DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, and 20 have been amended; Claims 5, 13, 15, 18-19, and 21-22 have been canceled; No claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 20, and 23-26 are subject to examination.
Acknowledgement is made to the applicant’s amendment to claims 3, 8, and 9 to obviate the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 3, 8, and 9. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 3, 8, and 9 is/are hereby withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claims 1, 20, and 23-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant argues in substance that the amended limitations over come the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claim 1, 20, and 23-26
Examiner’s Response
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims further define the CQI set, the claim still merely cite determining a CQI set and does not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of reading from data, they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Further, the claimed step of reporting a CQI based on the first CQI set is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claims do not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. The examiner recommends the applicant include further details on how the CQI set is used to report CQI and how is CQI reported.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 20, and 23-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding all other arguments presented by the applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the examiner directs the applicant to those response above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 20 recites “in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI subset, an MCS index or a TBS index or a code rate that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is same, and a repetition number that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is different.” It is unclear where each phrase ends. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as “in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI subset, wherein an MCS index or Ta BS index or a code rate that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is the same and wherein a repetition number that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is different.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 20, and 23-26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 20 recites, in a first limitation, “at least one of a modulation mode, a code rate…a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, a transport block size (TBS) index or a repetition number” and, in a second limitation, “there is at least one CQI subset, an MCS index or a TBS index or a code rate that each CQI index…a repetition number that each CQI index”. It is unclear whether the MCS index, TBS index, Code rate, and Repetition number is the same or different from the “at least one of a modulation mode, a code rate…a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, a transport block size (TBS) index or a repetition number” of the first limitation. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as: “at least one of a modulation mode, a code rate…a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index, a transport block size (TBS) index or a repetition number…there is at least one CQI subset, the MCS index or the TBS index or the code rate that each CQI index…the repetition number that each CQI index”. Likewise, claim 2-4, 6-12, 14, 16-17, 23, and 25 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1 and claims 24 and 26 are rejected as being dependent on claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1, 20, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a low of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) determining a CQI set. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of reading from data, they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because. For example, the claimed step of reporting a CQI based on the first CQI set is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claims do not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 1, 20, and 23-26 are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-12, and 14-17 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claim(s) 1 as set forth above. Claims 2-4, 6-12, and 14-17 do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of reading from data. Therefore, the claims do not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claim(s) 2-4, 6-12, and 14-17 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 16, 20, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN et al. (US 20090274204 A1), hereby referred to as CHEN.
Claim 1:
CHEN teaches a channel quality reporting method, comprising: determining a first channel quality indicator (CQI) set (CHEN: para 7 (“…table of channel quality information (CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) and para 12 (“…(CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) wherein tables are determined for reporting), the first CQI set including association relationships between CQI indexes (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“CQI (dB)”) or FIG. 6 item (“Mapping”) these being CQI indexes to the table) and a channel quality parameter (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Mod”), item (“Code Rate”), and item (“Rep Rate”)), and the channel quality parameter including at least one of a modulation mode (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Mod”)), a code rate (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Code Rate”)), or a repetition number (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Rep Rate”)), wherein the modulation mode includes a first modulation mode and a second modulation mode (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“QPSK”) a first modulation mode and item (“16-QAM”) or item (“64-QAM”) a second modulation mode); and reporting a CQI based on the first CQI set (CHEN: para 7 (“…table of channel quality information (CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) and para 12 (“…(CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) wherein tables are determined for reporting), wherein in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI subset, a code rate that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is same, and a repetition number that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is different (CHEN: FIG. 1 or see image below wherein the CQI subset is the CQIs that correspond to the same code rate (such as 1/2), wherein those CQI indexes can have different repetition numbers (6, 4, 2, and 1)).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 16:
CHEN teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein in the first CQI set, there are at least two CQI indexes that satisfy at least one of: the at least two CQI indexes are in negative correlation with code rates associated with the at least two CQI indexes (CHEN: FIG. 1 or see below wherein as cqi increases, code rates decreases in at least two areas).
PNG
media_image2.png
523
244
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20:
CHEN teaches a channel quality reporting method, comprising: determining a first channel quality indicator (CQI) set (CHEN: para 7 (“…table of channel quality information (CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) and para 12 (“…(CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) wherein tables are determined for reporting), the first CQI set including association relationships between CQI indexes (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“CQI (dB)”) or FIG. 6 item (“Mapping”) these being CQI indexes to the table) and a channel quality parameter (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Mod”), item (“Code Rate”), and item (“Rep Rate”)), and the channel quality parameter including at least one of a modulation mode (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Mod”)), a code rate (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Code Rate”)), or a repetition number (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“Rep Rate”)), wherein the modulation mode includes a first modulation mode and a second modulation mode (CHEN: FIG. 1 item (“QPSK”) a first modulation mode and item (“16-QAM”) or item (“64-QAM”) a second modulation mode); and receiving a CQI based on the first CQI set (CHEN: para 7 (“…table of channel quality information (CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) and para 12 (“…(CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) wherein tables are determined for reporting which will be received), wherein in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI subset, a code rate that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is same, and a repetition number that each CQI index in the CQI subset is associated with is different (CHEN: FIG. 1 or see image below wherein the CQI subset is the CQIs that correspond to the same code rate (such as 1/2), wherein those CQI indexes can have different repetition numbers (6, 4, 2, and 1)).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 23:
CHEN teaches a terminal, comprising: one or more processors (CHEN: FIG. 3 item 302 (“Processor”)); and a storage device configured to store one or more programs (CHEN: FIG. 3 item 304 (“Memory”)); and when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors implementing the channel quality reporting method according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim 24:
CHEN teaches a service node, comprising: one or more processors (CHEN: FIG. 4 item 402 (“Processor”)); and a storage device configured to store one or more programs (CHEN: FIG. 4 item 404 (“Memory”)); and when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors implementing the channel quality receiving method according to claim 20 (See rejection for claim 20 above).
Claim 25:
CHEN teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program therein (CHEN: FIG. 3 item 304 (“Memory”)). For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 26:
CHEN teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program therein (CHEN: FIG. 4 item 404 (“Memory”)). For further limitations, see rejection for claim 20 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of TANG et al. (EP 3410619 A1) (see IDS 10/09/2024), hereby referred to as TANG.
Claim 2:
CHEN teaches the method of according to claim 1, wherein there is at least one CQI index in the first CQI set, and a code rate associated with each of the at least one CQI index (CHEN: FIG. 1), but does not explicitly disclose, and the code rate is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to two adjacent CQI indexes in a predefined second CQI set.
TANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the code rate is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to two adjacent CQI indexes in a predefined second CQI set (TANG: para 106 (“The new coding rate Cnew in the case of another CQI index is an average value of new coding rates Cnew of adjacent CQI indexes…”) and equation 6 wherein the first CQI set can be the CQI set with the new code rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with TANG for the benefit of improving communication capability (TANG: para 3).
Claim 3:
CEHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a difference between code rates corresponding to any two adjacent CQIs associated with a second modulation mode in the first CQI set is less than a difference between code rates corresponding to any two adjacent CQIs associated with the second modulation mode in a predefined second CQI set
TANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a difference between code rates corresponding to any two adjacent CQIs associated with a second modulation mode in the first CQI set is less than a difference between code rates corresponding to any two adjacent CQIs associated with the second modulation mode in a predefined second CQI set (TANG: Table 2 wherein the current code rate difference between CQI 1-2 is 0.051028 and wherein the new code rate difference between CQI 1-2 is 0.016828 and wherein the first set/new code rate is less than the second set/current code rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with TANG for the benefit of improving communication capability (TANG: para 3).
Claim 4:
CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI index k, and a code rate associated with the CQI index k (CHEN: FIG. 1 and FIG. 6), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the code rate is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to a CQI index k-1 and a CQI index k+1 in the first CQI set, wherein k is greater than 0 and less than 31; or in the first CQI set, there is at least on CQI index h, and a code rate associated with the CQI index h is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to a CQI index h-1 and a CQI index h+2 in the first CQI set, where h is greater than 0 and less than 29; or in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI index h, and a code rate associated with the CQI index h is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to a CQI index h-2 and a CQI index h+1 in the first CQI set, where h is greater than 1 and less than 30.
TANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the code rate is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to a CQI index k-1 and a CQI index k+1 in the first CQI set, wherein k is greater than 0 and less than 31 (TANG: Table 3 wherein CQI index in the first set has CQI index greater than 0 and/or 1 and less than 29, 30, and/or 31; and para 106 (“The new coding rate Cnew in the case of another CQI index is an average value of new coding rates Cnew of adjacent CQI indexes…”) and Equation 6 wherein code rate is an average value of adjacent CQI indexes); or in the first CQI set, there is at least on CQI index h, and a code rate associated with the CQI index h is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to a CQI index h-1 and a CQI index h+2 in the first CQI set, where h is greater than 0 and less than 29 (TANG: Table 3 wherein CQI index in the first set has CQI index greater than 0 and/or 1 and less than 29, 30, and/or 31; and para 106 (“The new coding rate Cnew in the case of another CQI index is an average value of new coding rates Cnew of adjacent CQI indexes…”) and Equation 6 wherein code rate is an average value of adjacent CQI indexes); or in the first CQI set, there is at least one CQI index h, and a code rate associated with the CQI index h is equal to an average value of code rates corresponding to a CQI index h-2 and a CQI index h+1 in the first CQI set, where h is greater than 1 and less than 30 (TANG: Table 3 wherein CQI index in the first set has CQI index greater than 0 and/or 1 and less than 29, 30, and/or 31; and para 106 (“The new coding rate Cnew in the case of another CQI index is an average value of new coding rates Cnew of adjacent CQI indexes…”) and Equation 6 wherein code rate is an average value of adjacent CQI indexes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with TANG for the benefit of improving communication capability (TANG: para 3).
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of YANG et al. (US 20220021474 A1) (see 892 06/04/2025), hereby referred to as YANG.
Claim 6:
CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the first CQI set, a difference between TBS indexes corresponding to every two adjacent CQI indexes associated with a first modulation mode is 2.
YANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in the first CQI set, a difference between TBS indexes corresponding to every two adjacent CQI indexes associated with a first modulation mode is 2 (YANG: para 280 (“ITBS in Table 2 is 14 rows of even numbers 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12,…which are in a one-to-one correspondence with 14 rows of CQI indexes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6…in Table 10.”) wherein the difference between TBS indexes for each CQI Index is 2 for any/a first modulation mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with YANG, the combination hereby referred to as CHEN-YANG, for the benefit of improving signal transmission rate (YANG: para 22).
Claim 7:
CHEN-YANG teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein in the first CQI set, each CQI is associated with an MCS index, and each MCS index is associated with a TBS index (YANG: TABLE 2 and para 280 (“ITBS in Table 2 is 14 rows of even numbers 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12,…which are in a one-to-one correspondence with 14 rows of CQI indexes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6…in Table 10.”) wherein each CQI is associated with a TBS which is associated with an MCS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with YANG for the benefit of improving signal transmission rate (YANG: para 22).
Claim 10:
CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the first CQI set, a TBS index associated with a CQI with a largest index is 21 or 22.
YANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in the first CQI set, a TBS index associated with a CQI with a largest index is 21 or 22 (YANG: TABLE 2 and (YANG: para 280 (“ITBS in Table 2 is 14 rows of even numbers 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26…which are in a one-to-one correspondence with 14 rows of CQI indexes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in Table 10.”) wherein TBS index 22 is associated with a largest index/CQI 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with YANG for the benefit of improving signal transmission rate (YANG: para 22).
Claim 14:
YANG teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein for an in-band deployment, the reported C0 is less than or equal to a C0 index associated with a TBS index L, where L is equal to 16 or 17.
YANG, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein for an in-band deployment (YANG: FIG. 2 and para 3 (“…LTE-based 5th generation…”) method directed within a network/in-band deployment), the reported CQI is less than or equal to a CQI index associated with a TBS index L, where L is equal to 16 or 17 (YANG: TABLE 2 and para 280 (“ITBS in Table 2 is 14 rows of even numbers 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26…which are in a one-to-one correspondence with 14 rows of CQI indexes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15in Table 10.”) wherein a CQI index can be associated with TBS index 17 or lower).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with YANG for the benefit of improving signal transmission rate (YANG: para 22).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of YOKOYAMA (US 20140321292 A1) (see IDS 03/01/2024).
Claim 12:
CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first CQI set includes M CQI indexes, where M is greater than or equal to 8 (CHEN: FIG. 1 and FIG. 6); but does not explicitly disclose in the M CQI indexes, M-1 CQI indexes are respectively associated with M-1 MCS indexes in MCS index 0 to MCS index M-1; or, in M CQI Indexes, M-1 CQI indexes are respectively associated with MCS index 0 to MCS index M-2.
YOKOYAMA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in the M CQI indexes, M-1 CQI indexes are respectively associated with M-1 MCS indexes in MCS index 0 to MCS index M-1 (YOKOYAMA: para 98 (“The CQI index is, for example, any of ID numbers of 0 to 15…The CQI index corresponds to the MCS index…”) wherein M is 16 and CQI 0 to 15 is associated with MCS 0-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with YOKOYAMA for the benefit adapting to faster communication speeds (YOKOYAMA: para 28).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG in view of TANG, the combination hereby referred to as YANG-TANG, and in further view PARK et al. (US 20230283429 A1) (see 892 06/04/2025), hereby referred to as PARK429.
Claim 17:
CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1 and reporting CQI based on the first CQI set (CHEN: para 7 (“…table of channel quality information (CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) and para 12 (“…(CQI) values that may be reported by a mobile station…”) wherein tables are determined for reporting).
However, CHEN does not explicitly disclose wherein reporting the CQI based on the first CQI set, includes: in a case where a channel quality reporting instruction is received, reporting the CQI and reporting a repetition number of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) based on the first CQI set; or, in a case where a channel quality reporting instruction is received and the repetition number of the PDCCH is less than or equal to a threshold value, reporting the CQI and reporting the repetition number of the PDCCH based on the first CQI set; or, reporting the CQI based on the first CQI set by using a semi-persistent scheduling physical uplink shared channel.
PARK429, in the same field of endeavor, teaches reporting the CQI based on the first CQI set by using a semi-persistent scheduling physical uplink shared channel (PARK429: para 166 (“Channel state information (CSI) may include a channel quality information”) and para 168 (“With respect to the CSI report setting…semi-persistent…are supported for…reporting…PUSCH-based semi-persistent…reporting methods…transmitting CSI…”) wherein reporting CQI includes using a semi-persistent scheduling physical uplink shared channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHEN with PARK429 for the benefit of handling wireless channel variance (PARK429: para 206).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9 and 11 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights