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 .
The office action is a response to Applicant’s Response filed February 3, 2026.
Claims 1-30 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 3, 2025, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 17, 29 and 30, as well as dependent claim 3, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Prior art presented by Examiner in the previous office action did not disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources correspond to a first downlink subband”, nor "wherein the first set of downlink resources include at least a first frequency- domain resource outside of a frequency-domain of the second set of downlink resources." With regard to claim 3, prior art of record had not suggested “the first set of downlink resources correspond to resources allocated to a first transport block (TB), wherein the second set of downlink resources correspond to resources allocated to a second TB, and wherein the first TB and the second TB are allocated within the first downlink subband.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly presented references below, combined with primary reference “Lee”, which still is reasoned to disclose some of the claim limitations.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240313840 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Zhang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210168663 A1 (hereinafter Lin), and in view of Ji et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210006383 A1 (hereinafter Ji).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a user equipment (UE) configured for wireless communication, comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (e.g., FIG. 3, UE 116, memory 360, processor 340, operating system 361, applications 362; e.g., ¶ [0010], “application” and “program” refer to one or more computer programs, software components, sets of instructions, procedures, functions, objects, classes, instances, related data, or a portion thereof adapted for implementation in a suitable computer readable program code) and cause the UE to: receive downlink scheduling information comprising an indication of a first set of downlink resources and a second set of downlink resources within a slot (e.g., ¶ [0095], When a UE receives signals/channels from a gNB on a full-duplex slot or symbol, the receptions may be scheduled in a DL subband of the full-duplex slot or symbol. When full-duplex operation at the gNB uses a DL slot or symbol for scheduling transmissions from the UE using full-duplex transmission and reception at the gNB, there may be one or multiple, such as two, DL subbands on the full-duplex slot or symbol. Full-duplex operation using an UL subband or a DL subband may be referred to as Subband-Full-Duplex (SBFD)); and receive: a first downlink signal via the first set of downlink resources, and a second downlink signal via the second set of downlink resources (e.g., ¶ [0093], UL and DL signals are simultaneously received and transmitted on… adjacent, frequency resources [i.e., different resources used for signal communication]).
Lee discloses two full-duplex slots that use a different subband configuration (e.g., ¶ [0106], For a single carrier TDD configuration with full-duplex enabled, slots denoted as X are full-duplex or XDD or SBFD slots. Both DL and UL transmissions can be scheduled in FD slots for at least one or more symbols… Transmissions by a UE in a first FD slot can use… different frequency-domain resources than in a second FD slot).
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources correspond to a first downlink subband.
Lin discloses wherein the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources correspond to a first downlink subband (e.g., ¶ [0079] one BWP or subband can be used to transmit one TB or CBG or multiple TBs or CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indicating scheduled downlink resources, as disclosed by Lee, with the disclosure of multiple downlink resources corresponding to the same subband, as disclosed by Lin. The motivation to combine would have been to improve communication performance in NR feedback (Lin: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Lee in view of Lin does not expressly disclose wherein the first set of downlink resources include at least a first frequency-domain resource outside of a frequency-domain of the second set of downlink resources.Ji discloses wherein the first set of downlink resources include at least a first frequency-domain resource outside of a frequency-domain of the second set of downlink resources (e.g., ¶ [0085] the frequency domain range of the first control resource set [i.e., scheduled resource set] and the frequency domain range of the second control resource set [i.e., scheduled resource set] configured by the network device on the second BWP are different).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indicating scheduled downlink resources within a subband, as disclosed by Lee in view of Lin, with the disclosure of multiple downlink resources associated with different frequency domains, as disclosed by Ji. The motivation to combine would have been to improve availability of downlink data (ji: e.g., ¶ [0007]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the slot is configured as a subband full duplex (SBFD) slot comprising the first downlink subband and at least one of a guard band or an uplink subband (e.g., ¶ [0095], Full-duplex operation using an UL subband or a DL subband may be referred to as Subband-Full-Duplex (SBFD)).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the first set of downlink resources correspond to resources allocated to a first transport block (TB), wherein the second set of downlink resources correspond to resources allocated to a second TB, and wherein the first TB and the second TB are allocated within the first downlink subband.
Lin discloses wherein the first set of downlink resources correspond to resources allocated to a first transport block (TB), wherein the second set of downlink resources correspond to resources allocated to a second TB, and wherein the first TB and the second TB are allocated within the first downlink subband (e.g., ¶ [0079] one BWP or subband can be used to transmit one TB or CBG or multiple TBs or CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indicating scheduled downlink resources, as disclosed by Lee, with the disclosure of multiple downlink resources corresponding to the same subband, as disclosed by Lin. The motivation to combine would have been to improve communication performance in NR feedback (Lin: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the first set of downlink resources are separate from the second set of downlink resources in the frequency-domain (e.g., ¶ [0106], For a single carrier TDD configuration with full-duplex enabled, slots denoted as X are full-duplex or XDD or SBFD slots. Both DL and UL transmissions can be scheduled in FD slots for at least one or more symbols… Transmissions by a UE in a first FD slot can use… different frequency-domain resources than in a second FD slot [i.e., separate downlink resources]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the first set of downlink resources include at least a second frequency-domain resource within the frequency-domain of the second set of downlink resources (e.g., ¶ [0106], For a single carrier TDD configuration with full-duplex enabled, slots denoted as X are full-duplex or XDD or SBFD slots. Both DL and UL transmissions can be scheduled in FD slots for at least one or more symbols… Transmissions by a UE in a first FD slot can use… different frequency-domain resources than in a second FD slot).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the downlink scheduling information is received via at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message or a downlink control information (DCI) message (e.g., ¶ [0155], configuration and/or parameters… may be provided to the UE by means of common RRC signaling using SIB or by UE-dedicated RRC signaling).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the indication of the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources comprises a threshold value indicative of an end of the first set of downlink resources and a start of the second set of downlink resources (e.g., ¶ [0155], the parameter/IE ‘fd-config’ is used to describe the configuration and parameterization for UE determination of receptions and/or transmissions in a serving cell supporting full-duplex operation… parameters associated with the parameter ‘fd-config’ may include a set of time-domain resources, e.g., symbols/slots… a range or a set of frequency-domain resources, e.g.,… start and/or end or a set of RBs).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the indication of the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources comprises an indication of a usable bandwidth within the first downlink subband, and a range within the usable bandwidth (e.g., ¶ [0155], the parameter/IE ‘fd-config’ is used to describe the configuration and parameterization for UE determination of receptions and/or transmissions in a serving cell supporting full-duplex operation… parameters associated with the parameter ‘fd-config’ may include… a range or a set of frequency-domain resources, e.g., … BWPs… where receptions or transmissions by the UE are allowed, possible, or disallowed [i.e., allowed/operable bandwidth is usable bandwidth]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a first communication parameter and a second communication parameter, wherein the first downlink signal is received according to the first communication parameter, and wherein the second downlink signal is received according to the second communication parameter (e.g., ¶ [0155], the parameter/IE ‘fd-config’ is used to describe the configuration and parameterization for UE determination of receptions and/or transmissions in a serving cell supporting full-duplex operation… parameters associated with the parameter ‘fd-config’ may include a set of time-domain resources, e.g., symbols/slots… a range or a set of frequency-domain resources, e.g.,… start and/or end or a set of RBs [i.e., each transmission has an associated parameter]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 13.
Lee discloses wherein the indication of the first communication parameter and the second communication parameter are received via at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message or a downlink control information (DCI) message (e.g., ¶ [0155], Configuration and/or parameters associated with the fd-config may be provided to the UE using higher layer signaling, DCI-based signaling, and/or MAC CE based signaling).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 13.
Lee discloses wherein the indication of the first communication parameter and the second communication parameter includes a mapping between the first set of downlink resources and the first communication parameter, and a mapping between the second set of downlink resources and the second communication parameter (e.g., ¶ [0155], parameters associated with the parameter ‘fd-config’ may include a set of time-domain resources, e.g., symbols/slots, where receptions or transmissions by the UE are allowed, possible, or disallowed; a range or a set of frequency-domain resources, e.g., serving cells, BWPs, start and/or end or a set of RBs, where receptions or transmissions by the UE are allowed, possible, or disallowed; one or multiple guard intervals for time and/or frequency domain radio resources during receptions or transmissions by the UE).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses a network node configured for wireless communication, comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (Lee: e.g., FIG. 2, gNB 102, memory 230, processor 225 [capable of executing programs and other processes resident in the memory (e.g., ¶ [0046])]; e.g., ¶ [0010], “application” and “program” refer to one or more computer programs, software components, sets of instructions, procedures, functions, objects, classes, instances, related data, or a portion thereof adapted for implementation in a suitable computer readable program code) and cause the network node to transmit information that is functionally similar to the information received by the UE of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of the limitations of received information in claim 1 shall be applied to the limitations of the transmitted information in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 18 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 20 are similar to claim 4. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 4 shall be applied to claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 21 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 5 shall be applied to claim 21.
Regarding Claim 22, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 22 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 23 are similar to claim 7. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 7 shall be applied to claim 23.
Regarding Claim 25, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 25 are similar to claim 10. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 10 shall be applied to claim 25.
Regarding Claim 27, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 27 are similar to claim 11. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 11 shall be applied to claim 27.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is directed to a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) that is functionally similar to the limitations performed by the UE of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 29.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim is directed to a method for wireless communication at a network node that is functionally similar to the limitations performed by the network node of claim 17. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 17 shall be applied to claim 30.
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji, in further view of Wang et al, Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 117812710 A (hereinafter Wang, using English citations below from related U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250220647 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 7.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the threshold value is at least one of a number of resource blocks (RBs) or an index mapped to the number of RBs via a table.
Wang discloses wherein the threshold value is at least one of a number of resource blocks (RBs) or an index mapped to the number of RBs via a table (e.g., ¶ [0083], the SBFD pattern indicates at least one of the following of a serving cell (serving cell) or a carrier wave or a bandwidth part (BandWidth Part, BWP): ¶ [0084] location information of an uplink frequency domain resource, including but not limited to a starting location, an ending location, a total number of occupied resource blocks (Resource Block, RB), and the like of the uplink frequency domain resource; ¶ [0085] location information of a downlink frequency domain resource, including but not limited to a starting location, an ending location, a total number of occupied resource blocks, and the like of the downlink frequency domain resource).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of indication of the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources comprises a threshold value indicative of an end of the first set of downlink resources and a start of the second set of downlink resources, as disclosed by Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji, with the disclosure of threshold value as a number of resource blocks (RBs), as disclosed by Wang. The motivation to combine would have been to support flexible/full duplex (Wang: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Regarding Claim 24, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 23.
The functional limitations of Claim 24 are similar to claim 8. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 8 shall be applied to claim 24.
Claims 10-12, 16, 19, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji, in further view of Abotabl et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210345374 A1 (hereinafter Abotabl).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 9.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the usable bandwidth comprises a plurality of resource blocks (RBs), and the range comprises a subset of the RBs, wherein the subset of the RBs is the first set of downlink resources, and wherein the second set of downlink resources is the usable bandwidth minus the subset of the RBs.
Abotabl discloses wherein the usable bandwidth comprises a plurality of resource blocks (RBs), and the range comprises a subset of the RBs, wherein the subset of the RBs is the first set of downlink resources, and wherein the second set of downlink resources is the usable bandwidth minus the subset of the RBs (e.g., ¶ [0082], A set of continuous or discontinuous resource blocks may be referred to herein as a Resource Block Group (RBG), sub-band, or bandwidth part (BWP). A set of sub-bands or BWPs may span the entire bandwidth. Scheduling of scheduled entities (e.g., UEs) for downlink, uplink, or sidelink transmissions typically involves scheduling one or more resource elements 306 within one or more sub-bands or bandwidth parts (BWPs) [i.e., interpretation is, since downlink bandwidth comprising resource set as subbands or BWPs, after the first downlink resource is applied, the next downlink resource used would be the bandwidth minus the first RB subset or BWP]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of usable bandwidth for downlink resources, as disclosed by Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji, with the disclosure of partitioned subsets in the useable bandwidth, as disclosed by Abotabl. The motivation to combine would have been to provide robust signaling between communication devices for interference mitigation (Abotabl: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 1.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the indication of the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources comprises an indication of a partition dividing the frequency-domain of the first downlink subband into a first subband region and a second subband region, wherein the first subband region is the first set of downlink resources, and wherein the second subband region is the second set of downlink resources.
Abotabl discloses wherein the indication of the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources comprises an indication of a partition dividing the frequency-domain of the first downlink subband into a first subband region and a second subband region, wherein the first subband region is the first set of downlink resources, and wherein the second subband region is the second set of downlink resources (e.g., ¶ [0082], A set of continuous or discontinuous resource blocks may be referred to herein as a Resource Block Group (RBG), sub-band, or bandwidth part (BWP). A set of sub-bands or BWPs may span the entire bandwidth. Scheduling of scheduled entities (e.g., UEs) for downlink, uplink, or sidelink transmissions typically involves scheduling one or more resource elements 306 within one or more sub-bands or bandwidth parts (BWPs) [i.e., interpretation is, since downlink bandwidth comprising resource set as subbands or BWPs, after the first downlink resource is applied, the next downlink resource used would be the bandwidth minus the first RB subset or BWP]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of usable bandwidth for downlink resources, as disclosed by Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji, with the disclosure of partitioned subsets in the useable bandwidth, as disclosed by Abotabl. The motivation to combine would have been to provide robust signaling between communication devices for interference mitigation (Abotabl: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji in further view of Abotabl discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 11.
Lee discloses wherein the first downlink signal is received via the first set of downlink resources and the second set of downlink resources (e.g., ¶ [0093], UL and DL signals are simultaneously received and transmitted on… adjacent, frequency resources [i.e., different resources used for signal communication]).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the UE of claim 15.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the first communication parameter is a first modulation coding scheme (MCS) of the first downlink signal, and wherein the second communication parameter is a second MCS of the second downlink signal, wherein the first set of downlink resources are adjacent to an uplink subband, and wherein the first MCS is smaller relative to the second MCS.
Abotabl discloses wherein the first communication parameter is a first modulation coding scheme (MCS) of the first downlink signal, and wherein the second communication parameter is a second MCS of the second downlink signal, wherein the first set of downlink resources are adjacent to an uplink subband, and wherein the first MCS is smaller relative to the second MCS (e.g., ¶ [0274], at the scheduled entity: receiving first scheduling information for a downlink transmission of a transport block comprising a plurality of code block groups (CBGs) from the scheduling entity, wherein the first scheduling information indicates at least a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) selected based on at least a first set of CBGs of the plurality of CBGs at least partially overlapping in time with an uplink transmission from the scheduled entity during full-duplex mode operations; and receiving the downlink transmission comprising the plurality of CBGs of the transport block from the scheduling entity, wherein the plurality of CBGs comprise at least the first MCS; ¶ [0276], the plurality of CBGs of the transport block comprise the first MCS; ¶ [0278], the transport block is further associated with a second MCS, and wherein the first MCS is lower than the second MCS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of downlink communication parameter, as disclosed by Lee, with the disclosure of multiple modulation and coding schemes as parameters, as disclosed by Abotabl. The motivation to combine would have been to provide robust signaling between communication devices for interference mitigation (Abotabl: e.g., ¶ [0003]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 17.
The functional limitations of Claim 19 are similar to claim 3. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 3 shall be applied to claim 19.
Regarding Claim 26, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 25.
The functional limitations of Claim 26 are similar to claim 10. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 10 shall be applied to claim 26.
Regarding Claim 28, Lee in view of Lin and in view of Ji in further view of Abotabl discloses all the limitations of the network node of claim 27.
The functional limitations of Claim 28 are similar to claim 12. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 12 shall be applied to claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights