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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 20 have been amended. Claims 5 is canceled. Claims 21-26 are adding in this application. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano (US 20150043356 A1),hereinafter Awano in view of Leather (US 20220217566 A1) hereinafter Leather.
Regarding Claim 1,
Awano teaches A method of obtaining a repeating scheduling pattern for testing a device under test by a mobile communication tester, wherein the method comprises :
inputting a network configuration for performing a wireless communication test on the device under test, wherein the network configuration comprises configuration parameters, wherein the configuration parameters comprise a time divisional duplex (TDD) uplink/downlink pattern, number of carriers or numerologies of each carrier, wherein the configuration parameters of the network configuration define an environment for the testing of the device under test as the mobile communication tester is enabled to establish a communication channel that is used for testing the device under test based on these configuration parameters, ( [0010] a mobile communication terminal test system (100) ... transmits a test signal ... to a mobile communication terminal (1) and tests the mobile communication terminal ... test parameter setting means (11, 21) for setting test parameters including a frequency of each of the plurality of downlink component carriers and a frequency of an uplink used by the mobile communication terminal to the primary test device and the secondary test device.)
Awano does not explicitly teaches providing at least one key performance indicator (KPI), processing, by an optimizer circuit, the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator, and determining, by the optimizer circuit, a repeating scheduling pattern based on the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator, wherein the definition of the repeating scheduling pattern is casted as a constrained optimization problem that is solved by the optimizer circuit that processes the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator, and wherein the repeating scheduling pattern obtained ensures that tests on the device under test can be performed in a reproduceable manner, wherein the optimizer circuit determines the repeating scheduling pattern such that the at least one key performance indicator is optimized within boundaries provided by the configuration parameters of the network configuration, wherein the time divisional duplex (TDD) uplink/downlink pattern, the number of carriers or the numerologies of each carrier define the boundaries of the channel used for testing the device under test.
Leather teaches providing at least one key performance indicator (KPI), ([0076] measurement environment 700, comprises connecting an apparatus to be tested ... The method comprises transmitting a number of multiplexed signals to the apparatus ...[0097] provide for a test ... [0103] The principle on which the embodiments rely can be extended to carrier aggregation including dual connectivity, e.g., LTE+NR/EN-DC, performance measurement for concurrent DL-CA, UL-CA and UL-DL-CA (DL=downlink, UL=uplink, CA=carrier aggregation). Here, the scheduler and network synchronization may play a role, too. This may result in a category/score/KPI (key performance indicator) based on testing criteria.)
processing, by an optimizer circuit, the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator, and ([0123] Adjustments can be made automatically in response to certain criteria ...[0130] Adjustments and adjustment requests can be stored in the apparatus, the network, a test environment.)
determining, by the optimizer circuit, a repeating scheduling pattern based on the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator, , ([0014] wherein the base station is configured for receiving a capability signal comprising a capability information indicating a signal maintenance capability of the apparatus; wherein the base station is configured for using a set of data streams from the plurality of data streams for communicating with the apparatus; [0103-0105] scheduler and network synchronization may play a role, too. This may result in a category/score/KPI (key performance indicator) based on testing criteria. ... Information used by other entities in the network for the overall link and network optimization is provided. ... is provided to the network and is updated if an effective capability depending on, e.g., network configuration ) wherein the definition of the repeating scheduling pattern is casted as a constrained optimization problem that is solved by the optimizer circuit that processes the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator, and wherein the repeating scheduling pattern obtained ensures that tests on the device under test can be performed in a reproduceable manner, wherein the optimizer circuit determines the repeating scheduling pattern such that the at least one key performance indicator is optimized within boundaries provided by the configuration parameters of the network configuration, wherein the time divisional duplex (TDD) uplink/downlink pattern, the number of carriers or the numerologies of each carrier define the boundaries of the channel used for testing the device under test. ([0118-0130] While the assessment of the apparatus is typically made using test and measurement equipment (a measurement environment) and normally before deployment in a network, further assessment methods should not be excluded examples of which include self-assessment (through built-in test equipment (BITE) functionality ... b) The Tx branch correlation and the Rx branch correlation information can be used to adjust/adapt/improve/optimize the characteristics of the spatially separated streams. ... measure may be at least one the measure is at least one of: an error vector magnitude (EVM); a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR); a bit error rate (BER); a block error rate (BLER); and a combination thereof.... Adjustments can be made automatically in response to certain criteria (thresholds/events/network signaling/built-in performance self-measurement/a sensed change of usage/low-battery level/temperature detection/interference indication).... Adjustments can be queued/sequenced/delayed/scheduled. [0128] Adjustment requests can be processed (i.e., accepted or rejected or referred to a higher entity for further processing). [0129] Adjustments and adjustment requests can be stored for subsequent analysis and/or performance optimization of the apparatus and/or the network. [0130] Adjustments and adjustment requests can be stored in the apparatus, the network, a test environment)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Leather to the teaching of Awano. The motivation for such an addition would be to achieve improvements in communication adaptation and radio channel considerations. ([0002] Leather)
Claim 20 (method) is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 (method), where Leather teaches both methods ([0016])] differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation . “and wherein a reference measurement channel is provided based on the repeating scheduling pattern obtained” (fig. 7 ) and ( [0076] and (The method comprises demultiplexing the multiplexed signals with the apparatus, e.g., the apparatus 44. A result of the demultiplexing may be transmitted back to the measurement environment ) and [0118] While the assessment of the apparatus is typically made using test and measurement equipment (a measurement environment) and normally before deployment in a network, further assessment methods should not be excluded examples of which include self-assessment (through built-in test equipment (BITE) functionality), network-assisted assessment in which one or more base stations and/or one or more terminals are configured/orchestrated to perform such an assessment).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Hewavithana (US 20240056159 A1) hereinafter Hewavithana.
Regarding Claim 2,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach the repeating scheduling pattern is determined based on the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator such that the at least one key performance indicator is optimized within boundaries provided by the network configuration.
Hewavithana teaches the repeating scheduling pattern is determined based on the configuration parameters of the network configuration and the at least one key performance indicator such that the at least one key performance indicator is optimized within boundaries provided by the network configuration ([0037] optimization system may be a joint optimization of UL beam compression and scheduling to meet key performance indicators (PKIs), including, for example, spectrum efficiency, complexity, and fronthaul throughput, as described in more detail below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Hewavithana to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to provide ease of scalability of the network (Hewavithana [0024]).
Claim 3, 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Kano (US 20220239388 A1) hereinafter Kano.
Regarding claim 3,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a user inputs the network configuration.
Kano teaches wherein a user inputs the network configuration ([0006] the test control unit displays, on the setting screen, a first operation image (21) for selecting a specification of the test executed by the test control unit, and a second operation image (22) in which parameter operation images (22a to 22e) for setting parameters for executing the test according to the specification selected by an operation with respect to the first operation image are arranged based on parameter hierarchies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Kano to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be reduce burden on a user for setting parameters according to a specification of a test (Kano [0042]).
Regarding claim 8,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather doesn’t explicitly teach a default key performance indicator is provided by the mobile communication tester, which is taken into consideration when determining the repeating scheduling pattern.
Kano teaches a default key performance indicator is provided by the mobile communication tester, which is taken into consideration when determining the repeating scheduling pattern (in fig 2. "Test parameters" (22) can be used to store default parameters; see "repeating scheduling pattern" as "UL RMC modulation"(22c)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Kano to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce burden on a user for setting parameters according to a specification of a test (Kano [0042]).
Regarding claim 10,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather doesn’t explicitly teach the mobile communication tester simulates a base station.
Kano teaches the mobile communication tester simulates a base station ([0006-0013] "mobile terminal test apparatus including a pseudo base station unit (10) … a test control unit (13) ...an operation unit (15) ….") and (in fig 2. ""Test parameters" (22); see "repeating scheduling pattern" as "UL RMC modulation"(22c) ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Kano to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce burden on a user for setting parameters according to a specification of a test (Kano [0042]).
Regarding claim 19,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather doesn’t explicitly teach conducting a test on a device under test by using a repeating scheduling pattern, wherein the repeating scheduling pattern is obtained.
Kano teaches conducting a test on a device under test by using a repeating scheduling pattern, wherein the repeating scheduling pattern is obtained by ((abstract) a mobile terminal test apparatus, a mobile terminal test system, and a control method for the mobile terminal test apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Kano to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce burden on a user for setting parameters according to a specification of a test (Kano [0042]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Hajir (US20250016708A1) hereinafter Hajir.
Regarding Claim 4,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach the network configuration is a semi static configuration pattern.
Hajir teaches the network configuration is a semi static configuration pattern ([0093] "The WTRU may be preconfigured with a set of measurement configurations that are conditionally added or removed to or from the measurement configuration, or activated or deactivated, based on the location of the WTRU and/or the time. The activation/deactivation may be initiated autonomously by the WTRU when it enters a zone of interest and/or signaled by the network (e.g., a satellite node or a terrestrial node, depending on the network configuration) dynamically and/or semi-statically").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Hajir the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to manage the accuracy and duration of the validity of network configuration (Hajir [0092]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Xu (US 20220124642 A1) hereinafter Xu.
Regarding Claim 6,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach the numerologies of each carrier comprise an Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) subcarrier spacing.
Xu teaches the numerologies of each carrier comprise an Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) subcarrier spacing ([0109] The duration of a slot may depend on the numerology used for the OFDM symbols of the slot. In NR, a flexible numerology is supported to accommodate different cell deployments (e.g., cells with carrier frequencies below 1 GHz up to cells with carrier frequencies in the mm-wave range)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Xu the teaching of Awano and Leather . The motivation for such an addition would be to support low latency (Xu [0109]-[0110]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Horemuz (US 12218803 B2) hereinafter Horemuz.
Regarding Claim 7,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach the key performance indicator is at least one of a number of uplink grants in a scheduling period, a number of downlink grants in a scheduling period, an average grant-to-data-delay and a downlink throughput.
Horemuz teaches the key performance indicator is at least one of a number of uplink grants in a scheduling period, a number of downlink grants in a scheduling period, an average grant-to-data-delay and a downlink throughput. ((Table 1, page 25) " AVG_ACTIVE_USERS_DL Avg. number of active DL users per Time Transmission Interval (TTI)"; "‘AVG_ACTIVE_USERS_UL Active number of UL users per TTI" ; "AVG_USER_THP_DL Avg. DL user throughput ").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Horemuz to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to forecasting cell performance issues in a wireless network (Horemuz, col. 1 row 52).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Ellenbeck (US 20210243713 A1) hereinafter Ellenbeck.
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the determined repeating scheduling pattern is used by the mobile communication tester for testing the device under test.
Ellenbeck teaches wherein the determined repeating scheduling pattern is used by the mobile communication tester for testing the device under test ([0401] The test system utilizes a terminal device's multi-core architecture to support self-generated test vectors. In some aspects, the generation of physical reference channels and the building of multiple frame structures is performed to generate waveforms (e.g., IQ samples) for uplink (UL) transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Ellenbeck to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to verification and conformance testing of a wireless communications system (Ellenbeck [0401]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Lo (US20240259975A1) hereinafter Lo.
Regarding Claim 11,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the optimizer circuit computes the repeating scheduling pattern.
Lo teaches wherein the optimizer circuit computes the repeating scheduling pattern ([0008] The apparatus may also include circuitry configured to detect a first path of a synchronization signal block with a delay corresponding to the target beam) and ([0090] the apparatus may include means for monitoring uplink transmissions of the device under test).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Lo to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to verify that the device under test can be scheduled on a network cell (Lo [0014]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Richardson (US 20120197582) hereinafter Richardson.
Regarding Claim 12,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the optimizer circuit optimizes the repeating scheduling pattern continuously or upon manual input.
Richardson teaches wherein the optimizer circuit optimizes the repeating scheduling pattern continuously or upon manual input ((claim 9) " ... updating the test schedule residing in a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the updated test schedule identifies testing of the identified third DUT and the first DUT, and wherein the updated test schedule identifies completion of the testing of the first DUT and the second DUT").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Richardson to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to not disrupt the entire schedule of the test event (Richardson [0026]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather, Richardson and further in view of Lang (US20190258953A1) hereinafter Lang.
Regarding Claim 13,
Awano and Leather and Richardson teach the method according to claim 12
Awano and Leather and Richardson don’t explicitly teach the manual input is triggered by adapting the network configuration.
Lang teaches the manual input is triggered by adapting the network configuration ([0057] "...a series of steps to connect the system to a Device under Test .... instructing the user...observing user actions and progress in real-time, and providing adaptive guidance...The agent entity can therefore for example execute (e.g. on a processor) any combination of automated steps ... and manual steps ... The described examples of automated and/or manual actions sequenced by an agent entity could for example be used to guide a user intelligently through diagnosing, testing, assessing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, operating etc. a particular device.... ").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Lang the teaching of Awano and Leather and Richardson. The motivation for such an addition would be to allow defining information precisely (Lang [0388]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and in view of Chen (EP3861813B1) hereinafter Chen .
Regarding Claim 14,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the optimizer circuit executes an Integer Linear Programming algorithm, a Tabu Search algorithm, and/or a reinforcement learning algorithm for determining the repeating scheduling pattern.
Chen teaches wherein the optimizer circuit executes an Integer Linear Programming algorithm, a Tabu Search algorithm, and/or a reinforcement learning algorithm for determining the repeating scheduling pattern. ([0172] In process 3606 the central controller can solve the integer linear programming problem)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Chen to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to make sure that there is no transmission conflict (Chen [0166]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Mwanje (US 11349725 B2) hereinafter Mwanje.
Regarding Claim 15,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the optimizer circuit checks the network configuration and/or the at least one key performance indicator with regard to contradictory.
Mwanje teaches the optimizer circuit checks the network configuration and/or the at least one key performance indicator with regard to contradictory ((col. 14; row 37-51) "In some embodiments, specific activities of the CE may comprise (i) detection and resolving of possibly conflicting network configurations set by the different CFs, (ii) (for selected cases) defining the rules for “last track” peer-to-peer coordination among CFs without involvement of the central Coordination Engine, (iii) enabling cross-domain (multiple network domains, multiple networks, multiple operators) knowledge and information sharing, including environment and network modeling, relevance and performance of KPIs and CF configurations in different contexts, as well as cross-domain application of cognitive algorithms, and (iv) supporting other sub-functions of the Knowledge Management subsystem (described below) by means of identifying CFs with similar context in terms of environment state and active configuration sets").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Mwanje the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to manage conflicts among multiple network automation (Mwanje, col. 14 row 29-30).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Koskinen (US 20140357298 A1) hereinafter Koskinen.
Regarding to claim 16,
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1.
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the optimizer circuit verifies if the network configuration inputted corresponds to an already standardized configuration.
Koskinen teaches wherein the optimizer circuit verifies if the network configuration inputted corresponds to an already standardized configuration. ([0042] Furthermore, the base station 110 and/or system simulator 174 may, in some exemplary embodiments, include test mechanisms (e.g., the system simulator, the base station simulator, and the like) configured in accordance with one or more of the following standards: 3GPP TS 34.109, 3GPP TS 37.320, 3GPP TS 36.331, 3GPP TS 36.355, 3GPP TS 36.509, 3GPP TS 36.508, and any subsequent additions or revisions to these and other 3GPP series of standards).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Koskinen the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to minimization of drive testing and/or conformance testing (Koskinen [0004]).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Koskinen (US 20140357298 A1) hereinafter Koskinen and further in view of Kano.
Regarding to claim 17,
Awano and Leather and Koskinen teach the method according to claim 16.
Awano and Leather and Koskinen do not explicitly teaches wherein the optimizer circuit obtains a standardized repeating scheduling pattern in case of verifying that the network configuration inputted corresponds to the already standardized configuration
Kano teaches wherein the optimizer circuit obtains a standardized repeating scheduling pattern in case of verifying that the network configuration inputted corresponds to the already standardized configuration ([0023] scenario storage unit 12 that stores information including a scenario defined according to a specification of a test for the mobile terminal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Kano the teaching of Awano and Leather and Koskinen. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce burden on a user for setting parameters according to a specification of a test. (Kano [0042]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awano and Leather and further in view of Leather (US 20240372634 A1) hereinafter Leather34.
Awano and Leather teach the method according to claim 1
Awano and Leather don’t explicitly teach wherein the device under test is a user end device.
Leather34 teaches wherein the device under test is a user end device ([0071] " apparatus 10 is a DuT." and [0099] "FIG. 2a shows an example of an UE in the role of Dut").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Leather34 to the teaching of Awano and Leather. The motivation for such an addition would be to allows for performing distributed tests coordinated by the base station (Leather34 [0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6178. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (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, Abaza, Ayman A. can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/VAN TA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights