Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 with respect to 101 abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The independent claims, Step 2A: The limitation “determining a RNA update timer value…” recites an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, e.g., only reciting generic computer-implemented obtaining and determining. By adding or incorporating the computer-implemented to the claims would not overcome the rejection, and still consider a generic computer that is obtaining and determining. In addition to mental process the claim(s) also recite mathematical concepts (i.e. timer value ([0005], [0047] of the specification) which are both abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 do not recite a technical improvement.
3. Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
a) Da Silva does not disclose or suggest wherein the RNA update timer value is less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer."
b) However, the Examiner very kindly directs applicant to the first timer may be restarted using a first stored value and the second timer may be started using a second stored value. The first stored value may be less than, equal to, or greater than the second stored value. In some embodiments, the first timer is restarted if the reject message comprises an indication that the UE's context is stored by the network. Other embodiments can include stopping the first timer and setting the periodic RNAU as a pending notification (¶0037). Also, in some embodiments, when the first stored value (e.g., used to restart the first timer) is less than the second stored value (e.g., used to start the second timer). In some embodiments, when the first stored value is less than the second stored value, the further RRC Resume Request message is transmitted in response to the expiration of the restarted first timer. In other embodiments, when the first stored value is less than the second stored value, the further RRC Resume Request message is transmitted in response to expiration of the second timer. In other embodiments, when the first stored value is less than the second stored value, the further RRC Resume Request message is transmitted in response to expiration of the first timer and an access-control configuration that enables the UE to transmit the further RRC Resume Request prior to expiration of the second timer. In embodiments that include the operation of incrementing the counter, the method includes comparing the value of the incremented counter to a predetermined threshold. In some embodiments, if the value of the incremented counter is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, the further RRC Resume Request message is transmitted prior to expiration of the second timer. In some embodiments, if the value of the incremented counter is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, the operations include discarding a context associated with the UE and transmitting the further RRC Resume Request message upon expiration of the second timer or cell reselection. The method may include setting a value of a periodic RNAU pending register to “true” in response to receiving the reject message (¶0039-41).
c) Applicant also asserts: Da Silva, however, does not compare the first timer which is associated with a periodic RNAU to the predetermined threshold. Instead, Da Silva compares a separate counter to the predetermined threshold. Accordingly, the timer of Da Silva cannot disclose or suggest the claimed RNA update timer value and Da Silva fails to disclose or suggest wherein the RNA update timer value is "less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer," as recited by claim 1.
d) However, the Examiner very kindly directs applicant to Da Silva where teaches comparing the first timer which is associated with a periodic RNAU to the second timer associated with predetermined threshold (¶0037-41).
e) Applicant further asserts: cited references do not disclose or suggest "determining a RNA update timer value based on the obtained periodic registration update timer value such that the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer," as recited by claim 1.
f) However, the Examiner very kindly directs applicant to SONG where teaches update timer value is configured and thus RNA update based on periodic registration update (¶0104 and table 7). Further Examiner relies on Da Silva where teaches the values of the timer and a predetermined threshold of the timer, RNAU or RNA update timer is less than the received time value and less than the second timer associated with predetermined threshold (¶0037-41).
g) Applicant's arguments with regards to dependent claims are based on the deficiency of the references to support the limitations of independent claims. The arguments are respectfully traversed for the same reason(s) as stated above for rejection of independent claims.
3. Therefore, the limitations of the claims are met and the rejection is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
A) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim 1 recite(s) a computer-implemented method and an apparatus that configuring a periodic radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) update timer based on a periodic registration update timer, the computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a periodic registration update timer value provided by a core network; and determining a RNA update timer value based on the obtained periodic registration update timer value such that the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claim is directed to a method claim.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process and mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) Also, mathematical concepts (determining a RNA update timer value) therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1: the limitations recite:
obtaining a periodic registration update timer value provided by a core network is a mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind. Also Mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships.
determining a RNA update timer value based on the obtained periodic registration update timer value such that the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer is a mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind, also a Mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships.
In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally collect information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor, memory, etc. does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 1 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 discloses processor which are receiving data, performing math and classifying the data which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in method claim.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim 1 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claim 1: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
B) Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and they do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of each claim and does not carry patentable weight. These claims are also rejected for the same reasons as the independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
A) Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONG (US 2023/0224689 A1) in view of da Silva (US 2021/0127445 A1).
As per claim 1, SONG teaches a computer-implemented method, for configuring a periodic radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) update timer based on a periodic registration update timer (¶0104, configuring periodic RNA update timer based on periodic registration update timer), the computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a periodic registration update timer value provided by a core network (¶0098 and ¶0104 and table 7, receiving or obtaining periodic registration update timer value unit provided by NG-RAN node (i.e. core network)); and determining a RNA update timer value based on the obtained periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and table 7, update timer value is configured and thus RNA update based on periodic registration update).
However, SONG does not explicitly teach the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer.
In the same field of endeavor, da Silva teaches the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer (¶0037 and ¶0039-41, the values of the timer and a predetermined threshold of the timer, RNAU or RNA update timer is less than the received time value and less than a predetermined threshold (i.e. predetermined maximum value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of da Silva into SONG invention of in order to provide details of how network resources area allocated and efficiently used within a network for reducing unnecessary signaling between the UE and network as well as reducing power consumption of the UE and network.
As per claim 2 as applied to claim 1 above, SONG teaches determining a parameter based on the periodic registration update timer (¶0116 and ¶0120, determining UE assistance information or parameter based on the periodic registration update timer); and determining the RNA update timer value based on the parameter and the periodic registration update timer value (¶0104, ¶0116 and ¶0120, determining the RNA update timer value based on the UE assistance information or parameter and the periodic registration update timer value unit).
As per claim 3 as applied to claim 2 above, SONG teaches configuring and/or updating the parameter via an O1 interface between a Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework and a centralized unit of a radio access network (RAN) (¶0208, configuring UE assistance information via O1 interface between SMO and CU node of RAN).
As per claim 4 as applied to claim 2 above, SONG teaches receiving, by an xApp of a near-real-time RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC), the periodic registration update timer value (¶0079-80, receiving by xApp of RIC and E2 node corresponds to a xApp and xApp message radio resources provided to wireless network such as timer values); and determining, by the xApp, the parameter based on the received periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and ¶0079-80, determining by the xApp the expected UE behavior is the parameter based on received periodic registration timer value), wherein the determining the RNA update timer value based on the parameter and the periodic registration update timer value comprises: receiving, by a centralized unit of a RAN, the parameter from the near-real-time RIC over an E2 interface (¶0141, E2 node (e.g., gNB, gNB-CU, gNB-CU-CP) transmits collected information (e.g., UE expected behavior information, UE assistance information) to the RIC), and determining, by the centralized unit, the RNA update timer based on the parameter and the periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and ¶0114, determining by CU the RNA update timer based on UE expected behavior information, UE assistance information and the periodic registration update timer value unit).
As per claim 7 as applied to claim 1 above, SONG teaches wherein the RNA update timer value is determined by an xApp of a near-real-time RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) using the periodic registration update timer value, and is provided to a centralized unit of a RAN over an E2 interface (¶0080 and table 7, timer value determined by an xApp of RIC and UE receives timer information over E2 interface).
As per claim 9 as applied to claim 7 above, SONG teaches wherein the determining the RNA update timer value comprises determining, by the xApp, the RNA update timer value based on an average user equipment (UE) residence time in the RAN (¶0078-79, ¶0085 and table 3, determining timer value by xApp based on the time a UE stayed or residence in a RAN cell).
As per claim 15, SONG teaches an apparatus for configuring a periodic radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) update timer based on a periodic registration update timer (¶0104, apparatus for configuring periodic RNA update timer based on periodic registration update timer), the apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions (¶0073, memory for storing instruction); and at least one processor (¶0073, processor) configured to execute the instructions to: obtain a periodic registration update timer value provided by a core network (¶0098 and ¶0104 and table 7, receiving or obtaining periodic registration update timer value unit provided by NG-RAN node (i.e. core network)); and determine a RNA update timer value based on the obtained periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and table 7, update timer value is configured and thus RNA update based on periodic registration update).
However, SONG does not explicitly teach the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer.
In the same field of endeavor, da Silva teaches the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer (¶0037 and ¶0039-41, the values of the timer and a predetermined threshold of the timer, RNAU or RNA update timer is less than the received time value and less than a predetermined threshold (i.e. predetermined maximum value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of da Silva into SONG invention of in order to provide details of how network resources area allocated and efficiently used within a network for reducing unnecessary signaling between the UE and network as well as reducing power consumption of the UE and network.
As per claim 16 as applied to claim 15 above, SONG teaches determine a parameter based on the periodic registration update timer (¶0116 and ¶0120, determining UE assistance information or parameter based on the periodic registration update timer); and determine the RNA update timer value based on the parameter and the periodic registration update timer value (¶0104, ¶0116 and ¶0120, determining the RNA update timer value based on the UE assistance information or parameter and the periodic registration update timer value unit).
As per claim 17 as applied to claim 16 above, SONG teaches configuring and/or updating the parameter via an O1 interface between a Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) framework and a centralized unit of a radio access network (RAN) (¶0208, configuring UE assistance information via O1 interface between SMO and CU node of RAN).
As per claim 18 as applied to claim 16 above, SONG teaches receiving, by an xApp of a near-real-time RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC), the periodic registration update timer value (¶0079-80, receiving by xApp of RIC and E2 node corresponds to a xApp and xApp message radio resources provided to wireless network such as timer values); and determining, by the xApp, the parameter based on the received periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and ¶0079-80, determining by the xApp the expected UE behavior is the parameter based on received periodic registration timer value), wherein the determining the RNA update timer value based on the parameter and the periodic registration update timer value comprises: receiving, by a centralized unit of a RAN, the parameter from the near-real-time RIC over an E2 interface (¶0141, E2 node (e.g., gNB, gNB-CU, gNB-CU-CP) transmits collected information (e.g., UE expected behavior information, UE assistance information) to the RIC), and determining, by the centralized unit, the RNA update timer based on the parameter and the periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and ¶0114, determining by CU the RNA update timer based on UE expected behavior information, UE assistance information and the periodic registration update timer value unit).
As per claim 20, SONG teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor (¶0075, computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor), for performing a method of configuring a periodic radio access network (RAN) notification area (RNA) update timer based on a periodic registration update timer (¶0104, configuring periodic RNA update timer based on periodic registration update timer), the method comprising: obtaining a periodic registration update timer value provided by a core network (¶0098 and ¶0104 and table 7, receiving or obtaining periodic registration update timer value unit provided by NG-RAN node (i.e. core network)); and determining a RNA update timer value based on the obtained periodic registration update timer value (¶0104 and table 7, update timer value is configured and thus RNA update based on periodic registration update).
However, SONG does not explicitly teach the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer.
In the same field of endeavor, da Silva teaches the RNA update timer value is less than the obtained periodic registration update timer value and less than a predetermined maximum value for the RNA update timer (¶0037 and ¶0039-41, the values of the timer and a predetermined threshold of the timer, RNAU or RNA update timer is less than the received time value and less than a predetermined threshold (i.e. predetermined maximum value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of da Silva into SONG invention of in order to provide details of how network resources area allocated and efficiently used within a network for reducing unnecessary signaling between the UE and network as well as reducing power consumption of the UE and network.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIDEH MADANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 9 AM to 5 PM EST.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/FARIDEH MADANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights