DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “radio unit”, “baseband units” in all currently presented claims 1-2, 7-18, 28, 31 and 34-35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 34-35 overcome the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 34-35. The previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 34-35 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2, 14-18, 31 and 34-35, the Applicant argues that previously cited reference Krishnaswamy (US 2021/0243839) fails to disclose the claimed feature of “configuring at least two baseband units, the at least two baseband units being operatively connected to the radio data unit for downlink transmission of data”. The Applicant contends that the claim requires two or more baseband units that are both connected to a single radio unit while Krishnaswamy discloses multiple DU(s) 105 separately connected to different RU(s) 106. However, Krishnaswamy also recites “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106, thereby meeting the requirement of the currently presented claims. The currently provided argument therefore does not sufficiently overcome the teachings of Krishnaswamy and the previously presented rejections are maintained.
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 35 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 35 recites the limitation "the radio unit" in line 5 (the marked up version of the claims submitted on 03/04/2026). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 14-18, 31 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy (US 2021/0243839) in view of Akl (US 2022/0085965).
Krishnaswamy discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 1, a method for enabling time synchronized and coordinated downlink transmission of data from a radio unit, the method being performed by a network node, the method comprising:
configuring at least two baseband units (see multiple DU 105 in Fig. 1B), the at least two baseband units being operatively connected to the radio unit for downlink transmission of data (see RU 106 connected to the DU 105 in Fig. 1B for communication towards the UE 110; and see “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106), with:
time synchronization information for compensating for a difference in time delay between each of the at least two baseband units and the radio unit for the downlink transmission of data (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105, or between the RAN devices and a grandmaster clock (not shown))” recited in paragraph [0109], wherein PTP is a protocol used for synchronization between in a network that compensates for the difference in timing/delays).
Regarding claim 14, configuring the at least two baseband units with frequency scheduling information identifying which frequency bands per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data (see Fig. 1B, wherein each DU 105 includes the PRANmon component 107; and see “The PRANmon component 107 may receive input 120 from a variety of different components and devices. Without limitation, the input 120 may include: a configuration database indicating various configurations in the RAN (e.g., frequency band used by the RAN, bandwidth of the frequency band, public land mobile network (PLMN) ID, number of users served or sectors implemented by the RAN, current combining groups, aggregation levels of particular channel(s), frequency reuse configuration in use, etc.)” recited in paragraph [0072]; and see the use of “TDD” and “FDD” in paragraph [0036], which involves scheduling information in the frequency bands used by the RAN as taught in paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the at least two baseband units are configured by the time synchronization information and the time scheduling information either being provided in a control message sent on an interface between the network node and each of the at least two baseband units (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105” recited in paragraph [0109] and see the F1-c control interface between the CU 103 and DU 105 in Fig. 1B) or being piggybacked with uplink data.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the network node is provided in, collocated with, or integrated with, any of: the radio unit, a central network node (see Fig. 1B, wherein the CU 103 and the RU 106 are integrated and collocated within the C-RAN 100B).
Regarding claim 18, a method for enabling time synchronized and coordinated downlink transmission of data from a radio unit, the method being performed by a baseband unit, the baseband unit (see multiple DU 105 in Fig. 1B) being operatively connected to the radio unit for downlink transmission of data (see RU 106 connected to the DU 105 in Fig. 1B for communication towards the UE 110; and see “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106), the method comprising:
obtaining configuration from a network node in terms of:
time synchronization information for compensating for a difference in time delay between the baseband unit and the radio unit for the downlink transmission of data (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105, or between the RAN devices and a grandmaster clock (not shown))” recited in paragraph [0109], wherein PTP is a protocol used for synchronization between in a network that compensates for the difference in timing/delays).
Regarding claim 28, a network node (see C-RAN 100B in Fig. 1B) for enabling time synchronized and coordinated downlink transmission data from a radio unit (see RU 106 in Fig. 1B), the network node comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry being configured to cause the network node to:
configure at least two baseband units (see multiple DU 105 in Fig. 1B), the at least two baseband units being operatively connected to the radio unit for downlink transmission of data (see RU 106 connected to the DU 105 in Fig. 1B for communication towards the UE 110; and see “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106), with:
time synchronization information for compensating for a difference in time delay between each of the at least two baseband units and the radio unit for the downlink transmission of data (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105, or between the RAN devices and a grandmaster clock (not shown))” recited in paragraph [0109], wherein PTP is a protocol used for synchronization between in a network that compensates for the difference in timing/delays).
Regarding claim 31, a baseband unit (see multiple DU 105 in Fig. 1B) for enabling time synchronized and coordinated downlink transmission data from a radio unit (see RU 106 in Fig. 1B), the baseband unit being operatively connected to the radio unit for downlink transmission of data (see RU 106 connected to the DU 105 in Fig. 1B for communication towards the UE 110; and see “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106), the processing circuitry being configured to cause the baseband unit to:
obtain configuration from a network node in terms of:
time synchronization information for compensating for a difference in time delay between the baseband unit and the radio unit for the downlink transmission of data (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105, or between the RAN devices and a grandmaster clock (not shown))” recited in paragraph [0109], wherein PTP is a protocol used for synchronization between in a network that compensates for the difference in timing/delays).
Regarding claim 34, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor cause the network node (see C-RAN 100B in Fig. 1B) to:
configure at least two baseband units (see multiple DU 105 in Fig. 1B), the at least two baseband units being operatively connected to the radio unit for downlink transmission of data (see RU 106 connected to the DU 105 in Fig. 1B for communication towards the UE 110; and see “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106), with:
time synchronization information for compensating for a difference in time delay between each of the at least two baseband units and the radio unit for the downlink transmission of data (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105, or between the RAN devices and a grandmaster clock (not shown))” recited in paragraph [0109], wherein PTP is a protocol used for synchronization between in a network that compensates for the difference in timing/delays).
Regarding claim 35, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see multiple DU 105 in Fig. 1B) comprising instructions that when executed by a processor cause a baseband unit (see DU 105 in Fig. 1B) when being operatively connected to the radio unit (see RU 106 connected to the DU 105 in Fig. 1B for communication towards the UE 110; and see “Furthermore, each RU 106 may optionally implement one or more instances of a radio unit 106” in paragraph [0030]. That is, the multiple RUs 106 may be different instances of the RUs 106 implemented with the same RU 106 such that two or more DUs 105 may be connected to separate instances of RUs 106 implemented by a single RU 106) for downlink transmission of data to:
obtain configuration from a network node (see C-RAN 100B in Fig. 1B) in terms of:
time synchronization information for compensating for a difference in time delay between the baseband unit and the radio unit for the downlink transmission of data (see “timing-interface (e.g., PTP between any of the RAN devices, such as a baseband controller 104, RU(s) 106, 5G CU 103, DU 105, or between the RAN devices and a grandmaster clock (not shown))” recited in paragraph [0109], wherein PTP is a protocol used for synchronization between in a network that compensates for the difference in timing/delays).
Krishnaswamy does not disclose the following features: regarding claims 1, 18, 28, 31 and 34-35, time scheduling information identifying which transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data; and transmitting downlink data to the radio unit in accordance with the configuration; regarding claim 2, wherein the time synchronization pertains to symbol level time synchronization, slot level time synchronization, or frame level synchronization for compensating for the difference in time delay; regarding claim 15, configuring the at least two baseband units with time scheduling information identifying possible reception slots per frame for uplink reception of data at the at least two base band units
Akl discloses the following features.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, time scheduling information identifying which transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data (see “A DU or a CU may determine the intended TDD DL-UL configuration, and may provide the intended TDD DL-UL configuration to another node (e.g., another next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) node such as another CU or a DU)” recited in paragraph [0059], wherein the baseband units, DU, obtains the DL-UL configuration, which includes is used to indicate the symbol slots within a frame to be used for DL, UL, Flexible communication); and transmitting downlink data to the radio unit in accordance with the configuration (see step 620, which shows the communication based on the intended TDD DL-UL configuration; Krishnaswamy shows the DL direction including communication from the DU to the RU in Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the time synchronization pertains to symbol level time synchronization, slot level time synchronization (see “TDD DL-UL slot configuration of the cell” recited in paragraph [0059]), or frame level synchronization for compensating for the difference in time delay.
Regarding claim 15, configuring the at least two baseband units with time scheduling information identifying possible reception slots per frame for uplink reception of data at the at least two base band units (see “A DU or a CU may determine the intended TDD DL-UL configuration, and may provide the intended TDD DL-UL configuration to another node (e.g., another next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) node such as another CU or a DU)” recited in paragraph [0059])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy using features, as taught by Akl, in order to indicate the intended uplink/downlink configuration (see paragraphs [0058]-[0059] of Akl).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy and Akl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2022/0174670).
Krishnaswamy and Akl disclose the features as shown above.
Krishnaswamy does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 7, wherein the time synchronization information specifies a prioritization order of the transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data.
Liu discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the time synchronization information specifies a prioritization order of the transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data (see “priorities of some DU resources and MT resources may be configured” recited in paragraph [0251]; also see paragraphs [0081]-[0086], which shows the DU resources being classified as hard resource and soft resource wherein the hard resource is always available to the DU while the soft resource is not, and such classification may also be considered as a prioritization order of for the baseband units DUs in addition to the teaching in paragraph [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy and Akl using features, as taught by Liu, in order to provide transmission service to different class of traffics (see paragraph [0081]-[0088] of Liu).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy and Akl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 2021/0051522).
Krishnaswamy and Akl disclose the features as shown above.
Krishnaswamy does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 8, wherein each of the at least two baseband units is configured with identical transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used for the downlink transmission of data.
Zhou discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 8, wherein each of the at least two baseband units is configured with identical transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used for the downlink transmission of data (see “All DUs must be synchronized for downlink and uplink communication and so will use the same slot configuration” recited in paragraph [0056], wherein the same slot configuration results in the same number of downlink transmission slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy and Akl using features, as taught by Zhou, in order to preserve signaling resources by using common configuration for all DUs (see paragraph [0056] of Zhou).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy and Akl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2020/0146038).
Krishnaswamy and Akl disclose the features as shown above.
Krishnaswamy does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 9, wherein the data to be transmitted is associated with a level of time-sensitivity, and wherein the network node accesses information of the time-sensitivity for dynamically updating time scheduling information.
Zhang discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the data to be transmitted is associated with a level of time-sensitivity, and wherein the network node accesses information of the time-sensitivity for dynamically updating time scheduling information (see “network device may semi-statically configure the second uplink-downlink configuration, or dynamically configure the second uplink-downlink configuration. A condition that triggers the network device to change the uplink-downlink configuration may include a change period, a to-be-transmitted service, or the like. For example, the network device periodically changes the uplink-downlink configuration. For another example, the network device may change the uplink-downlink configuration based on traffic service, such as an ultra-reliable and low latency communications (URLLC) service” recited in paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy and Akl using features, as taught by Zhang, in order to meet an actual requirement of each network device traffic (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004] of Zhang).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy and Akl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi (US 2019/0098626).
Krishnaswamy and Akl disclose the features as shown above.
Krishnaswamy does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 10, wherein at least two of the at least two baseband units use different numerologies with respect to each other for the downlink transmission of data, and wherein the time scheduling information is adapted to each of the numerologies.
Yi discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 10, wherein at least two of the at least two baseband units use different numerologies with respect to each other for the downlink transmission of data (see “…different numerology…each cell may indicate intended numerology used in a set of time/frequency resource” recited in paragraph [0090], wherein Akl shows that each cell being served by a DU (which is a baseband unit) in Fig. 3/paragraph [0055]-[0056]), and wherein the time scheduling information is adapted to each of the numerologies (see “Numerology used in transmission may follow numerology configured in the scheduled carrier for a channel” recited in paragraph [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy and Akl using features, as taught by Yi, in order to support different application that require different latency and coverage requirements (see paragraph [0043] and [0090] of Yi).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy and Akl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding (US 2021/0227460).
Krishnaswamy and Akl disclose the features as shown above.
Akl also discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the radio unit comprises a power amplifier (see “power amplifiers” recited in paragraph [0016]) and a power amplifier controller, and wherein the network node provides input to the power amplifier controller for dynamically adjusting the power amplifier (see “the first CU includes means for performing power coordination for dual connectivity based at least in part on the intended TDD DL-UL configuration” recited in paragraph [0049]).
Krishnaswamy and Akl do not disclose the following features: regarding claim 11, wherein the input to the power amplifier controller is for dynamically adjusting the power amplifier according to maximum power or data rate required for the downlink transmission of data.
Ding discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the input to the power amplifier controller is for dynamically adjusting the power amplifier according to maximum power or data rate required for the downlink transmission of data (see “An operating principle of the RU is to perform frequency translation, filtering, and amplification on a baseband signal in a downlink manner…The RU 102 includes at least one PA, and the PA is mainly configured to amplify a radio frequency signal. When amplifying the radio frequency signal, the PA has a corresponding power indicator. The power indicator may usually include an output power and a maximum allowable power” recited in paragraph [0036], wherein PA stands for “power amplifier” and RU stands for radio frequency unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy and Akl using features, as taught by Ding, in order to ensure the power amplifier is not damaged (see paragraph [0036] of Ding).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy and Akl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones (US 11,838,151 B1).
Krishnaswamy and Akl disclose the features as shown above.
Krishnaswamy does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 12, wherein the network node obtains information of temporary excess radio capacity at the radio unit, and wherein the network node dynamically updates the time scheduling information by allocating, in accordance with the information of temporary excess radio capacity, further transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data.
Jones discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the network node obtains information of temporary excess radio capacity at the radio unit, and wherein the network node dynamically updates the time scheduling information by allocating, in accordance with the information of temporary excess radio capacity, further transmission slots per frame that are allowed to be used by the at least two baseband units for the downlink transmission of data (see “A time resource in a cell or an antenna panel can be a Downlink (DL), Uplink (UL) or Flexible (F) symbol, where a Flexible symbol can be either DL or UL, determined dynamically as described earlier in this specification” recited in column 158, lines 54-67; that is, when the flexible symbol is dynamically determined to be used for DL, this is equivalent to a temporary excess resource to be allocated for downlink transmission per frame; wherein the resources in a DU cell is configured by the MN as shown in the same paragraph in Jones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Krishnaswamy and Akl using features, as taught by Jones, in order to adapt to changes in demand (see column 158, lines 44-51 of Jones).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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
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 JUTAI KAO whose telephone number is (571)272-9719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-17:00 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, Kwang Yao can be reached at (571)272-3182. 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.
/JUTAI KAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights