DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2021/0028891 A1, hereinafter “Zhou”) in view of Chen (US 2022/0045800 A1) and Wang et al. (US 2022/0217612 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Zhou teaches a second sidelink user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the second sidelink UE to: receive, via a first interface, a first data packet from a first equipment; receive a feedback request associated with the first data packet (¶ [0235], ¶ [0354], the scheduling information indicated by the SLG1 includes a Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSSCH) resource. This PSSCH resource is used for one transmission of one sidelink TB of UE1 (referred to as SLTB1). ¶ [0356], [0356] The scheduling information indicated in the SLG1 may also include whether the transmission of SLTB1 enables the HARQ-ACK feedback. If the information enabling/disabling the HARQ-ACK feedback is indicated in the SLG1, the UE1 determines whether the transmission of SLTB1 enables the HARQ-ACK feedback according to the information indicated by the SLG1. ¶ [0358] If the UE1 indicates the information of enabling/disabling HARQ-ACK feedback to the UE2, a feasible method is that the UE1 indicates the information enabling/disabling HARQ-ACK feedback in the SCI associated with the PSSCH scheduled by the SLG1 (or the SLTB1 carried by the PSSCH), ¶ [0360]); transmit, via a second interface, the first data packet to a plurality of third sidelink UEs comprising the remote UEs (figs. 1 and 5, ¶ [0465], the type of sidelink transmission; specifically, the type includes a unicast, a groupcast, and a broadcast. ¶ [0467]); receive, from one or more of the plurality of third sidelink UEs, feedback indicating a decoding status of the first data packet (¶ [0361], based on the result of monitoring of the HARQ-ACK feedback transmitted by the UE2, the UE1 determines whether to report the HARQ-ACK feedback from the UE2 to the base station, ¶ [0362], The UE1 receives the ACK feedback from the UE2, the UE1 transmits the ACK feedback of the sidelink transmission corresponding to the SLG1 to the base station, and the transmission process of LTB1 ends successfully. ¶ [0365] ¶ [0397]); determine, for one or more of the plurality of remote UE, a result of the feedback request at the second sidelink UE, wherein the result indicates whether the first data packet is successfully relayed via the second interface (figs. 1 and 5, ¶ [0362], ¶ [0365], ¶ [0397]).
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the feedback request comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating a set of remote UEs or a set of logical channels (LCHs), or both, for which relay feedback is requested.
Chen teaches wherein the feedback request comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating a set of remote UEs or a set of logical channels (LCHs), or both, for which relay feedback is requested (figs. 2C, 7, 8, ¶ [0084] the terminal determines the indicate configured HARQ feedback enable rule of the Sidelink interface through the MAC CE. ¶ [0086], ¶ [0087], ¶ [0092], the specified content in the MAC CE configured for the terminal includes any one or more of the following: ¶ [0094], a LCID of service data of the Sidelink interface for enabling or not enabling HARQ feedback. ¶ [0111] Enabling or not enabling HARQ feedback for terminals in a specified region. ¶ [0113], Enabling or not enabling HARQ feedback for a specified logical channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to indicate, through a MAC CE, a set of remote UEs or a set of logical channels (LCHs), or both, for which relay feedback is requested in the system of Zhou to further enhance system efficiency and reliability (¶ [0018] of Chen).
Zhou does not explicitly teach the first equipment is a first sidelink user equipment.
However, it is well known in the art, to receive, at a second/relay sidelink user equipment, a packet from a first sidelink user equipment and relay/forward the packet to a third sidelink user equipment, as evidenced by figs. 1-4, 7-11 of Wang.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method of Zhou in view of Chen in a relay sidelink user equipment to further enhance industrial applicability.
7. Claims 2-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view Chen and Wang of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 112567796 A, hereinafter “Chen’96”).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Zhou in view of Chen and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a quality of service (QoS) indicator corresponding to the second interface
Chen’96 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a QoS indicator for transmitting the first data packet to the at least one equipment (Page 13, each QoS flow is associated with QoS index, the value defines the packet time delay budget (PDB), Page 3, Page 15, PDB margin can be based on the hop of transmission path)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive a QoS indicator corresponding to the second interface in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to further enhance system efficiency and reliability.
Regarding claim 3, 4, 18 and 19, Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96 teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 2.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to calculate a remaining packet delay budget (PDB) based on an indicated PDB corresponding to the QoS indicator.
Chen’96 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to calculate a remaining PDB based on a PDB corresponding to the QoS indicator, wherein the remaining PDB comprises a the PDB minus average link delay (Page 16, the donor DU may be the estimated packet transmission start time as a time stamp included in header or MAC sub-header. Assuming that the IAB node 2 receives the data packet at t2,, the IAB node 2 many use the time stamp (t2-timestamp) to determine the remaining PDB…the first IAB node can send the time delay detection control PDU comprising the current timestamp information to the peer IAB node. Then, the peer IAB node can calculate the one-way time delay according to the time difference between the receiving time and the time stamp contained in the time delay detection control PDU. On the other hand, the one-way time delay detection may be estimated by a time difference between a data packet arrival time and a data packet leaving time in an IAB node. Page 17, applying the QoS configuration…In order to predict the potential time delay and check whether the multi-hop IAB network can satisfy PDB, the average time delay of each RLC bearer/channel is determined to make routing and scheduling decisions. The time delay detection process can be periodically triggered or triggered by the event. In still some embodiments, considering the time delay fluctuation, average time delay of each RLC bearer can be the value after filtering).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to calculate a remaining PDB based on an indicated PDB corresponding to the QoS indicator, wherein the remaining PDB comprises a packet delay budget minus average link delay in the system of Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96 to ensure QoS/PDB (Chen’96: Page 15 When the data packet is continuously forwarded to the service IAB node along the data path, the remaining PDB is updated, and the discard timer is started to check whether PDB can be ensured.).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96 teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 4.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the average link delay is determined based on a delay between the first sidelink UE transmitting a plurality of data packets and the second sidelink UE receiving the plurality of data packet.
Chen’96 teaches the average link delay is determined based on a delay between the first equipment transmitting a plurality of data packets and the second equipment receiving the plurality of data packet (Page 16, page 17, the time delay detection process can be periodically triggered or triggered by the event. In still some embodiments, considering the time delay fluctuation, average time delay of each RLC bearer can be the value after filtering).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine the average link delay based on a delay between the first sidelink UE transmitting a plurality of data packets and the second sidelink UE receiving the plurality of data packet in the system of Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96 to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96 teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 3.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the remaining PDB comprises the indicated PDB minus a fixed time.
However, Chen’96 teaches wherein a remaining PDB comprises an indicated PDB minus a link delay, as set forth above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine a remaining PDB by subtracting a fixed time from indicated PDB in the system of Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96 teaches second sidelink UE of claim 2,
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the remaining PDB comprises the indicated PDB minus a variable time determined based on at least a predefined a first timer T1 and a portion of a predefined second timer T2.
Chen’96 teaches wherein the remaining PDB comprises the indicated PDB minus a variable time determined based a predefined first timer T1 and a portion of a predefined second timer T2 (Page 13, the PDB corresponding to the data packet comprises the time delay component of Tuu and Tng… According to the current LTE/5G specification, through the PDCP discard timer associated with each UE bearer (discardTimer) to reflect UL Tuu requirement. Page 14, the gNB may estimate Tng based on implementation, and then configure the discard timer using a value lower than (PDB-Tng)… In addition to the time delay component Tuu discussed above (between the UE 802 and IAB 804) and Tng (between the donor CU 810 and the UPF 812), it should also consider the time delay component such as Tun and Tf1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine an indicated PDB minus a variable time determined based on at least one predefined first timer T1 and a portion of a predefined second timer T2 in the system of Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Chen’96. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freda et al. (US 2021/0329596 A1, hereinafter “Freda”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Chen and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to receive a minimum communication range (MCR) and group size information in response to one or more of the plurality of third sidelink UEs being part of a group.
Freda teaches the receiver receives an MCR and group size information (¶ [0174]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive an MCR and group size information in response to one or more of the plurality of third sidelink UEs being part of a group in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to meet the QoS requirement for sidelink communications (¶ [0174] o Freda).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0209317 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in view of Chen and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to receive a second data packet from a fourth sidelink UE, and transmit the second data packet with the first data packet to the plurality of third sidelink UEs in response to the fourth sidelink UE having a feedback configuration that matches a feedback configuration for the first sidelink UE.
Liu teaches wherein the receiver receives a second data packet from a fourth sidelink user equipment, and the transmitter transmits the second data packet with the first data packet to the at least one third sidelink user equipment in response to the fourth sidelink user equipment having a feedback configuration that matches a feedback configuration for the first sidelink user equipment (i.e., in response to sending ACK to the first sidelink user equipment and the fourth sidelink user equipment in acknowledge mode) (fig. 8, ¶ [0089], upon successfully decoding the set of encoded packets associated with the first V2X communication, the relay device 805 may transmit an acknowledgment (ACK) message to the first UE 120 indicating that the first V2X communication was successfully received and successfully decoded by the relay device 805. ¶ [0093], upon successfully decoding the set of encoded packets associated with the second V2X communication, the relay device 805 may transmit an ACK message to the second UE 120 indicating that the second V2X communication was successfully received and successfully decoded by the relay device 805. ¶ [0094], the relay device 805 may combine the first V2X communication and the second V2X communication, both the first V2X communication and the second V2X communication may be intended for the third UE 120 ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive a second data packet from a fourth sidelink UE, and to transmit the second data packet with the first data packet to the plurality of third sidelink UEs in response to the fourth sidelink UE having a feedback configuration that matches a feedback configuration for the first sidelink UE (i.e., in response to sending ACK to the first sidelink user equipment and the fourth sidelink user equipment in an acknowledge mode) in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to reduce a quantity of transmissions and/or retransmissions (¶ [0094] of Liu).
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (2021/0160879 A1, hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou in view Chen and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the result of the feedback request comprises a sidelink shared channel (SL-SCH) subheader corresponding to each indicated more UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs, and each SL-SCH subheader comprises a member identifier corresponding to a third sidelink UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs.
Lin teaches wherein the result of the feedback request comprises a SL-SCH subheader corresponding to each remote equipment of the plurality of third user equipments, and each SL-SCH subheader comprises a member identifier corresponding to a third user equipment of the plurality of third user equipments (figs. 7 and 8, 13, ¶ [0156], a HARQ retransmission can be enabled or disabled by an RRC parameter; if HARQ retransmission is enabled (or if a HARQ disabling configuration is not provided), the UE can use different HARQ feedback schemes, such as alternative (1) or (2) or (3) above, and determine the actual HARQ feedback schemes based on a gNB signalling, ¶ [0157], when shared resources are used to report a HARQ feedback for a shared DL SPS configuration in the aforementioned example, the HARQ feedback from UEs additionally includes some notion of the UE identity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include, in the result of the feedback request, a SL-SCH subheader including a member identifier, corresponding to each remoe UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to distinguish the third user equipment among third user equipment group members (¶ [0157] of Lin).
11. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0060292 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou in view Chen and Wang teaches the second UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to flush a feedback buffer in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs.
However, it is well known in the art to flush a feedback buffer in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding equipment of the at least one equipment, as evidenced by Lee (¶ [0264], UE may flush the HARQ buffer, if one of the following conditions is met: ¶ [0265] when the number of maximum retransmissions of the MAC PDU was reached regardless of positive acknowledgement, ¶ [0267] when a positive acknowledgement is received).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to flush a feedback buffer in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding third sidelink UE of plurality of third sidelink UEs in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to provide efficient buffer/memory utilization.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou in view Chen and Wang teaches second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to flush a feedback buffer in response to a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmissions being reached for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs.
However, it is well known in the art to flush a feedback buffer in response to a maximum number of HARQ retransmissions being reached for a corresponding equipment, as evidenced by Lee (¶ [0264], UE may flush the HARQ buffer, if one of the following conditions is met: [0265] when the number of maximum retransmissions of the MAC PDU was reached regardless of positive acknowledgement. [0267] when a positive acknowledgement is received )
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to flush a feedback buffer in response to a maximum number of HARQ retransmissions being reached for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to provide efficient buffer/memory utilization.
12. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0048284 A1, hereinafter “Lee’84”).
Regarding claims 11-13, Zhou in view of Chen and Wang teaches apparatus of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to flush a feedback buffer in response to a corresponding packet delay budget being reached for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs.
Lee’84 teaches wherein the processor flushes a feedback buffer in response to a corresponding packet delay budget being reached for a corresponding equipment, a maximum number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmissions being reached or in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding the equipment (¶ [0323], when the first wireless device receives ACK in response to transmission of the first MAC PDU, the UE flushes a buffer of the HARQ process. ¶ [0369], upon receiving receives ACK to the (re-)transmission of the first MAC PDU, if the number of retransmissions of the first MAC PDU stored in a sidelink process reaches the maximum number of retransmissions and/or delay requirement of the first MAC PDU is fulfilled, the UE may flush the buffer of the HARQ process).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to flush a feedback buffer in response to a corresponding packet delay budget being reached, a maximum number of HARQ retransmissions being reached or in response to receiving an acknowledgment for a corresponding third sidelink UE of the plurality of third sidelink UEs in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to provide efficient buffer/memory utilization.
13. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sammour et al. (US 2009/0103478 A1, hereinafter “Sammour”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou in view of Chen and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second sidelink UE to: receive a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discard message in response to a corresponding discard timer expiring at the first sidelink UE; and in response to transmission of a PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) not having started at a time at which the PDCP discard message is received, not transmit the PDCP PDU.
Sammour teaches wherein the receiver receives a PDCP discard message in response to a corresponding discard timer expiring at the first equipment, and the processor, in response to receiving the discard message, adjusts its operations accordingly (¶ [0137]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to transmit the first data packet using Layer-3 relaying via a PDCP entity; receive a PDCP discard message in response to a corresponding discard timer expiring at the first sidelink user equipment; and in response to receiving the discard message adjust its operations accordingly (i.e., in response to transmission of a PDCP PDU not having started at a time at which the PDCP discard message is received, not transmit the PDCP PDU) in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to further enhance system efficiency.
Zhou in view Chen, Wang and Sammour does not explicitly teach transmit the first packet using Layer-3 relaying via PDCP entity.
However, it is well known in the art to utilize Layer-3 relaying via PDCP entity.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Layer-3 relaying via PDCP entity to transmit the first packet in the system of Zhou in view of Chen, Wang and Sammour to further improve industrial applicability.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Chen and Wang teaches the second sidelink UE of claim 1.
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the second UE to not transmit a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data unit (PDU) based on at least one timer.
However, it is well known in the art to not transmit a packet data convergence protocol protocol data unit based on at least one timer, as evidenced by ¶ [0046] of Sammour.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to not transmit a PDCP PDU based on at least one timer in the system of Zhou in view of Chen and Wang to comply with 3GPP/the packet data convergence protocol requirements.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments filed on June 24, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights