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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see page 4, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to 112(a) issue and in view of another prior art.
Applicant Argues:
“Regarding independent claims 1 and 4, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious "a simulator configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently and switch between the simulated base stations in response to an instruction to switch a frequency range" and "when switching between base station simulators, retains the parameter common to the simulated base stations as it is, and sets the parameter individual for each of the simulated base stations," as recited by claim 1, and similarly claim 4. During the interview, the Examiner cited to Shirasaki [0046] and [0052] teaching storing parameters and maintaining/exchanging parameters during rearrangement of base stations. The Examiner explained that maintaining parameters specific to the component carriers would be understood as retaining parameters individual for each bases station, but acknowledged that the reference does not necessarily apply to systems and methods in which a plurality of base stations are simulated concurrently, as recited by the amended claims.”
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees:
Upon further review of the specification and the drawings, the examiner did not find the word concurrently or mention of “a simulator configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently and switch between…” and therefore rejected under 35 USC § 112(a), introducing new matter. The drawing Fig.3 indicates of switching the frequency but is performing consecutive steps at different point of time and it is unclear how the simulator is configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently.
Examiner further notes when taking the plain meaning of concurrently, is defined as “at the same time.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that concurrently means the base stations are simulated at the same time. However, based on Fig.3, it appears the simulator is simulating each individual base stations at different times.
Applicant Further argues:
“This is because Shirasaki generally describes changing testing scenarios for testing component carriers, where the rearrangement of scenarios is performed by exchanging and maintaining parameters based on the requirements of the new scenario. That is, Shirasaki describes changing different testing environments for carrier aggregation but not operating multiple base stations concurrently and switching the active base station based on a selected frequency range. Rather, Shirasaki describes generating new testing settings, and converting the previous scenario settings to new settings. Therefore, Shirasaki's control unit does not retain/switch parameters individual for each of the concurrently simulated base stations, but rather exchanges the current parameters with new parameters to change the scenario. For instance, Shirasaki does not describe switching between simulated base stations BTS1 and BTS4 (See Fig. 3), but rather describes completely changing the scenario to a new scenario simulating base stations BTS4, BTS3 (See Fig. 5).
In short, Shirasaki describes changing scenarios, not switching between concurrently simulated bases stations. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious each and every feature of independent claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejections be withdrawn. Claims 2-3 depend from independent claim 1 and are, therefore, allowable for at least the same reasons. Thus, it is also requested that the rejections of claims 2-3 be withdrawn.”
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees:
Applicant claims 1 and 4 and Shirasaki describes the same situation of switching individual parameters such as the frequency, bandwidth, and maintaining common parameter. For instance, applicant claim 1 has an initial scenario with plurality of base stations and then switches the parameter individual while maintain the parameter common, thus creating a different scenario because the individual parameters of base stations are different than the value initially set. Shirasaki is similar in terms of using the identification of the base station, such as Fig.3 being the initial scenario of base station with parameter common and parameter individual. In Fig.5, the base stations are switched by their identification number, and their parameter common are maintained but their parameter individual are switched, and therefor is a different scenario but the switching claimed in claim 1 is reading on Shirasaki (Fig.3, Fig.5, par.39-40, 52 and 67.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim states “a simulator configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently and switch between…” and the specification does not recite “concurrently” and thus rejected under 112(a). The drawing Fig.3 indicates of switching the frequency, but is performing consecutive steps at different point of time and it is unclear how the simulator is configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently. The specification par.40-52 does not indicate concurrently and with par.41, “In Step S2, the control unit 6 establishes a call connection with the mobile terminal” and par.43, “In Step S4, the control unit 6 disconnects the call with the mobile terminal…”, par.44, “In Step S5, when, in response to the operation of the operation unit 4 by the user, an instruction to switch the frequency range is issued…” and par.45, “In Step S6, the control unit 6 establishes a call connection with the mobile terminal…” indicates there is a disconnect to change the parameters and to reconnect once the parameter of the base stations is changed which indicates there is a non-concurrent. For examination purpose concurrently was read as simulating a plurality of base station and keep the base station simulated when performing switching.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim states “a simulator configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently and switch between…” and the specification does not recite “concurrently” and thus rejected under 112(a). The drawing Fig.3 indicates of switching the frequency, but is performing consecutive steps at different point of time and it is unclear how the simulator is configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently. The specification par.40-52 does not indicate concurrently and with par.41, “In Step S2, the control unit 6 establishes a call connection with the mobile terminal” and par.43, “In Step S4, the control unit 6 disconnects the call with the mobile terminal…”, par.44, “In Step S5, when, in response to the operation of the operation unit 4 by the user, an instruction to switch the frequency range is issued…” and par.45, “In Step S6, the control unit 6 establishes a call connection with the mobile terminal…” indicates there is a disconnect to change the parameters and to reconnect once the parameter of the base stations is changed which indicates there is a non-concurrent. For examination purpose concurrently was read as simulating a plurality of base station and keep the base station simulated when performing switching.
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.
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.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRASAKI (US-20190037424-A1) in view of Sterzbach (US-20180331937-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, SHIRASAKI discloses a mobile terminal test device that tests a mobile terminal by simulating a plurality of base stations in a mobile communication, the device comprising:
a simulator (Fig.1:18) configured to simulate the plurality of base stations (paragraph [0035], Fig.1:18, "The pseudo base station unit 18 can simulate a plurality of base stations." (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.3 where it shows a plurality of simulated base stations.))
and switch between the simulated base stations in response to an instruction to switch the frequency range (paragraph [0081], Fig.3, and Fig.5, "Further, the control unit 14 causes the display unit 12 to display the setting content of the existing scenario of the pseudo base station by the user operating the operation unit 11 and changes the identification name of the pseudo base station to thereby exchange the setting of the base station." (i.e., A user is changing the identification name that would then lead to switch between the pseudo base stations. "In response to an instruction to switch the frequency range" is reading on Fig.6 where the user is editing a scenario that will cause the pseudo base stations to exchange the cell id, the frequency, and the frequency bandwidth. Examiner also points to Fig.3 and Fig.5 wherein BTS are swapped and their frequency range is changed between PCC and SCC. Par.3-4 define PCC and SCC. Par.7 PCC or SCC are set for each base station.)),
a control unit that (paragraph [0031], Fig.1:14, "the control unit 14"):
when a test is performed by simulating a plurality of the base stations (paragraph [0031], Fig.1, "Further, the control unit 14 transmits an instruction to the scenario processing unit 17 according to an instruction input to the operation unit 11 to cause the test to be executed on the basis of the scenario stored in the storage unit 16," and paragraph [0035], Fig.3, "The pseudo base station unit 18 can simulate a plurality of base stations." (i.e., A test is being performed and wherein a plurality of base stations is simulated to test the test target Fig.1:2.)),
retains a parameter common to the simulated plurality of base stations (paragraph [0039], "a parameter such as the CC of a base station simulated by the pseudo base station unit 18 to be set." and paragraph [0040], "The CC parameters include…downlink/uplink resource information and schedule information, modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a resource block (RB) number, RB start, the number of RBs, and the like." and paragraph [0043], "Here, the pseudo base station is a pseudo base station in which the above parameters of the CC are set and is identified by an identification name such as BTS1, BTS2, or BTS3 in the embodiment." and paragraph [0046], "The scenario generation unit 15 stores the scenario of the pseudo base station generated in this way in the storage unit 16" (i.e., The parameter listed in par.39 are the ones are retained by being set by the user and the setting can be stored in the storage unit 16.))
and a parameter individual for each of the simulated plurality of base stations, as the parameters for simulating the base stations (paragraph [0039], "a parameter such as the CC of a base station simulated by the pseudo base station unit 18 to be set." and paragraph [0040], "The CC parameters include a cell ID, a frequency, a frequency bandwidth…" (i.e., The pseudo base station unit sets parameter individual and that could be one of the parameters underlined. All the scenario generated can be retained in storage unit 16 as explained in par.46.)),
and when switching between base station simulators (paragraph [0067], Fig.3 and Fig.5, "For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the PCC of the carrier aggregation of three cells is changed to BTS 4 and the SCC is changed to BTS1 and BTS 5, and the PCC of the carrier aggregation of two cells is changed to BTS 3 and SCC is changed to BTS 2." (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.3 and Fig.5, showing the base stations are swapped.)),
retains the parameter common to the simulated base stations as it is (paragraph [0052], "the setting of the carrier aggregation of downlink/uplink resource information and schedule information, the MCS, and the number of RBs is maintained as it is," (i.e., the parameters that are common is maintained.)),
and sets the parameter individual for each of the simulated base stations (paragraph [0052], "and the setting of the base station such as the cell ID, the frequency, and the frequency bandwidth is exchanged such that the rearrangement of the pseudo base stations can be performed." (i.e., changes the parameters individual of each of the simulated base stations.)),
wherein each of the plurality of base stations is configured to operate a different frequency band (paragraph [0061], “In a setting state of FIG. 2, carrier aggregation with BTS 1 as the PCC and carrier aggregation with BTS4 as the PCC are set, as illustrated in FIG. 3. BTS2 and BTS3 are set as the SCC in the carrier aggregation with BTS 1 as the PCC. BTS5 is set as the SCC in the carrier aggregation with BTS4 as the PCC.” (i.e., describes each base station with a primary component carrier such as BTS1 and BTS4 and secondary component carriers such as BTS2, BTS3, and BTS5 and therefore showing the plurality of base stations operating at different frequency band. Par.3-4 define PCC and SCC. Par.7 PCC or SCC are set for each base station.)).
However, SHIRASAKI does not explicitly disclose a simulator configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently.
Sterzbach discloses a simulator configured to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently (paragraph [0035], “The intercepted channel configuration commands may then be analyzed to determine the communication channel that will be used next by the device under test. The control unit may therefore e.g. at the same time as the device under test, reconfigure the respective communication partner simulator and readily provide communication via the newly selected channel.” and paragraph [0056], “Although only one communication partner simulator 101 is shown, further communication partner simulators are possible and hinted at by three dots.” and paragraph [0060], “The communication partner simulator 101 may as already indicated simulate a base station of the communication system of the device under test 190…” (i.e., SHIRASAKI discloses a simulator that is able to simulate a plurality of base station and able to switch parameter individual, Sterzback discloses the parameter individual can be updated while the device is under test and avoid data loss and therefor teaching to simulate the plurality of base stations concurrently. Par.56 and par.60 is to show there are a plurality of base stations that are being controlled, and in combination with SHIRASAKI teach the limitation.)).
SHIRASAKI and Sterzback are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Supervisory, monitoring or testing arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SHIRASAKI mobile testing device to implement the control unit of Sterzback as it provides a more real operating conditions and solves the problem of trying to reproduce the error in the test laboratory (Sterzback, paragraph [0006], “However, without simulating all the base stations that where present when the error occurred during the test drive, it is often difficult to reproduce the error in the test laboratory.” and paragraph [0007], “Against this background, there is the need to provide a test system that allows reproducing a communication infrastructure as it may be present under real operating conditions of a mobile device.”).
Regarding Claim 4, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRASAKI (US-20190037424-A1) in view of Sterzbach (US-20180331937-A1) in further view of TAKLA (US-20220060915-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, SHIRASAKI in view of Sterzback discloses the mobile terminal test device according to claim 1.
SHIRASAKI further discloses and the control unit retains the parameter common to the base stations having different frequency ranges and the parameter individual for each of the frequency ranges (paragraph [0039], “the control unit 14 causes the display unit 12 to display a scenario creation screen and causes, for example, a parameter such as the CC of a base station simulated by the pseudo base station unit 18 to be set.” and paragraph [0040], “The CC parameters include a cell ID, a frequency, a frequency bandwidth, downlink/uplink resource information and schedule information, modulation and coding scheme (MCS), a resource block (RB) number, RB start, the number of RBs, and the like.” and paragraph [0061], "In a setting state of FIG. 2, carrier aggregation with BTS 1 as the PCC and carrier aggregation with BTS4 as the PCC are set, as illustrated in FIG. 3. BTS2 and BTS3 are set as the SCC in the carrier aggregation with BTS 1 as the PCC. BTS5 is set as the SCC in the carrier aggregation with BTS4 as the PCC." (i.e., As explained in rejection of claim 1, the parameters are set and therefor retained as the parameters can be saved and when switching the control unit knows when which parameters set as it is and exchange parameter individual. PCC and SCC are being different frequency ranges since that is the purpose of the exchanging the cell id, frequency, and frequency bandwidth when switching with simulated base stations.)),
when the test is performed by simulating base stations having the different frequency ranges of (paragraph [0067], Fig.3, "the frequency, and the frequency bandwidth of the base station associated with the identification name of the pseudo base station" (i.e., Each of the simulated base stations are simulated with different frequency bands as stated PCC and SCC. Examiner notes SHIRASAKI does not disclose "different frequency ranges of 5G NR", that will be mapped by another prior art that has a mobile test terminal that is capable of the simulated base stations having different ranges of 5G NR.)),
and sets the parameter common to the frequency ranges as it is (paragraph [0052], "the setting of the carrier aggregation of downlink/uplink resource information and schedule information, the MCS, and the number of RBs is maintained as it is," (i.e., same explanation as rejection of claim 1.)),
and switches and sets the parameter individual for each of the frequency ranges when an instruction to switch the frequency range is issued by a user (paragraph [0052], Fig.3 and Fig.5, "and the setting of the base station such as the cell ID, the frequency, and the frequency bandwidth is exchanged" (i.e., Par.52 “exchanged” is reading on “switches and sets” since the simulated base station switches settings related to frequency and sets to a different value than before.)).
However, SHIRASAKI in view of Sterzback does not disclose wherein the mobile terminal test device is configured to enable the test of the mobile terminal compatible with 5G NR, different frequency ranges of 5G NR.
TAKLA discloses wherein the mobile terminal test device is configured to enable the test of the mobile terminal compatible with 5G NR (paragraph [0027], "network information may include information indicating a frequency band associated with the wireless telecommunications network (e.g., a millimeter frequency band, a 5 GHz frequency band, and/or the like)," (i.e., Modifying the test terminal to able to perform test with 5G NR.)).
different frequency ranges of 5G NR (paragraph [0027], “For example, the network information may include information indicating a frequency band associated with the wireless telecommunications network (e.g., a millimeter frequency band, a 5 GHz frequency band, and/or the like), information indicating a geographical area associated with the wireless telecommunications network (e.g., a coverage area associated with the wireless telecommunications network),” and paragraph [0028], “The base station information may include information associated with one or more base stations… information indicating a frequency band associated with a base station,” and paragraph [0064], “For example, the network analysis system 101 may determine a transmission frequency associated with the base station emulator… and/or the like based on the base station information included in the simulation information. The network analysis system 101 may configure the base station emulator based on the one or more characteristics.” (i.e., SHIRASAKI discloses each simulated base station with its own frequency band PCC or SCC therefor SHIRASAKI testing device can simulate different bands. TAKLA discloses a simulator setting the frequency in 5G and can also set coverage area associated with the wireless telecommunications network.)).
SHIRASAKI in view of Sterzback and TAKLA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Supervisory, monitoring or testing arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SHIRASAKI mobile testing device to enable to compatible 5G NR because testing with a variety of standards to test 5G NR to enable the highest quality of service with the most recent technologies. The simulator of TAKLA also enables SHIRASAKI to simulate a plurality of base stations utilizing fewer physical resources, therefore, testing higher number of base stations in the most recent technology of 5G NR (TAKLA, paragraph [0013], “Utilizing the virtual base stations and virtual UEs may enable the wireless telecommunications network to generate a simulated environment that includes tens, hundreds, thousands, or more base stations and/or UEs utilizing fewer physical resources relative to other systems.”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIRASAKI (US-20190037424-A1) in view of Sterzbach (US-20180331937-A1) in view of TAKLA (US-20220060915-A1) in further view of GOPAL (US-20230078016-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, SHIRASAKI in view of Sterzback in further view of TAKLA discloses the mobile terminal test device according to claim 2.
However, SHIRASAKI in view of TAKLA do not disclose wherein one of the simulated plurality of base stations having the different frequency ranges is compatible with Frequency Range 1 of 450 MHz to 6000 MHz, and another of the simulated plurality of base stations is compatible with Frequency Range 2 of 24250 MHz to 52600 MHz.
GOPAL discloses wherein one of the simulated plurality of base stations having the different frequency ranges is compatible with Frequency Range 1 of 450 MHz to 6000 MHz (paragraph [0032], "Devices of the wireless network 100 may communicate using the electromagnetic spectrum, which may be subdivided by frequency or wavelength into various classes, bands, channels, or the like. For example, devices of the wireless network 100 may communicate using one or more operating bands. In 5G NR, two initial operating bands have been identified as frequency range designations FR1 (410 MHz-7.125 GHz)…" (i.e., SHIRASAKI discloses running a simulation with plurality of base stations and each of the simulated base stations associated with cell id, frequency, and frequency bandwidth and are either PCC or SCC as in different bands. TAKLA discloses the simulator testing in 5G NR as well as millimeter band and 5 GHz band and more. Gopal discloses one or more operating bands in 5G that are in the FR1 with frequency range between 410 MHz-7.125 GHz.)), and
another of the simulated plurality of base stations is compatible with Frequency Range 2 of 24250 MHz to 52600 MHz (paragraph [0032], "…and FR2 (24.25 GHz-52.6 GHz)." (i.e., the second operating band of 5G.)).
SHIRASAKI in view of Sterzback in further view of TAKLA and Gopal are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same supervisory, monitoring or testing arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SHIRASAKI to have the base stations operate at sub-6 Ghz and other base stations at millimeter wave because the demand for mobile broadband access increases and further testing is needed for explicit ranges in the 5G NR (Gopal, paragraph [0004], “The above multiple access technologies have been adopted in various telecommunication standards to provide a common protocol that enables different UEs to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and/or global level. New Radio (NR), which may be referred to as 5G.”).
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 Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648