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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on February 09, 2026 and wherein claims 21, 27, 29, 30, 36 and 38 being currently amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 21-38 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/09/2026 (Remarks, pages 7-9) with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 21, 29 and 30 has been fully considered and it is not persuasive.
Applicant argue Badic does not disclose predicting that the direct propagation path is blocked based on a determination that the discovery signal is detected, as recited in the present claims (Remarks, pages 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 20 recite “receiving a discovery signal that is transmitted by a relay device … a determination that the discovery signal is detected …”, which is interpreted as first device discovering a suitable relay device.
Badic disclose at least one relayed route and relay wireless device is identified when direct path between two wireless devices is not valid, see paragraph [0319], “where the direct path as exemplarily illustrated in FIG. 29 between wireless devices 2902, 2910 is not available …. at least one route identified by the routing information may comprise at least one relayed route (a route from wireless device 2902 to wireless device 2910 including one or more relaying wireless devices) and the routing information may further identify one or more relaying wireless devices”.
Badic further disclose to identify the path via discovery process, see Fig. 5 and para [0137], “Wireless device 500a may discover neighboring wireless devices of the D2D mesh network during a discovery phase at stage 504 …wireless devices …may operate on a slotted communication schedule that allocates certain time slots and frequencies .. for discovery during each frame … Discovery operations may include exchanging discovery messages …on the discovery resources”.
Thus, identifying valid relay path and relay wireless device is appropriable reading as “determination that the discovery signal is detected”.
Applicant argue Badic does not disclose predicting blocking of a direct communication path based on information related to the angle (Remarks, page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 20 recite “…and at least one of information related to a travel direction of a first vehicle including the first device or information indicating a change in an angle between a beam at which the discovery signal is received and a beam used for communication with the second device”, which is considered to be Markush claim, See MPEP 803.02 and MPEP 2173.05. Therefore, examiner can select any one of alternatives for prior art rejection.
Badic teaches direct path is detected based on beam impairment and wireless device position, switch to relay path to avoid data transmission along paths including beam impairments, see para [0264], “ the wireless device may be configured to determine a position of at least one first and one second further wireless device … to determine a position of at least one beam impairment, e.g. by extracting position information including positions of one or more beam impairments … to determine whether a beam impairment is present along said direct path from the wireless device” and para [0247], “it may thus become possible to avoid data transmission along paths including beam impairments and thus to transmit data from a source wireless device to a target wireless device potentially along a relayed path”.
Badic further teaches position of beam impairments is updated accordance with movable device, see para [0237], “the receiver may be configured to receive the position information of the at least one movable beam impairment from at least one further wireless device … the receiver may be configured to receive the position information of the at least one movable beam impairment from a wireless coordinator device” and para [0263], “be configured to (e.g. periodically) receive the dynamic portion of the second map data including position information of movable beam impairments e.g. within an area covered by D2D mesh network, e.g. for updating the second map data database 2423 in accordance with movement of the movable beam impairments (e.g. vehicles)”
Thus, “the position information of the movable beam impairment” is appropriate reading as “a travel direction of a first vehicle including the first device”.
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not
persuasive. Further, the new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the applicant amendment. The Office has thoroughly reviewed Applicants' arguments but firmly believes that the cited references to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22, 25,28-31, 34, 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al. (US 20210289391 A1, hereinafter Paladugu) in view of Hong et al. (US 20150341107 A1, hereinafter Hong), and further in view of Badic et al. (US 20210297128 A1, thereinafter Badic).
Claim 21: Paladugu teaches a method of operating a first device in a wireless communication system (abstract, “A first user equipment (UE) (e.g., a relay UE) may establish a relay connection for routing communications between a network entity (e.g., a base station) and a second UE (e.g., a remote UE)”), the method comprising:
receiving a discovery signal that is transmitted by a relay device (Fig.2, element 210, [0179], “the UE 115-a may transmit a discovery message 210 based on receiving the broadcast message from UE 115-b indicating the relay service code(s) provided by the UE 115-b. Additionally or alternatively, the UE 115-b may provide the relay service code(s) in response to receiving the discovery message 210, where the relay service code(s) identify the connectivity service(s) the UE 115-b is enabled to provide ”);
transmitting, to the relay device, a first message for requesting a relay service for the first device and the second device (Fig. 25, element 2505, Fig.26, element 2610, Fig.27,element 2720, [0399], “ At 2720, the UE may transmit, to a base station, a request including the relay service code and an indication of a relay connection for the second UE via the first UE, the relay connection including the first connection between the first UE and the second UE and a second connection between the first UE and the base station”);
receiving, from the relay device, a second message for accepting the request for the relay service (Fig. 25, element 2510, Fig.26, element 2615, Fig.27,element 2725, [0400], “At 2725, the UE may receive, from the base station, a configuration message in response to transmitting the request, the configuration message including a first configuration associated with a first interface of the first connection and a second configuration associated with a second interface of the second connection”, Fig.9, [0242], “At 940, the base station 105-d may transmit a PDU session establishment accept/modification command message to the UE 115-o (e.g., via a Uu path/interface) …. Additionally or alternatively, the UE 115-n may receive a PDU session establishment/modification message from an additional base station 105 (e.g., via a Uu path/interface), where the PDU session establishment/modification message includes the sidelink QoS identifier to 5QI mapping information”);
and performing relay communication with the second device through the relay device (Fig. 25, elements 2515,2520, Fig.26, elements 2620, 2625, Fig.27, elements 2730,2735, [0402], “At 2735, the UE may route traffic from the second UE to the base station via the relay connection based on the QoS configuration”), wherein the first message includes information related to the second device (Fig.7, [0215], “at 715, the UE 115-i may transmit a direct communication request to one or more UEs 115 (e.g., in a broadcast or unicast) based on the application information (e.g., target user information)”, Fig.9, [0230], “UE 115-o may transmit, to the base station 105-d, a request that includes the relay service code and an indication of a relay connection for the UE 115-n via the UE 115-o”).
However, Paladugu does not explicitly teach performing direct communication with a second device,
and wherein the first message for requesting the relay service is transmitted based on blocking of a direct communication path between the first device and the second device being predicted.
and wherein the blocking of the direct communication path is predicted based on: a determination that the discovery signal is detected, and at least one of information related to a travel direction of a first vehicle including the first device or information indicating a change in an angle between a beam at which the discovery signal is received and a beam used for communication with the second device.
Hong, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches performing direct communication with a second device (Fig. 3, [0088], “In this instance, the problem occurring at the direct link may indicate a case where a signal is incapable of being transmitted between the source node and the destination node or deterioration of a link quality in comparison with a predetermined criterion. The source node may detect a problem in the direct link based on whether an ACK frame is received from the destination node and a measured link quality between the source node and the destination node”),
and wherein the first message for requesting the relay service is transmitted based on blocking of a direct communication path between the first device and the second device being predicted (Fig. 3, element 320, 331, [0089], “the source node may perform signaling for changing an operation to enable the relay node and the destination node to operate in the link switching type. When the direct link has a problem, the source node may transmit an ROC request message to the relay node to use a relay link”).
Paladugu and Hong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Paladugu and the first message for requesting the relay service is transmitted based on blocking of a path between the first device and the second device being predicted as taught by Hong, for the benefit for continuing the data exchange between source node and destination node when the direct link has a problem (paragraph [0088-0093]).
Badic, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the blocking of the direct communication path is predicted based on: a determination that the discovery signal is detected (Badic disclose at least one relayed route and relay wireless device is identified when direct path between two wireless devices is not valid, see paragraph [0319], “where the direct path as exemplarily illustrated in FIG. 29 between wireless devices 2902, 2910 is not available …. at least one route identified by the routing information may comprise at least one relayed route (a route from wireless device 2902 to wireless device 2910 including one or more relaying wireless devices) and the routing information may further identify one or more relaying wireless devices”. Badic further disclose to identify the path via discovery process, see Fig. 5 and para [0137], “Wireless device 500a may discover neighboring wireless devices of the D2D mesh network during a discovery phase at stage 504 …wireless devices …may operate on a slotted communication schedule that allocates certain time slots and frequencies … for discovery during each frame … Discovery operations may include exchanging discovery
messages …on the discovery resources”. Thus, identifying valid relay path and relay wireless device is appropriable reading as “determination that the discovery signal is detected”),
and at least one of information related to a travel direction of a first vehicle including the first device (Badic teaches direct path is detected based on beam impairment and wireless device position, switch to relay path to avoid data transmission along paths including
beam impairments, see para [0264], “the wireless device may be configured to determine a position of at least one first and one second further wireless device … to determine a position of at least one beam impairment, e.g. by extracting position information including positions of one or more beam impairments … to determine whether a beam impairment is present along said direct path from the wireless device” and para [0247], “it may thus become possible to avoid data transmission along paths including beam impairments and thus to transmit data from a source wireless device to a target wireless device potentially along a relayed path”. Badic further teaches position of beam impairments is updated accordance with movable device, see para [0237], “the receiver may be configured to receive the position information of the at least one movable beam impairment from at least one further wireless device … the receiver may be configured to receive the position information of the at least one movable beam impairment from a wireless coordinator device” and para [0263], “be configured to (e.g. periodically) receive the dynamic portion of the second map data including position information of movable beam impairments e.g. within an area covered by D2D mesh network, e.g. for updating the second map data database 2423 in accordance with movement of the movable beam impairments (e.g. vehicles)”. Thus, “the position information of the movable beam impairment” is appropriate reading as “a travel direction of a first vehicle including the first device”) or information indicating a change in an angle between a beam at which the discovery signal is received and a beam used for communication with the second device (alternative).
Paladugu and Badic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Paladugu and the feature of determining block path based on a travel direction of a first vehicle as taught by Badic, for the benefit for allowing wireless device dynamically avoid data transmission along paths including beam impairments and thus to transmit data from a source wireless device to a target wireless device along a relayed path (paragraph [0247]).
Claim 29 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 21, and Paladugu further teaches a device comprising at least one memory (Fig. 16, element 1630, Fig. 20, element 2030) and at least one processor (Fig. 16, element 1640, Fig. 20, element 2040) coupled functionally with the at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor controls the device to ([0314], “the processor 1640 may be configured to operate a memory array using a memory controller. In other cases, a memory controller may be integrated into the processor 1640. The processor 1640 may be configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (e.g., the memory 1630) to cause the device 1605 to perform various functions (e.g., functions or tasks supporting QoS support for sidelink relay service)”).
Claim 30 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 21, and Paladugu further teaches a transceiver (Fig. 16, element 1620, Fig. 20, element 2020); and a processor (Fig. 16, element 1640, Fig. 20, element 2040) coupled with the transceiver ([0305], “These components may be in electronic communication via one or more buses (e.g., bus 1645)”), wherein the processor is configured to ([0314], “The processor 1640 may be configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (e.g., the memory 1630) to cause the device 1605 to perform various functions (e.g., functions or tasks supporting QoS support for sidelink relay service)”).
Claim 22: Paladugu teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the discovery signal includes information informing that the relay device provides the relay service ([0130], “the remote UE may establish a sidelink connection with the relay UE using a sidelink discovery procedure. The sidelink connection may be associated with a relay service code (e.g., an identification for a connectivity service the relay UE provides), which may specify one or more characteristics of the sidelink connection provided by the relay UE”).
Claim 31 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 22.
Claim 25: Paladugu teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising: transmitting a third message for informing the second device that the relay communication is performed (Fig.9, element 940, [0242], “At 940, the base station 105-d may transmit a PDU session establishment accept/modification command message to the UE 115-o (e.g., via a Uu path/interface). …. the UE 115-n may receive a PDU session establishment/modification message from an additional base station 105 (e.g., via a Uu path/interface), where the PDU session establishment/modification message includes the sidelink QoS identifier to 5QI mapping information. Subsequently, the UE 115-n may use the sidelink QoS identifier to 5QI mapping information to determine sidelink QoS identifiers to use for services switched with a specific 5QI over a Uu path to a sidelink relay path”).
Claim 34 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 25.
Claim 28: Paladugu teaches the method of claim 21, wherein a resource pool for the communication and a resource pool for the relay communication are identical with each other (Fig. 7, Fig.10, [0247], “ the UE 115-p (e.g., a second UE) may be referred to as a remote UE 115, and the UE 115-q (e.g., a first UE) may be referred to as a relay UE 115 for routing communications from the UE 115-p to a base station 105, where the base station 105 may be referred to as a network entity”).
Claim 37 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 28.
Claim 38: The combination of Paladugu, Hong and Badic teaches the method of claim 21, Badic additionally teaches wherein the blocking of the direct communication path is predicted based on the discovery signal being received (Fig. 5, [0137], [0319], disclose at least one relayed route and relay wireless device is identified when direct path between two wireless devices is not valid, and path is identified based on discovery process) and a change in an angle between the beam at which the discovery signal is received and the beam used for communication with the second device satisfying a predefined condition (Fig. 11, [0166], “Based on beamforming information exchanged in said mesh update phase (MUP) 1104 beamforming controllers 712 at each of wireless devices 802, 812 may control respective antenna arrangement configurations to steer and receive beam B2 for data communication in communication phase 1106 which is narrower as compared to beam B1 employed in communication phase 1102 … Wireless devices may employ further iterations for further narrowing an employed beam (via further alternating mesh update and communication phase) until a desired opening angle of the beam is reached”, Fig. 27A/B, [0277], disclose increasing the opening angle while the distance decreases. Fig. 27 C/D, [0283], disclose decreasing the opening angle while the distance increases, FIG. 25, element 2517, 2519, [0249], “Based on the calculated LoS angles, the wireless device 2302 may evaluate direct spatial propagation paths in directions of the calculated LoS angles regarding presence of beam impairments …compare position information of a direct path from the wireless device 2302 to any one of wireless devices 2304, 2306 with position information of beam impairments”, Fig. 18, [0215], “ initiating beam width index k=0 corresponding to an initially wide beam which may become gradually narrower for larger values of k”).
The motivation for combining Paladugu and Badic regarding to the claim 21 is also applied to claim 38.
Claims 23-24, 26-27, 32-33, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paladugu et al. (US 20210289391 A1, hereinafter Paladugu) in view of Hong et al. (US 20150341107 A1, hereinafter Hong), and in view of Badic et al. (US 20210297128 A1, thereinafter Badic), and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20170111122 A1, hereinafter Shimizu).
Claim 23: Paladugu does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein the information related to the second device includes at least one of identification information of the second device, location-related information of the second device, a moving speed of the second device, information on a resource used by the second device, security information of the second device, and information related to a spatial domain filter used for the direct communication.
However, Shimizu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the information related to the second device includes at least one of identification information of the second device, location-related information of the second device, a moving speed of the second device, information on a resource used by the second device, security information of the second device, and information related to a beam used for the direct communication (Fig.3A, 3B, Fig.4, elements 402, 412, Fig.5, elements 508, 510, [0162], “the first handshake message 714 may optionally also include digital data describing one or more of the following: a location of the receiver 710; a speed of the receiver 710; a bearing of the receiver 710; a time “T” when the location, speed and bearing of the receiver 710 was recorded by the communication system 191 of the receiver 710; a description of the communication capabilities of the receiver 710; and a unique identifier of the receiver 710”).
Paladugu and Shimizu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information related to the second device, taught by Paladugu, adding location, bearing, speed capability, identifier etc., as taught by Shimizu, for the benefit of performing beam alignment operation and then providing millimeter wave communication between transmitter and receiver (paragraph [0169-0171]).
Claim 32 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 23.
Claim 24: Paladugu does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, further comprising: performing beam alignment with the relay device in order to determine at least one of a transmit beam and a receive beam for the relay communication.
However, Shimizu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising: performing beam alignment with the relay device in order to determine at least one of a transmit beam and a receive beam for the relay communication (Fig.4, elements 410, 412, Fig.5, elements 504,506,508, 510, [0135], “The transmitter 305 may sweep 410 the beam of the millimeter wave communication unit 208 based on the estimate of the future location of the receiver 310. This sweeping aligns the beam of the millimeter wave communication unit 208 of the transmitter 305 with the antenna of the communication unit 208 of the receiver 310”, [0136], “ the transmitter 305 may update 412 the beam alignment of the millimeter wave communication unit of the transmitter 305 based on estimates of the new position and speed of the receiver 310 as indicated by the previously received DSRC data ”).
The motivation for combining Paladugu and Shimizu regarding to the claim 23 is also applied to claim 24.
Claim 33 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 24.
Claim 26: Paladugu does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein the second message includes information associated with at least one of a resource allocated for beam alignment between the first device and the relay device and a resource allocated for beam alignment between the second device and the relay device.
However, Shimizu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the second message includes information associated with at least one of a resource allocated for beam alignment between the first device and the relay device and a resource allocated for beam alignment between the second device and the relay device (Fig.4, element 412, Fig.5, element 510, [0142], “the transmitter 305 may update 510 the beam alignment based on estimates of the new position and speed of the receiver 310 as indicated by the previously captured sensor data 283”, [0162], “a location of the receiver 710; a speed of the receiver 710; a bearing of the receiver 710; a time “T” when the location, speed and bearing of the receiver 710 was recorded by the communication system 191 of the receiver 710”, Fig.1B, [0046], “The third communication device 103c may be similar to the second communication device 103b, and so, that description will not be repeated here”).
The motivation for combining Paladugu and Shimizu regarding to the claim 23 is also applied to claim 26.
Claim 35 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 26.
Claim 27: The combination of Paladugu and Badic teach the method of claim 21, wherein the blocking of the direct communication path is predicted by receiving the discovery signal from the relay device (Badic, Fig. 6, [0141], “ a transmission flow between wireless device 602 and wireless device 610 may be relayed via wireless device 604. Thus, wireless device 604 may relay a first data packet of a transmission flow to wireless device 610”) installed at an intersection.
The motivation for combining Paladugu and Badic regarding to the claim 21 is also applied to claim 27.
However, Paladugu does not explicitly teach relay is installed at an intersection and by predicting a turn of a first vehicle based on the information related to the travel direction of the first vehicle, wherein the first vehicle is a preceding vehicle and a second vehicle including the second device is a following vehicle, and wherein the information related to the travel direction of the first vehicle comprises at least one of path information set in a navigation system, a movement of a steering wheel, an operation of a turn signal, and a speed change.
However, Shimizu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches relay is installed at an intersection and (Fig. 1B, 103a, [0049], “the first communication device 103a may include a roadside unit … An RSU may include a computing device on a roadside that provides connectivity to passing mobile devices”, [0227-0228], disclose the first communication device 103a gains access to the common wireless channel and has unicast packets to transmit to the second communication device 103b, or broadcast broadcast packets to multiple destinations) and by predicting a turn of a first vehicle based on the information related to the travel direction of the first vehicle (Fig. 4, element 402, 404, 406, 408, [0134], “The transmitter 305 may estimate 408 the future location of the receiver 310 at a future time “T+1” based on the location and speed of the receiver 310 at the specified time “T” as described in the DSRC data. Optionally, the transmitter 305 may estimate 408 the future location of the receiver 310 at a future time “T+1” based on the location, speed and bearing of the receiver 310 at the specified time “T”), wherein the first vehicle is a preceding vehicle (Fig. 1B, elements103b, [0044], “The second communication device 103b may be a mobile communication node”) and a second vehicle including the second device is a following vehicle (Fig. 1B, elements103c, [0046], “The third communication device 103c may be similar to the second communication device 103b” ), and wherein the information related to the travel direction of the first vehicle comprises at least one of path information set in a navigation system (alternative), a movement of a steering wheel (alternative), an operation of a turn signal (alternative), and a speed change (Fig. 4, element 402, [0131], “DSRC data describing the location and speed of the receiver 310 …the DSRC data included in the DSRC message describes the location, speed and bearing of the receiver 310 at a time “T” specified by the DSRC data included in the DSRC message 312”).
The motivation for combining Paladugu and Shimizu regarding to the claim 23 is also applied to claim 27.
Claim 36 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 30 and claim 27.
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 YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on 5712723980. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472