-102).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Madan, in conjunction with and to modify the combined teachings of Lim, to reject the limitations of this claim, by observing that the RB disclosed in Madan may be combined/incorporated in the resource disclosed in Lim to reject “further comprising assigning at least one resource block to the at least one UE”. The cited references are in the same field of endeavor concerning wireless communication systems. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems. (Lim, paragraphs 1-19; Madan, paragraphs 2-25). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 3, Lim, Luo and Madan teach the method as in the parent claim 2.
Lim further discloses further comprising transmitting the first MCS and the at least one resource allocation to the at least one UE in a downlink message (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2-3, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”, teaching to a PHOSITA that the BS would communicate these allocations to the UE, teaching this limitation)
Lim does not appear to explicitly disclose resource block RB.
Madan discloses assigning at least one RB to the UE (paragraphs 101-102).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Madan, in conjunction with and to modify the combined teachings of Lim, to reject the limitations of this claim, by observing that the RB disclosed in Madan may be combined/incorporated in the resource disclosed in Lim to reject “further comprising transmitting the first MCS and the at least one resource block to the at least one UE in a downlink message”. The cited references are in the same field of endeavor concerning wireless communication systems. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems. (Lim, paragraphs 1-19; Madan, paragraphs 2-25). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claims 13-14, see rejections for claims 2-3.
As to claim 18, Lim discloses
A non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by one or more processors, cause the processors to: (Fig. 1: Base station and UE(s); paragraphs 17-19, disclosing BS and UE performing disclosed method, further teaching the recited computer storage media to a PHOSITA):
transmit a first uplink message to a base station, the first uplink message containing a first channel condition report (paragraphs 17-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”);
and receive a first downlink message from the base station (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2-3, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”, teaching to a PHOSITA that the BS would communicate these allocations to the UE, teaching this limitation), the first downlink message comprising at least one resource grant (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2-3, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”, teaching to a PHOSITA that the BS would communicate these allocations [“resource grant”] to the UE, teaching this limitation; also see paragraph 72) and a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS), the first MCS based on the first channel condition report (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”, teaching this limitation) and a first level of interference (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE).
Lim does not appear to explicitly disclose channel condition report that includes one or more UL measurement performed by a UE.
Luo discloses channel condition report that includes one or more UL measurement performed by a UE (Figs. 6C and 7, in particular 708, paragraphs 77, 79-88, in particular, paragraph 86, disclosing a UE 604/704 [the recited “at least one UE”] measuring the UL signal from another UE 644/744 that causes cross-UL-to-DL interference, where UE 604/704 then sends/”reports” that measured interference to the serving BS, such “cross-UL-to-DL interference” teaching an embodiment of “UL measurement” pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term)
Determine an UL radio condition for the at least one UE based on the one or more UL measurements (Figs. 6C and 7, in particular 708, paragraphs 77, 79-88, in particular, paragraph 86, disclosing a UE 604/704 [the recited “at least one UE”] measuring the UL signal from another UE 644/744 that causes cross-UL-to-DL interference, where UE 604/704 then sends/”reports” that measured interference to the serving BS, such “cross-UL-to-DL interference” teaching an embodiment of “UL measurement” pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term, further teaching such “cross-ul-DL interference” is an embodiment of an UL radio condition for the UE 604/704 from the another UD 644/744)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Luo, in conjunction with and to modify the combined teachings of Lim, to reject the limitations of this claim, by observing that the “cross-UL-to-DL interference” (an embodiment of “UL measurement”) is sent to the serving Base station much like the estimated CINR/”channel quality information” is sent to the BS in Lim, thus rendering it obvious for a PHOSITA to combine the teachings of Luo and Lim so that Luo’s “cross-UL-to-DL interference” may be incorporated in and/or sent in or together with the CINR/”channel quality information” [i.e., the “first channel condition report”] in Lim, to reject “transmit a first uplink message to a base station, the first uplink message containing a first channel condition report that includes one or more UL measurements performed by a UE”.
Similarly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that Luo’s teaching of “channel condition report that includes one or more UL measurement performed by a UE” and “Determine an UL radio condition for the at least one UE based on the one or more UL measurements” and Lim’s teaching of “the first MCS based on the first channel condition report and a first level of interference” are combinable to reject “the first MCS based on the first channel condition report including the one or more UL measurements performed by the UE and a first level of interference” since both Luo’s “cross-UL-to-DL interference” and Lim’s CINR/”channel quality information” are utilized to determine embodiments of uplink radio conditions. Furthermore, Lim discloses determining an uplink radio condition for the at least one UE based on the first channel condition report and the first level of interference and then assigning a first MCS to the at least one UE based on the uplink radio condition (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”, teaching this limitation) These teachings are sufficient to render it obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Lim and Luo to reject “the first MCS based on the first channel condition report including the one or more UL measurements performed by the UE and a first level of interference”.
The cited references are in the same field of endeavor concerning wireless communication systems. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems. (Lim, paragraphs 1-19; Madan, paragraphs 2-25; Luo, paragraphs 1-11, Figs. 6 and 7). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Lim and Luo do not appear to explicitly disclose resource block RB.
Madan discloses the first downlink message comprising at least one resource block grant (paragraphs 101-102).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to utilize the teachings of Madan discussed above, in conjunction with and to modify the combined teachings of Lim, especially “the first downlink message comprising at least one resource grant and a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS)”, to reject the limitations of this claim, by observing that the RB disclosed in Madan may be combined/incorporated in the resource disclosed in Lim to reject “the first downlink message comprising at least one resource block grant and a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS)”. The cited references are in the same field of endeavor concerning wireless communication systems. The suggestion or motivation would have been to provide an improved method of radio/frame resource allocation in wireless communications systems. (Lim, paragraphs 1-19; Madan, paragraphs 2-25; Luo, paragraphs 1-11, Figs. 6 and 7). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 19, Lim, Luo and Madan teach the method as in the parent claim 18.
Lim further discloses further comprising receive a second downlink message from the base station, the second downlink message containing a second MCS, based on a second channel condition and a second level of interference (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, Figs. 2,5, disclosing the base station “selecting a MCS level [“UL radio condition” and “first MCS”] according to the antenna weight and the received SINR [which is determined based on “channel quality information”, i.e., “first channel condition report”] and allocating an UL/DL resource to the terminal”; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 20, Lim, Luo and Madan teach the method as in the parent claim 19.
Lim further discloses wherein the first and second levels of interference are based on a signal-to-noise and interference (SINR) measurement. (paragraphs 11-19, 32-34, disclosing the UE reporting an “estimated channel quality information [CINR] to the base station 10”, the base station “predicting an UL/DL received signal to interference noise ratio SInR by using the antenna weight and the channel quality information” and “the base station 10 estimates noise and interference NI transmitted to the base setation 10 through the uplink channel” by using the “estimated channel quality information” reported by the UE; further see Figs. 2, 5, disclosing that the method is continuously and repeated performed for each received packet/data, where future iterations of the method would reflect different network/communications conditions, teaching this limitation)
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 CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463