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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Wang does not teach the claimed sequence of operations in which the network node first determines whether to use coherent detection or non-coherent detection based on device- related information and then configures the wireless device with first and second sequences corresponding to HARQ-ACK and HARQ-NACK.” With all due respect, the examiner disagrees. As set forth below, the examiner believes that the cited portions of Wang, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph 52, do teach an embodiment of these claim features, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation BRI claim construction standard. Specifically, the “sequences” that are assigned to the HARQ ack and nack are generated pursuant to different processes corresponding respectively to coherent transmission and noncoherent transmission modes [i.e., one using different modulation symbols and one using different “shifts”]. The examiner believes that this is sufficient to reject the claim elements at issue here, pursuant to BRI. Please see rejections below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,17,5,8,9,12,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0019529 A1 to Wang et al.
As to claim 1, Wang discloses A method implemented in a network node for detection of a signal received from a wireless device (Figs. 5, 6-10, disclosing method implemented in a base station for configuring a UE/MS for ACK/NACK detection), the method comprising:
determining whether to use one of a coherent detection and a non-coherent detection of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), PUCCH, based at least in part on information relating to the wireless device (Fig. 5, paragraphs 2-8, 52, disclosing method implemented in a base station for configuring a UE/MS for ACK/NACK detection, where the method of ACK/NACK transmission and detection is different depending on whether coherent or non-coherent detection is chosen for BS-UE/MS communications, and wherein the UE/MS choses one of coherent/noncoherent detection, or one is chosen for the UE/MS; paragraphs 34, 35, 39,40, 44-48, disclosing relative advantages and disadvantages and technical aspects of coherent and non-coherent detection, such as frame structure, where such parameters teach embodiment of “based at least in part on information relating to the wireless device”, teaching this limitation; see paragraph 52, where ACK/NACK is transmitted “in an uplink control channels”, teaching PUCCH);
configuring the wireless device with a first sequence and a second sequence for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), HARQ, acknowledgement information on the PUCCH based at least in part on the determination of the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection, the first sequence corresponding to a HARQ acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK), and the second sequence corresponding to a HARQ non-acknowledgement (HARQ-NACK) (Fig. 5, paragraph 52, disclosing base station sending “at least two sequences and one or more shift values from a base station” to the UE/MS, wherein the “at least two sequences and one or more shift values from a base station” are utilized in generating “ACK or NACK signal” data used/transmitted by the UE to indicate ack and nack, respectively, where the method of generating such “ack or nack signal” is different depending on whether coherent or noncoherent detection is being implemented, the methodology depicted in Fig. 5 teaching “configuring”, in particular: “At 504, the UE generates an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) signal based at least on the received sequences and the shift values, wherein the ACK and NACK signals utilize different modulation symbols for a coherent transmission mode or different shift values for a non-coherent transmission mode”, thus further teaching that in “coherent transmission mode”, the ACK and NACK signals are generated so as to use “different modulation symbols”, which teaches to a PHOSITA that bits embodied by the “modulation symbol[s]” for a ACK are different from the bits embodied by the “modulation symbol[s]” for a NACK since these [sets of] two modulation symbol[s] are different for ACK and NACK, thus teaching that these sets of bits for NACK and ACK, respectively, under the broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, teach “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK”, which are thus different from each other, further teaching that in “non-coherent transmission mode”, HARQ ACK and HARQ NACK are represented by sequences of different shift values, sequence of one shift value teaching “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and a sequence of another shift value teaching “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK”, the method discussed above thus teaching a process of “configuring” “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK” in the case of coherent transmission mode, i.e., [by means of “different modulation symbols”], and another process of “configuring” “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK” in the case of non-coherent transmission mode, i.e., [by means of different shift values], teaching this limitation) ; and
receiving the HARQ acknowledgement information on the PUCCH according to the first sequence and the second sequence (Fig. 5 and paragraph 52, step 506).
As to claim 17, Wang discloses A method implemented in a wireless device configured to communicate with a network node (Figs. 5, 6-10, disclosing method implemented in a UE/MS, together with a base station, for configuring a UE/MS for ACK/NACK detection), the method comprising:
receiving a configuration of a first sequence and a second sequence for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement information on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)[,] (Fig. 5, paragraph 52, disclosing base station sending “at least two sequences and one or more shift values from a base station” to the UE/MS in step 502, wherein the “at least two sequences and one or more shift values from a base station” are utilized in generating “ACK or NACK signal” data used/transmitted by the UE to indicate ack and nack, respectively, where the method of generating such “ack or nack signal” is different depending on whether coherent or noncoherent detection is being implemented, the methodology depicted in Fig. 5 teaching the recited “configuration of a first sequence and a second sequence”, and the information received by the UE/MS in step 502 representing the “configuration”, since such information is essential to the implementation of such “configuration”, teaching this limitation, in particular: “At 504, the UE generates an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) signal based at least on the received sequences and the shift values, wherein the ACK and NACK signals utilize different modulation symbols for a coherent transmission mode or different shift values for a non-coherent transmission mode”, thus further teaching that in “coherent transmission mode”, the ACK and NACK signals are generated so as to use “different modulation symbols”, which teaches to a PHOSITA that bits embodied by the “modulation symbol[s]” for a ACK are different from the bits embodied by the “modulation symbol[s]” for a NACK since these [sets of] two modulation symbol[s] are different for ACK and NACK, thus teaching that these sets of bits for NACK and ACK, respectively, under the broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, teach “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK”, which are thus different from each other, further teaching that in “non-coherent transmission mode”, HARQ ACK and HARQ NACK are represented by sequences of different shift values, sequence of one shift value teaching “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and a sequence of another shift value teaching “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK”, the method discussed above thus teaching a process of “configuring” “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK” in the case of coherent transmission mode, i.e., [by means of “different modulation symbols”], and another process of “configuring” “first sequence corresponding to a HARQ ACK” and “second sequence corresponding to a HARQ NACK” in the case of non-coherent transmission mode, i.e., [by means of different shift values], teaching this limitation)
the configuration of the first sequence and the second sequence is based at least in part on a determination of whether to use one of a coherent detection and a non-coherent detection of the PUCCH, the first sequence corresponding to a HARQ acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) and the second sequence corresponds to a HARQ non-acknowledgement (HARQ-NACK) (see discussion immediately above); and
sending the HARQ acknowledgement information on the PUCCH according to the configuration of the first sequence and the second sequence. (Fig. 5 and paragraph 52, step 506).
As to claim 5, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein when the determining comprises determining to use the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information relating to the wireless device, the receiving comprises: correlating the received HARQ acknowledgment information to the first sequence and the second sequence to determine whether the HARQ acknowledgment information is the HARQ acknowledgement (ACK) corresponding to the first sequence or the HARQ non-acknowledgement (NACK) corresponding to the second sequence. (paragraphs 39-41, disclosing a method of “multiplying the received signal with two shifted bases sequences”, to determine whether ACK or NACK was sent, if non-coherent transmission/detection had been chosen, teaching this limitation).
As to claim 8, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein the determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a type of service associated with the wireless device. (paragraphs 34, 35, 39,40, 44-48, disclosing relative advantages and disadvantages and technical aspects of coherent and non-coherent detection, where non-coherent structures have are suitable for applications for which “lower user capacity” can be tolerated and requiring “higher number of cells [that] can transmit simultaneously utilizing same resources with virtually orthogonal channels”, teaching an embodiment of this limitation)
As to claim 9, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 8.
Wang further discloses wherein the type of service corresponds to a type of service for a downlink channel and the HARQ acknowledgement information one of acknowledges and non-acknowledges successful reception of the downlink channel. (paragraphs 31-41 and 45, disclosing ACK/NACK process)
As to claim 12, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein the determining to use one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a geometry associated with the wireless device. (paragraphs 34, 35, 39,40, 44-48, disclosing relative advantages and disadvantages and technical aspects of coherent and non-coherent detection, relative to factors such as “cell size” and “higher number” of “pico/femto cells”, and number of UEs per cell, teaching embodiments of “geometry associated with the wireless device”)
As to claim 15, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang further discloses further comprising: transmitting a downlink data channel to the wireless device, wherein the HARQ acknowledgement information one of acknowledges and non-acknowledges successful reception of the downlink data channel based on whether the HARQ acknowledgement information uses the first sequence or the second sequence. (paragraphs 31-41, disclosing ACK/NACK process)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6,7,11,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0019529 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0204312 A1 to Xu et al.
As to claim 6, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang discloses wherein the configuration of the wireless device with the first sequence and the second sequence is a configuration of the PUCCH. (Fig. 5, paragraphs 2-8, 52, disclosing method implemented in a base station for configuring a UE/MS for ACK/NACK detection, where the method of ACK/NACK transmission and detection based on the assigned/generated sequences is different depending on whether coherent or non-coherent detection is chosen for BS-UE/MS communications, and wherein the UE/MS choses one of coherent/noncoherent detection, or one is chosen for the UE/MS; see paragraph 52, where ACK/NACK is transmitted “in an uplink control channels”, teaching PUCCH)
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose PUCCH with a physical uplink control channel format 0.
Xu discloses PUCCH with a physical uplink control channel format 0 (paragraphs 427,430: Pucch format 0).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s teaching above, especially PUCCH, with Xu’s teaching of a PUCCH of format 0, to reject this claim, so that the PUCCH in the combination has format 0, since PUCCH is recited in both Wang and Xu. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 7, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein the configuring of the wireless device includes configuring the wireless device via radio resource control (RRC), RRC, signaling.
Xu discloses wherein the configuring of the wireless device includes configuring the wireless device via radio resource control (RRC), RRC, signaling. (Abstract: RRC).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s disclosed teachings, with Xu’s teaching of RRC signaling, since RRC signaling is a common method of control configuration signaling and the cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 11, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein the determining to use one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a location of the wireless device within a cell supported by the network node relative to a location of the network node.
Xu discloses wherein the determining to use one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a location of the wireless device within a cell supported by the network node relative to a location of the network node (paragraph 442: UE/MS in “cell edge area” being suitable for coherent transmissions to be applied).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s disclosed teachings, with Xu’s teaching, since both Wang and Xu’s teaching pertain to coherent vs. non-coherent transmissions and their implementation, and the cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 20, see rejection for claim 6.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0019529 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0131133 A1 to Blunt et al.
As to claim 13, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determining to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a signal-to-interference-plus-noise-ratio (SINR) associated with the wireless device over a period of time.
Blunt disclose wherein the determining to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a signal-to-interference-plus-noise-ratio (SINR) associated with the wireless device over a period of time. (paragraphs 15-17).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s teaching above, with Blunt’s teachings above, since it would have been obvious to a phosita to condition the choice of coherent or non-coherent communication in Wang with the SINR condition in Blunt. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Blunt, paragraphs 15-17; Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0019529 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0114491 A1 to Kim et al.
As to claim 14, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a path loss associated with the wireless device to the network node.
Kim discloses wherein the determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on the information about the wireless device comprises: determining whether to use the one of the coherent detection and the non-coherent detection of the PUCCH based at least in part on a path loss associated with the wireless device to the network node. (paragraph 68, implementation of noncoherent detection based on pathloss considerations).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s teaching above, with Kim’s teachings above, since it would have been obvious to a phosita to condition the choice of coherent or non-coherent communication in Wang with the pathloss considerations in Kim. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Kim, paragraphs 1-10; Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0019529 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0204312 A1 to Xu et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0037551 A1 to Khoshnevisan et al.
As to claim 10, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 8.
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the type of service is at least one of an Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC), an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), and a massive machine type communication (mMTC); when the type of service is the URLLC, determining to use the coherent detection for the wireless device.
Xu discloses wherein: the type of service is at least one of an Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC), an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), and a massive machine type communication (mMTC); when the type of service is the URLLC, determining to use the coherent detection for the wireless device. (paragraphs 442: URLLC being suitable for coherent communications).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s teaching above, with Xu’s teachings, to further apply the methods disclosed to concrete scenarios. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Xu and Wang do not appear to explicitly disclose when the type of service is one of the eMBB and the mMTC, determining to use the non-coherent detection for the wireless device.
Khoshnevisan discloses when the type of service is one of the eMBB and the mMTC, determining to use the non-coherent detection for the wireless device. (paragraph 37).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, Xu and WAng’s combined teachings above, with Khoshnevisan’s teachings, to further apply the methods disclosed to concrete scenarios. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16; Khoshnevisan, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0019529 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0084030 A1 to Zhou et al.
As to claim 16, Wang discloses the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang discloses wherein the first sequence and the second sequence are certain sequences (Fig. 5, paragraph 52)
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose sequence being cazac complex value symbols.
Zhou discloses sequence being cazac complex value symbols (paragraph 90).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in, combine with or modify, WAng’s teaching above, with Zhou’s teachings above, since it would have been obvious to a phosita to embody Wang’s sequences by Zhou’s cazac complex value symbols. The cited references are directed to wireless communication infrastructures. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless communications (Kim, paragraphs 1-10; Xu, paragraphs 409-423; Wang, paragraphs 1-16; Zhou, paragraphs 1-10). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4,18-19 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights