DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4 June 2026.
Claims 77-91 are presented for examination.
Claims 77 and 85 are amended.
Claims 1-76 are cancelled.
Claims 92-96 are withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 4 June 2026, with respect to Objection to the Specification, specifically the Title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification, specifically the Title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 4 June 2026, with respect to the Objections to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections to the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 77 and 8 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
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.
Claim(s) 77-78, 85-86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al (US 2019/0215125 A1), hereinafter Da Silva, in view of Deshmukh et al (WO 2019/216670 A), hereinafter Deshmukh.
Regarding Claim 77, Da Silva discloses an apparatus (see Figures 1 and 7 and paragraphs 116; an apparatus/first radio node 120a), comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium/(memory circuitry 720) having stored/stored thereon computer-executable/executing instructions/instructions);
at least one receiving circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one receiving circuitry/input circuitry 750);
at least one transmitting circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one receiving circuitry/output circuitry 740); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one processor/(processing circuitry 710) coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory circuitry 720), the at least one receiving circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; the at least one receiving circuitry/input circuitry 750), and the at least one transmitting circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; the at least one receiving circuitry/output circuitry 740), the apparatus operating as a first node in a network (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 60 and 116; the apparatus/(first radio node 120) operating as a first node/(first radio node 120) in a network/network environment 100), wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor (see Figures 1 and 7 and paragraph 117; wherein the computer-executable instructions/instructions cause the at least one processor/processing circuitry 710) to:
transmit a first signaling indicating a resource configuration of a kind of reference signal for a second node and a first identifier associated with the second node (see Figure 2 and Figure 4, 350a and paragraphs 76-79 and 95; transmit/transmitting a first signaling/(reference signal 210a) indicating/indicate a resource configuration/(RRC containing reporting format configuration) of a kind of reference signal/(reference signal 210a) for a second node/(communication device 110) and a first identifier/(unique identifier) associated with the second node/communication device 110); and
receive a second signaling indicating a reporting metric associated with the reference signal and a second identifier associated with the reference signal (see Figure 2 and Figure 4, step 355 and paragraphs 76 and 89; receive/(communication device 100 transmits) a second signaling/(measurement report) indicating a reporting metric/(radio resource measurements) associated with the reference signal/(reference signal 210a) and a second identifier/associated with the reference signal/an identifier of the reference signal).
Although Da Silva discloses an apparatus as set forth above,
Da Silva does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node indexed among all nodes associated with a same donor node or a link identifier of a link between a third node and the second node, the third node being a parent node of the second node, the link identifier indexed among all links associated with the same donor node within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system”.
However, Deshmukh discloses an apparatus, comprising:
transmit a first signaling indicating a resource configuration of a kind of reference signal for a second node and a first identifier associated with the second node,
wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node indexed among all nodes associated with a same donor node (see Figure 2A and paragraph 36; wherein the first identifier/identity is a node identifier/(unique DU Identity (ID)) of the second node/(IAB node) indexed among all nodes/(IAB nodes and IAB donor) associated with a same donor node/IAB donor 200) or a link identifier of a link between a third node and the second node (see Figure 2A and paragraph 69; or a link identifier/(route IE or UE ID) of a link/(F1-U or F1*-U link) between a third node/(IAB node 201) and the second node/IAB node 202), the third node being a parent node of the second node (see Figure 2A and paragraph 69; the third node/(IAB Node 201) being a parent node/(IAB Node 201) of the second node/IAB node 202), the link identifier indexed among all links associated with the same donor node within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system (see Figure 2A and paragraph 69; the link identifier/(route ID and UE ID) indexed among all links/(F1 or F1*) associated with the same donor node/(IAB donor 200) within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system/ a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system as shown in Figure 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node indexed among all nodes associated with a same donor node or a link identifier of a link between a third node and the second node, the third node being a parent node of the second node, the link identifier indexed among all links associated with the same donor node within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system” as taught by Deshmukh in the system of Da Silva to configure an adaptation layer of an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) donor and adaptation layers of IAB nodes in 5th Generation (5G) communication networks (see page 2, paragraph 8 of Deshmukh).
Regarding Claim 78, Da Silva discloses the apparatus, wherein the reference signal is a downlink reference signal (see Figure 2 and paragraph 76; wherein the reference signal/(reference signal 210a) is a downlink reference signal/reference signal 210a is a downlink reference signal, Note: access node 120a transmits to the communication device 110).
Regarding Claim 85, Da Silva discloses an apparatus (see Figures 1 and 7 and paragraphs 116; an apparatus/first radio node 120a), comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium/(memory circuitry 720) having stored/stored thereon computer-executable/executing instructions/instructions);
at least one receiving circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one receiving circuitry/input circuitry 750);
at least one transmitting circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one receiving circuitry/output circuitry 740); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; at least one processor/(processing circuitry 710) coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium/memory circuitry 720), the at least one receiving circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; the at least one receiving circuitry/input circuitry 750), and the at least one transmitting circuitry (see Figure 7 and paragraph 116; the at least one receiving circuitry/output circuitry 740), the apparatus operating as a first node in a network (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 60 and 116; the apparatus/(first radio node 120) operating as a first node/(first radio node 120) in a network/network environment 100), wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor (see Figures 1 and 7 and paragraph 117; wherein the computer-executable instructions/instructions cause the at least one processor/processing circuitry 710) to:
receive a first signaling indicating a resource configuration of a kind of reference signal for a second node and a first identifier associated with the second node (see Figure 2 and Figure 4, 350a and paragraphs 76-79 and 95; receive/transmitting a first signaling/(reference signal 210a) indicating/indicate a resource configuration/(RRC containing reporting format configuration) of a kind of reference signal/(reference signal 210a) for a second node/(communication device 110) and a first identifier/(unique identifier) associated with the second node/communication device 110); and
transmit a second signaling indicating a reporting metric associated with the reference signal and a second identifier associated with the reference signal (see Figure 2 and Figure 4, step 355 and paragraphs 76 and 89; transmit/(communication device 100 transmits) a second signaling/(measurement report) indicating a reporting metric/(radio resource measurements) associated with the reference signal/(reference signal 210a) and a second identifier/associated with the reference signal/an identifier of the reference signal).
Although Da Silva discloses an apparatus as set forth above,
Da Silva does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node indexed among all nodes associated with a same donor node or a link identifier of a link between a third node and the second node, the third node being a parent node of the second node, the link identifier indexed among all links associated with the same donor node within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system”.
However, Deshmukh discloses an apparatus, comprising:
wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node indexed among all nodes associated with a same donor node (see Figure 2A and paragraph 36; wherein the first identifier/identity is a node identifier/(unique DU Identity (ID)) of the second node/(IAB node) indexed among all nodes/(IAB nodes and IAB donor) associated with a same donor node/IAB donor 200) or a link identifier of a link between a third node and the second node (see Figure 2A and paragraph 69; or a link identifier/(route IE or UE ID) of a link/(F1-U or F1*-U link) between a third node/(IAB node 201) and the second node/IAB node 202), the third node being a parent node of the second node (see Figure 2A and paragraph 69; the third node/(IAB Node 201) being a parent node/(IAB Node 201) of the second node/IAB node 202), the link identifier indexed among all links associated with the same donor node within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system (see Figure 2A and paragraph 69; the link identifier/(route ID and UE ID) indexed among all links/(F1 or F1*) associated with the same donor node/(IAB donor 200) within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system/ a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system as shown in Figure 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node indexed among all nodes associated with a same donor node or a link identifier of a link between a third node and the second node, the third node being a parent node of the second node, the link identifier indexed among all links associated with the same donor node within a multi-hop integrated access and backhaul (IAB) relay system” as taught by Deshmukh in the system of Da Silva to configure an adaptation layer of an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) donor and adaptation layers of IAB nodes in 5th Generation (5G) communication networks (see page 2, paragraph 8 of Deshmukh).
Regarding Claim 86, Da Silva discloses the apparatus, wherein the reference signal is a downlink reference signal (see Figure 2 and paragraph 76; wherein the reference signal/(reference signal 210a) is a downlink reference signal/reference signal 210a is a downlink reference signal, Note: access node 120a transmits to the communication device 110).
Claim(s) 79 and 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Deshmukh, and further in view of Vitthaladevuni et al (US 2018/0027437 A1), hereinafter Vitthaladevuni.
Regarding Claim 79, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the reference signal as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “wherein the uplink reference signal is a sounding reference signal”.
However, Vitthaladevuni discloses the apparatus, wherein the uplink reference signal is a sounding reference signal (see paragraph 86; wherein the uplink reference signal/(uplink reference signal) is a sounding reference signal/sounding reference signal (SRS)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the uplink reference signal is a sounding reference signal” as taught by Vitthaladevuni in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh to provide channel estimation in wireless communication systems (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Vitthaladevuni).
Regarding Claim 87, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the reference signal as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “wherein the uplink reference signal is a sounding reference signal”.
However, Vitthaladevuni discloses the apparatus, wherein the uplink reference signal is a sounding reference signal (see paragraph 86; wherein the uplink reference signal/(uplink reference signal) is a sounding reference signal/sounding reference signal (SRS)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the uplink reference signal is a sounding reference signal” as taught by Vitthaladevuni in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh to provide channel estimation in wireless communication systems (see page 1, paragraph 2 of Vitthaladevuni).
Claim(s) 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Deshmukh, and further in view of Sadiq et al (US 2020/0028768 A1), hereinafter Sadiq.
Regarding Claim 80, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the reference signal as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “wherein the downlink reference signal is a synchronization signal block or channel state information reference signal”.
However, Sadiq discloses the apparatus, wherein the downlink reference signal is a synchronization signal block or channel state information reference signal (see paragraphs 77, 91 and 98; wherein the downlink reference signal/(downlink reference signal) is a synchronization signal block/SSBs or channel state information reference signal/CSI-RS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the downlink reference signal is a synchronization signal block or channel state information reference signal” as taught by Sadiq in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh to enhance signaling efficiencies (see page 1, paragraph 4 of Sadiq).
Claim(s) 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Deshmukh, and further in view of Liu et al (US 2020/0374871 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 81, Da Silva discloses the apparatus, wherein the first signaling is transmitted to one of the second node (see Figure 2 and Figure 4, 350a and paragraphs 76-79 and 95; wherein the first signaling/(reference signal 210a) is transmitted/transmitting to one of the second node/communication device 110).
Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the first signaling is transmitted to one of the second node as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “which is a parent node of the second node”.
However, Liu discloses the apparatus, which is a parent node of the second node (see paragraphs 65-67 and 80; which is a parent node/(parent node) of the second node/second node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “which is a parent node of the second node” as taught by Liu in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh to avoid or reduce communication interruptions (See page 1, paragraph 5 of Liu).
Claim(s) 82 and 88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Deshmukh, and further in view of Liu, and further in view of Qi et al (US 2020/0252465 A1), hereinafter Qi.
Regarding Claim 82, Although the combination of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Liu discloses an identifier as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Liu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node”.
However, Qi discloses the apparatus, wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node (see paragraph 50; wherein the first identifier/(node identifier) is a node identifier/(node identifier) of the second node/second node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node” as taught by Qi in the combined system of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Liu for establishing communication between nodes (see page 1, paragraph 1 of Qi).
Regarding Claim 88, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the first signaling is transmitted to the second node as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second node is a child node of the first node and the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node”.
However, Liu discloses the apparatus wherein the second node is a child node of the first node (see paragraphs 65-68 and 80; wherein the second node/(second node) is a child node/(child node) of the first node/first node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the second node is a child node of the first node” as taught by Liu in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh to avoid or reduce communication interruptions (wee page 1, paragraph 5 of Liu).
Although the combination of DaSilva, Deshmukh and Liu discloses the second node is a child node of the first node as set forth above,
The combination of DaSilva, Deshmukh and Liu does not explicitly disclose “and the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node”.
However, Qi discloses the apparatus,
and the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node (see paragraph 50; and the first identifier/(node identifier) is a node identifier/(node identifier) of the second node/second node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “and the first identifier is a node identifier of the second node” as taught by Qi in the combined system of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Liu for establishing communication between nodes (see page 1, paragraph 1 of Qi).
Claim(s) 83 and 89 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view Deshmukh, and further in view of Manolakos et al (US 2022/0039084 A1), hereinafter Manolakos.
Regarding Claim 83, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the first signaling as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling”.
However, Manolakos the apparatus, wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling (see paragraph 223; wherein the reporting metric/(CSI measurement reporting) comprises a time domain offset/(time offsets) between the first signaling/(L1 signaling) and a resource/PRS configured for the reference signal/RS by the first signaling/(L1 signaling) (provisional 63/058,647; see paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling” as taught by Manolakos in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh for reporting of Channel Quality Indications (CQIs) (see paragraph 223, lines 4-5 of Manolakos).
Regarding Claim 89, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the first signaling as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling”.
However, Manolakos the apparatus, wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling (see paragraph 223; wherein the reporting metric/(CSI measurement reporting) comprises a time domain offset/(time offsets) between the first signaling/(L1 signaling) and a resource/PRS configured for the reference signal/RS by the first signaling/(L1 signaling) (provisional 63/058,647; see paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling” as taught by Manolakos in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh for reporting of Channel Quality Indications (CQIs) (see paragraph 223, lines 4-5 of Manolakos).
Claim(s) 84 and 90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view Deshmukh, and further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Noh et al (US 2021/0014931 A1), hereinafter Noh.
Regarding Claim 84, Although the combination of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Manolakos discloses the first signaling as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Manolakos does not explicitly disclose “wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling”.
However, Noh discloses the apparatus, wherein the time domain offset is a number of at least one slot or at least one symbol with a length in time domain associated with a subcarrier spacing (SCS) (see Figure 7 and paragraph 110; wherein the time domain offset/(time domain) is a number/5 of at least one slot/slot or at least one symbol/(OFDM symbols) with a length/(length 7-05) in time domain/(time domain) associated with a subcarrier spacing (SCS)/subcarrier spacing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the time domain offset is a number of at least one slot or at least one symbol with a length in time domain associated with a subcarrier spacing (SCS)” as taught by Noh in the combined system of DaSilva, Deshmukh and Manolakos to provide a PDSCH time domain resource allocation method (see paragraph 110 of Noh).
Regarding Claim 90, Although the combination of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Manolakos discloses the first signaling as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva, Deshmukh and Manolakos does not explicitly disclose “wherein the reporting metric comprises a time domain offset between the first signaling and a resource configured for the reference signal by the first signaling”.
However, Noh discloses the apparatus, wherein the time domain offset is a number of at least one slot or at least one symbol with a length in time domain associated with a subcarrier spacing (SCS) (see Figure 7 and paragraph 110; wherein the time domain offset/(time domain) is a number/5 of at least one slot/slot or at least one symbol/(OFDM symbols) with a length/(length 7-05) in time domain/(time domain) associated with a subcarrier spacing (SCS)/subcarrier spacing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the time domain offset is a number of at least one slot or at least one symbol with a length in time domain associated with a subcarrier spacing (SCS)” as taught by Noh in the combined system of DaSilva, Deshmukh and Manolakos to provide a PDSCH time domain resource allocation method (see paragraph 110 of Noh).
Claim(s) 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view Deshmukh, and further in view of Kwak et al (US 2019/0207664 A1), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding Claim 91, Although the combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh discloses the first signaling as set forth above,
The combination of Da Silva and Deshmukh does not explicitly disclose “further comprising determining a priority for the second signaling based on at least one of a serving cell index”.
However, Kwak discloses the apparatus discloses the apparatus, further comprising determining a priority for the second signaling based on at least one of a serving cell index (see paragraphs 94 and 164; further comprising determining a priority/(lower priority) for the second signaling/CQI based on at least one of a serving cell index/cell index).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “further comprising determining a priority for the second signaling based on at least one of a serving cell index” as taught by Kwak in the combined system of Da Silva and Deshmukh information of a cell having a lower cell index is transmitted to solve such a collision (see paragraph 94, lines 19-21 of Kwak).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al (US 2022/0116104 A1) Discovery for IAB Nodes. Specifically, see Figures 1-5 and paragraphs 54-85.
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 LATRESA A McCALLUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4pm.
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, IAN N MOORE can be reached at 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 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.
/L.A.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 2469 /Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
