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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/21/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification and Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/21/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification and Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 102/103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/21/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
On page 13 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
The Office Action considers the "buffer level" or "initial playback delay" QoE metrics in Wei as disclosing the claimed "wait time for processing the client device at each client device." Although Wei describes the QoE metrics in the QoE reports can include a buffer level or initial playback delay, Wei appears silent regarding a wait time for processing the client data at each client device as recited in amended independent claim 7.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Unlike the applicant’s argument above, Wei discloses in ¶0085 and 0111 that the UE sends a QoE report to the QoE server, and the QoE report includes a QoE metric which may be an average throughput, a buffer level, a playlist, an initial playback delay. The parameters such as the buffer level and the initial playback delay included in the QoE report can be interpreted as the claimed “wait time for processing the client data”.
On page 14 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Although Wei describes the QoE increases or decreases a bit rate to a UE according to the QoE report, Wei appears silent regarding a server configured to transmit, to at least one of the plurality of client devices, client data, at one or more transmission occasions based on the
information, wherein the client data is transmitted a time determined based on the information included in the first message and based on the wait time or downlink time spread included in the third message as recited in amended independent claim 7. First, Wei describes a bit rate, not a transmission time or transmission occasion based on the information from the client devices. Further, Wei fails to teach or suggest the claimed wait time and, therefore, fails to teach a time determined based on the wait time.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Unlike the applicant’s argument above, the bit rate increasing or decreasing based on QoE report including the buffer level and the initial playback delay as QoE metrics of Wei can be read into the claimed transmitting of the client data based on the wait time included in the third message. This is because increasing or decreasing of the bit rate to transmit streaming data results in changing in timing occasions to transmit the streaming data, as previously discussed in page 8 of the outstanding office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-15, 17-19 and 23-30 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the client data is transmitted a time determined . . .” (last three lines). It is suggested to replace it with “wherein the client data is transmitted at a time determined . . .” for more clarity. Claim 23 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Claim 17 recites, “a serving cell” (line 4). It is suggested to replace it with “the serving cell” for more clarity. Claim 28 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 17.
Claim 18 recites, “the wait times . . ” (last line). It is suggested to replace it with “the wait time . . .” for more clarity. Claim 29 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 18.
Claims 8-15, 17-19 and 24-30 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-15, 17-19 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites, “the information” (third line from the bottom). It is unclear whether the information refers to “information associated with one or more wireless communication networks” (lines 6-7), or “information including a cell identifier” (line 11), or “client information” (line 13). Claims 8, 11, 13-15, 19, 23-27 and 30 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7. For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
. Claims 8-15, 17-19 and 24-30 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claims, as set forth 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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7-9, 13-14, 18-19, 23-24, 26-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US Publication No. 2015/0138982) in view of Baek et al (US Publication No. 2007/0223491).
Regarding claim 7, Wei discloses, a server for transmitting client data, the server [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0084, QoE server for HTTP streaming service], comprising:
one or more memories [FIGS. 8-9 with respect to FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0129, memory 807]; and
one or more processors configured to execute the computer executable code to cause the server to [FIGS. 8-9 with respect to FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0129, processor 806 coupled to the memory 807]:
receive, from a plurality of client devices, a plurality of messages [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0085, the UE sends a QoE report to the QoE server; further see ¶0069, an operator may perform a network analysis according to QoE reports of UEs (i.e., a plurality of client devices). If it is learned from QoE reports read by a QoE server that cell identities reported by most UEs that are performing a same service are A, a cell A may be considered as a hotspot cell of the service; ¶0071, the QoE server may comprehensively analyze QoE reports reported by multiple UEs; ¶0092, after receiving the QoE report in step 302, the QoE server finds that multiple UEs in a same cell are gaining access to an HTTP streaming video service, and that resources cannot be fairly shared by the multiple UEs because of a time difference in gaining access to the HTTP streaming video service by the UEs], wherein at least two of the plurality of messages includes information associated with one or more wireless communication networks [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0086, the QoE report includes a cell identity of a serving cell (i.e., information associated with one or more wireless communication networks) of the UE; since each of the multiple UEs (see ¶0069, 0071 and 0092,) transmits the QoE report to the QoE server, at least two of the QoE reports include the cell identity of the serving cell of the UE]; and
the plurality of messages comprise:
a first message including information including a cell identifier
(ID) of a serving cell of one of the plurality of client devices [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0086, the QoE report includes a cell identity of a serving cell (i.e., information associated with one or more wireless communication networks) of the UE];
a second message comprising client information for generating
client data [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0085, the UE sends a QoE report to the QoE server; further see ¶0111, the QoE report includes a QoE metric which may be an average throughput, a buffer level, a playlist, an initial playback delay, a media presentation handover implementation list, an HTTP request/response interaction list, or the like]; and
a third message including a wait time for processing the client data
at each client device [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0085, the UE sends a QoE report to the QoE server; further see ¶0111, the QoE report includes a QoE metric which may be an average throughput, a buffer level, a playlist, an initial playback delay, a media presentation handover implementation list, an HTTP request/response interaction list, or the like]; and
transmit, to at least one of the plurality of client devices, client data, at one or more transmission occasions based on the information [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302; note that transmission of client data is made via at least one transmission occasion], wherein the client data is transmitted a time determined based on the information included in the first message and based on the wait time included in the third message [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302 including the QoE metric including e.g., a cell identity of a serving cell, buffer level and playback delay; further see in ¶0097, “a bit rate in the HTTP streaming service increases or decreases”; note that increasing or decreasing the bit rate of the streaming service results in changing in transmitting the streaming data at a processing occasion, and the timing of the transmission occasion is based on the QoE metric of the QoE report].
Wei does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), each message is a session description protocol (SDP) message for session initiation protocol (SIP).
However, Baek discloses, each message is a session description protocol (SDP) message for session initiation protocol (SIP) [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0034, the terminal 300 transmits and receives session description protocol (SDP) information, which indicates QoS information of an application layer, with the IMS server 306 through a SIP signaling; further see ¶0037, the IMS server 306 receives from the terminal 300 the SIP signaling for starting a session].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Wei with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Baek to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Baek into the system of Wei would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling the network/server to negotiate various media types or parameters and transport details for proper session setup, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Wei discloses, obtain additional information associated with the one or more wireless communication networks and additional client devices [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0085 and 0064, the UE sends a QoE report to the QoE server; further see ¶0111, the QoE report includes a QoE metric which may be an average throughput, a buffer level, a playlist, an initial playback delay, a media presentation handover implementation list, an HTTP request/response interaction list, or the like], select a group of client devices among the plurality of client devices and the additional client devices based at least in part on the information and the additional information [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0069, the QoE server may determine a hotspot cell according to the QoE report, and determine a cell policy for the hotspot cell. . . . an operator may perform a network analysis according to QoE reports of UEs. If it is learned from QoE reports read by a QoE server that cell identities reported by most UEs that are performing a same service are A, a cell A may be considered as a hotspot cell of the service; note that determining the hotspot cell based on the QoE metric and the cell identifier of a serving cell reported from most UEs is understood as selecting the UEs as belonging to the corresponding hotspot cell of which cell policy is determined and implemented], and transmit, to the group of client devices, the client data [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0069, 0082 and 0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE metric and the cell identity and control policy determined by the QoE metric and the cell identity].
Regarding claim 9, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 8 as set forth above.
Wei discloses, wherein the processor and the memory are configured to select the group of client devices with at least one of: a same cell ID of a serving cell [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0069, an operator may perform a network analysis according to QoE reports of UEs. If it is learned from QoE reports read by a QoE server that cell identities reported by most UEs that are performing a same service are A, a cell A may be considered as a hotspot cell of the service].
Regarding claim 13, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Wei discloses, initiate generating of the client data to be transmitted to the at least one of the plurality of client devices at one or more processing occasions, a timing of the generating being based at least in part on the information [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302; further see in ¶0097, “a bit rate in the HTTP streaming service increases or decreases”; note that increasing or decreasing the bit rate of the streaming service is understood as starting to generate of the streaming data at at least one processing occasion, and the timing of the processing occasion is based on the QoE report].
Regarding claim 14, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Wei discloses, initiate transmitting of the client data to the at least one of the plurality of client devices at the one or more transmission occasions, a timing of the transmitting being based at least in part on the information [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302; further see in ¶0097, “a bit rate in the HTTP streaming service increases or decreases”; note that increasing or decreasing the bit rate of the streaming service is understood as including transmission of the streaming data at at least one transmission occasion, and the timing of the transmission occasion is based on the QoE report].
Regarding claim 18, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Wei discloses, initiate generating or transmitting of additional client data at one or more processing occasions or at one or more transmission occasions, a timing of the generating or transmitting being based at least in part on the wait times [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302 including the QoE metric including e.g., buffer level and playback delay; further see in ¶0097, “a bit rate in the HTTP streaming service increases or decreases”; note that increasing or decreasing the bit rate of the streaming service is understood as starting to generate of the streaming data at at least one processing occasion, and the timing of the processing occasion is based on the QoE metric of the QoE report].
Regarding claim 19, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Wei discloses, render, by the server in response to the additional messages, one or more video frames for at least one of the plurality of client devices based on the information and the client information [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302; note that the streaming is made in response to the QE metric and the cell identity of a serving cell; further see ¶0092, HTTP streaming video services], wherein the client data includes the rendered one or more video frames ¶0092, HTTP streaming video services].
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites similar features to claim 7 without further additional features. Thus, claim 23 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 13.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 15.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 19.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US Publication No. 2015/0138982) in view of Baek et al (US Publication No. 2007/0223491) and further in view of Yokota et al (US Publication No. 2015/0281959).
Regarding claim 10, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 8 as set forth above.
Wei in view of Baek does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yokota discloses, obtain the additional information from another server [¶0037, the transmission/reception unit 22 is an example of a reception unit that receives the SSID information of a wireless LAN from another server PSv].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yokota in the system of Wei in view of Baek in order to cause the server to enable function of delivering an application of the own device based on detected SSID (BSSIDs) information transmitted from another server [e.g., ¶0027 of Yokota].
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US Publication No. 2015/0138982) in view of Baek et al (US Publication No. 2007/0223491) and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2013/0114512).
Regarding claim 11, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Although Wei discloses, “obtain additional information associated with the one or more wireless communication networks and additional client devices, select a group of client devices among the plurality client devices and the additional client devices based at least in part on the information and the additional information” as set forth above in claim 8, Wei in view of Baek does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yamamoto discloses, transmit, to the other server, a schedule indicating the one or more transmission occasions for the group of client devices, wherein the server and the other server are time synchronized with each other [¶0028, the control unit can cause the another base station device to secure the vacant resources in the predetermined time units, when the communication timings of the base station device and the another base station device are synchronized with each other, and can specify a range corresponding to the vacant resources. Therefore, it is possible to allocate favorable resources with which mutual interface can be avoided, to the terminal device located close to the another base station device. As a result, it is possible to perform the process for avoiding interference more appropriately; further see ¶0015, in order to shift the resources in the time direction, the transmission timings of radio frames need to be synchronized between the base station devices].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yamamoto in the system of Wei in view of Baek in order to cause the system to be able to avoid or suppresses interference between base station devices without adjusting power of transmission signals [e.g., ¶0013 of Yamamoto].
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US Publication No. 2015/0138982) in view of Baek et al (US Publication No. 2007/0223491) and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US Publication No. 2013/0114512) and further in view of Jiang et al (US Publication No. 2019/0373621).
Regarding claim 12, Wei in view of Baek and Yamamoto discloses, the server of claim 11 as set forth above.
Wei in view of Baek and Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Jiang discloses, wherein the schedule is determined based on round-trip latencies of the group of client devices [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0068, the specific number of symbols included among the UL and DL symbols is configurable, and may vary based on the number of UEs to be scheduled for RTT ranging in a particular ranging slot].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Wei in view of Baek and Yamamoto and with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jiang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Jiang into the system of Wei in view of Baek and Yamamoto would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to align resource allocation with actual network conditions, reducing delay for fairer access and improved overall efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US Publication No. 2015/0138982) in view of Baek et al (US Publication No. 2007/0223491) and further in view of Lauridsen et al (US Publication No. 2021/0092781).
Regarding claim 15, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Wei in view of Baek does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lauridsen discloses, wherein the information includes at least one of: one or more beam IDs of one or more serving cells of the plurality of client devices [¶0128, the SE may receive from the UE at least one of a current geographical location of the UE, an identified, e.g. cell_ID, of last/current serving cell of the UE and beam identifier together with time information].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Wei in view of Baek with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Lauridsen to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Lauridsen into the system of Wei in view of Baek would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling the network to track the UE’s serving beam and optimize beam management, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US Publication No. 2015/0138982) in view of Baek et al (US Publication No. 2007/0223491) and further in view of Liu et al (US Publication No. 2019/0327649).
Regarding claim 17, Wei in view of Baek discloses, the server of claim 7 as set forth above.
Although Wei discloses, receive, from one of the client devices, information indicating a cell identifier of a serving cell [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0085, the QoE server receives from the UE QoE report including a cell identifier of a serving cell], and initiate generating of the client data at one or more processing occasions, a timing of the generating being based at least in part on the cell ID [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the QoE server performs the HTTP streaming services (i.e., client data) toward to each UE based on the QoE report 302; further see in ¶0097, “a bit rate in the HTTP streaming service increases or decreases”; note that increasing or decreasing the bit rate of the streaming service is understood as starting to generate of the streaming data at at least one processing occasion, and the timing of the processing occasion is based on the QoE report], Wei in view of Baek does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the information indicating a cell identifier of a serving cell is modified as the “updated” information indicating a cell identifier of a serving cell”.
However, Liu discloses, information indicating a cell identity is updated [¶0025-0026, the cell identity list may be updated, and may be changed based on an actual requirement].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information indicating a cell identity to be updated as taught by Liu in the system of Wei in view of Baek in order to ensure accuracy of communication information, thus improving the overall system performance and stability [e.g., ¶0045 of Liu].
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469