DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 06/04/2026.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 15-17, 19-22, 30, and 41 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 17, and 30 (claim 41 is amended by reference to claim 17) have been amended.
Claims 2, 8-9, 13-14, 18, 23-29, 31-40, and 42-52 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 17, 30 and 41, Applicant asserts that “…Liu-918 fails to concern itself with a configuration scheme for an initial BWP or a BWP configured through higher layer signaling,” and “therefore …does not disclose the feature of ‘wherein the first BWP comprises any one of the following… a BWP configured through higher-layer signaling.’” Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 9-10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant precedes its above assertions by recapitulating paras. [0078]-[0079] of Liu-918, and reproducing a cropped version Liu-918’ Table 1 (reproduced in fuller detail, below), which depicted only DCI format identifier field and a frequency domain resources assignment (FDRA) field with variable bit length, having corresponding BWP allocation alternatives.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the Examiner notes that with respect to Liu-918’s Table 1 (above), subsequent rows to Applicant’s cropped Table 1 (i.e., the rows associated with the Time Domain Resource Assignment (TDRA) field) teach that RRC can be utilized to indicate items in a PDSCH_AllocationList, such that DL BWP RB allocation can be designated in alternatives 1 and 2: where BWP allocation can be for MB only, or where shared BWP allocation can be for both unicast and MB. Moreover, Liu-918 teaches that it can employ RRC higher layer signaling for indicating BWP resources, for resource modification (See e.g., para. [0079] and Table 1 – TDRA underlines), as well as, for modifying control signaling parameters via MB-RNTI, P-RNTI, SI-RNTI, scrambling identifiers, at paras. [0026], [0065], [0074]-[0076], [0079], [0082], and [0088]-[0090]; and Table 1. Therefore, Liu-918 clearly teaches the contested amended claim feature: “wherein the first BWP comprises …a BWP configured through higher-layer signaling,” which the Examiner has interpreted to correspond to RRC signaling.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted against Liu-918, with respect to the §102 rejection of each of independent claims 1, 17, 30 and 41, are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 5 and 21, Applicant argues that Liu-918 in view of Liu-958 fails to fairly teach/suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 5 and 21, because Lui-918 does not teach the contested features of independent claims 1 and 17, as explained previously, i.e., teaching configuration of a first BWP via higher layer signaling. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. The Examiner refers Applicant to its above explanation for independent claims 1 and 17, where it concludes that Liu-918 fairly reads on these contested claim features.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant argues that Liu-918 in view of Futaki fails to fairly teach/suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 10, because Lui-918 does not teach the contested features of independent claim 1, as explained previously, i.e., teaching configuration of a first BWP via higher layer signaling. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. The Examiner refers Applicant to its above explanation for independent claim 1, where it concludes that Liu-918 fairly reads on these contested claim features.
With respect to the remainder of the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remainder of the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20, 22, 30, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0250918 A1, Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu-918”).
With respect to claim 1, Liu-918 teaches:
A bandwidth part (BWP) configuration method, applied to a network side device (paras. [0057]-[0062] and [0077]-[0078]; and BS 102 of Figs. 1 and 3 —a BS can configure one or more BWP(s) via DCI signaling over the PDCCH/PDSCH), comprising:
configuring a first special parameter, a second special parameter and a common parameter for a first BWP (paras. [0024], [0026], and [0073]-[0080]; and corresponding Table(s) —DCI for a first BWP can include parameter(s) for unicast, i.e., C-RNTI, parameter(s) for multicast-broadcast (MB), i.e., MB-RNTI and/or G-RNTI, or parameter(s) common to both, i.e., common BWP parameters for MB and unicast);
wherein the first special parameter is for transmission of unicast data (paras. [0024], [0026], [0064], and [0076]-[0077] —a first parameter(s) can be a C-RNTI for unicast data transmission);
the second special parameter is for transmission of broadcast/multicast data (paras. [0074]-[0075], and [0077]; and Table 1 —a second parameter(s) can be a MB-RNTI/G-RNTI for MB data transmission),
the common parameter is used for the unicast data and the broadcast/multicast data transmission (paras. [0078]-[0081]; and Table 1 —a common parameter(s) can be a BWP common parameter/resource shared by both unicast and MB data transmissions, i.e., BWPDownlinkCommon, such as CORESET for MB),
wherein the first BWP comprises any one of the following:
an initial BWP; or
a BWP configured through higher layer signaling (paras. [0026], [0065], [0074]-[0076], [0079], [0082], and [0088]-[0090]; and Table 1 —the TDRA field of Table 1 includes RRC, i.e., higher layer, configuration of a BWP which may be indicated to be for MB or unicast and MB communications, i.e., as indicated via RRC-signaled identifiers —the alternative terms “any one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language, section).
With respect to claim 3, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuring a first special parameter, a second special parameter and a common parameter for a first BWP comprises:
configuring the first special parameter of the first BWP by a first high-layer signaling (paras. [0024]-[0026], [0064], and [0076]-[0077] —a first parameter(s) can be a C-RNTI for unicast data transmission, which may be configured via RRC signaling);
configuring the common parameter of the first BWP through a first broadcast message or a second high-layer signaling (paras. [0078]-[0081] and [0215]; and Table 1 —a common parameter(s) can be a BWP DL/UL common parameter(s) shared for both unicast and MB data transmissions, i.e., PDSCH_ConfigCommon/BWPDownlinkCommon, which may be configured via RRC signaling);
configuring the second special parameter of the first BWP through the first high-layer signaling or the first broadcast message or the second high-layer signaling (paras. [0026], [0036], and [0065]-[0067]; and Table 1 —a second special parameter, i.e., a MB-RNTI/G-RNTI, which may be configured via multicast broadcast or RRC signaling (higher layer signaling) —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 4, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuring a first special parameter, a second special parameter and a common parameter for a first BWP comprises:
configuring the first special parameter of the first BWP through a third high-layer signaling (paras. [0024]-[0026], [0064], and [0076]-[0077] —a first parameter(s) can be a C-RNTI for unicast data transmission, which may be configured via RRC signaling);
configuring the common parameter of the first BWP through a second broadcast message or a fourth high-layer signaling (paras. [0078]-[0081] and [0215]; and Table 1 —a common parameter(s) can be a BWP DL/UL common parameter(s) shared for both unicast and MB data transmissions, i.e., PDSCH_ConfigCommon/BWPDownlinkCommon, which may be configured via RRC signaling the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section);
configuring the second special parameter through a third broadcast message or a fifth high-level signaling, wherein the second special parameter is associated with the first BWP (paras. [0026], [0036], and [0065]-[0067]; and Table 1 —a second special parameter, i.e., a MB-RNTI/G-RNTI, may be configured via multicast broadcast or RRC signaling (higher layer signaling) —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section);
wherein the third broadcast message and the second broadcast message are different broadcast messages (paras. [0026] and [0078]-[0080]; and Table 1 —configuring of a common parameter and a second special parameter, i.e., a MB-RNTI, can be via one of RRC or broadcast messaging —in this regard, second special parameter and the common parameter can be separately signaled/broadcast for BWPDownlinkDedicated and BWPDownlinkCommon, respectively, i.e., as indicated in Alt. 1-3 of Table1);
the fifth high-level signaling and the third high-level signaling are different high-level signaling, and the fifth high-level signaling and the fourth high-level signaling are different high-level signaling (paras. [0026] and [0078]-[0080]; and Table 1 —configuring of a second special parameter, i.e., a MB-RNTI, can be via one of RRC or broadcast messaging and configuring of the first special parameter, i.e., a C-RNTI, can be via RRC messaging —in this regard, first (third RRC msg.) and second special parameter (fifth RRC msg.) can be separately signaled —second special parameter (fifth RRC msg.) and the common parameter (fourth RRC msg.) can be separately signaled/broadcast for BWPDownlinkDedicated and BWPDownlinkCommon, respectively, i.e., as indicated in Alt. 1-3 of Table1 —the Examiner notes that signal labeling, i.e., numbering, lexicography choice (referring to unicast parameter signaling as a first/third, or MB param signaling as a second/fifth, high level signaling) does not substantively affect signaling function or patentability thereof).
With respect to claim 6, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the second special parameter includes the configuration identifier corresponding to the second special parameter (paras. [0074]-[0075], and [0077]; and Table 1 —a second parameter(s) can include a MB-RNTI/G-RNTI, i.e., an identifier, corresponding to a MB data transmission);
a configuration parameter of the first BWP applies for the configuration identifier corresponding to the second special parameter (paras. [0077]-[0080]; and Table 1 —a configured common/dedicated BWP frequency resource, i.e., BWPDownlinkCommon of CORESET for MB, can be utilized for MB data transmissions with a particular RNTI).
With respect to claim 7, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the second special parameter comprises at least one of the following:
a special parameter configuration identifier of broadcast/multicast;
a control resource set parameter of broadcast/multicast;
a search space parameter of broadcast/multicast;
a time domain scheduling parameter of broadcast/multicast;
a common resource bandwidth and location of broadcast/multicast; or
a common resource identifier of broadcasting multicast (paras. [0074]-[0075], and [0077]; and Table 1 —a second special parameter can include a MB-RNTI/G-RNTI for MB data transmission —the alternative term “or,” (which is equivalent to the forward slash “/” symbol) only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section),
wherein when configuring the search space of the broadcast/multicast, the second special parameter is used for configuring the control resource set of broadcast/multicast, and/or the common parameter is used for configuring the control resource set, wherein when the second special parameter does not configure the control resource set of broadcast/multicast, only the control resource set configured by the common parameter is used for configuring the search space of broadcast/multicast (paras. [0074]-[0075], and [0077]-[0081]; and Table 1 —a second special parameter, i.e., a MB-RNTI/G-RNTI, can be used for configuring MB CORESET, depicted in Table 1 —alternatively, a common parameter can be used to configure a MB search space, as depicted in Table 1 —the alternative term “and/or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 11, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
keeping same size of a control signaling of broadcast/multicast with a fallback control signaling of the common search space; or, reducing a number of control signaling lengths of unicast (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0088], and [0096] —the size of a particular DCI format used for MB can be kept the same as that of a fallback DCI (unicast) format, i.e., by using rate-matching or padding to adjust the size as necessary —the alternative term “or,” (which is equivalent to the forward slash “/” symbol) only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 12, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 11,
wherein, when the control signaling length of the broadcast/multicast is aligned with the fallback control signaling length of the common search space, the method further comprises (paras. [0062]-[0064], and [0088] —the alignment can consist of applying rate-matching and/or padding to keep the DCI size the same between MB and fallback DCI format signaling):
using part of fields of the fallback control signaling to carry part or all of frequency domain scheduling information of the broadcast/multicast (paras. [0064], [0080], [0084], and [0088]; and corresponding Tables —some of the fields of a fallback DCI format can be repurposed for scheduling MB BWP resources/parameters),
wherein [when] a frequency domain scheduling information length of the broadcast/multicast is greater than a frequency domain scheduling information length in the fallback control signaling, the method further includes:
using other fields in the fallback control command other than the part of fields to extend an indication range of the frequency domain scheduling information of the broadcast/multicast (paras. [0082], and [0132]-[0135]; and corresponding Tables —other DCI fields can be repurposed to further extend the MB BWP resource scheduling —Table Notes column includes description of what Fields may be additionally extended for this purpose).
With respect to claim 15, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 11, further comprising:
deleting a DCI format corresponding to at least one control signaling length in unicast; or,
deleting a DCI format corresponding to the control signaling length of broadcast/multicast, and using a control channel of unicast to schedule the broadcast/multicast data; or,
selecting a control signaling length from the reduced numbers of control signaling lengths of unicast to align with the control signaling length of broadcast/multicast; wherein, the selected control signaling length is smaller than the control signaling length of broadcast/multicast (paras. [0084] and [0096] and corresponding Table —portions of a DCI format, relating to DCI size, can be “deleted” corresponding to a control signaling length in unicast, in order to detect a DCI size, i.e., control signaling, for MB, See paras. [0138] and [0203] of Applicant’s PG Pub. for reference —the alternative term “or,” (which is equivalent to the forward slash “/” symbol) only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 16, Liu-918 teaches:
The method according to claim 15, wherein the selecting a control signaling length from the reduced numbers of control signaling lengths of unicast to align with the control signaling length of broadcast/multicast comprises:
selecting a control signaling format of unicast closest to the control signaling length of broadcast/multicast (paras. [0088]-[0089], and [0096] —a DCI format of unicast can be selected to best correspond to a required MB DCI size), and
performing zero padding until the length is the same as the control signaling length of the broadcast/multicast (paras. [0088]-[0089], and [0096] —padding can be applied to keep the DCI size for unicast and MB the same).
With respect to claim 17, this method claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 17 is written from the perspective of a terminal, i.e., a client side device (UE 104 of Figs. 1 and 2), as opposed to network side device. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Liu-918, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3, except claim 19 is written from the perspective of a client side device. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Liu-918, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4, except claim 20 is written from the perspective of a client side device. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Liu-918, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 22, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6, except claim 22 is written from the perspective of a client side device. As such, claim 22 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Liu-918, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 30, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 30 is directed to a network side device with a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (BS 102 of Figs. 1 and 3, having a memory 316, a transceiver 302, and a processor 312). As such, claim 30 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Liu-918, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 41, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 17, except claim 41 is directed to a terminal, i.e., a user side device, with a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (UE 104 of Figs. 1 and 2, having a memory 216, a transceiver 202, and a processor 212). As such, claim 41 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Liu-918, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui-918 in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0250958 A1, Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu-958”).
With respect to claim 5, Liu-918 teaches:
the method according to claim 4.
However, Lui-918 does not explicitly teach:
sending an association message through the high-level signaling or a medium access control layer control element (MAC CE); wherein the association message is used to associate the second special parameter with the first BWP; the association message includes: an identifier of the first BWP and a configuration identifier corresponding to the second special parameter.
Lui-958 does teach:
sending an association message through the high-level signaling or a medium access control layer control element (MAC CE) (para. [0074]; and BWPDownlink IE Table —the network BS can send a BWP configuration/indication message, which is interpreted to be an association message, for MBS communications to a UE via RRC signaling or via MAC CE);
wherein the association message is used to associate the second special parameter with the first BWP (para. [0074]; and BWPDownlink IE Table —the BWP configuration/association message can associate a specific BWP, i.e., a first BWP, with a particular MBS having a MB priority, and can include a CSS/USS of the BWP for corresponding DL grant monitoring);
the association message includes: an identifier of the first BWP and a configuration identifier corresponding to the second special parameter (para. [0074]; and BWPDownlink IE Table —the BWP configuration/association message can include various IEs with a BWP ID and a BWP-DownlinkMulticast correspondence for the MB service type).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lui-918’s BWP configuration method with an association message indication of a specific BWP to associate with a MB configuration, as taught by Lui-958.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly identify a BWP that is to be utilized for multicast-broadcast communications according to assigned priority, as recognized by Lui-958 (para [0074]; and BWPDownlink IE Table).
With respect to claim 21, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5, except claim 21 is written from the perspective of a client side device. As such, claim 21 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Liu-918 in view of Liu-958, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui-918 in view of US Patent No. 12,160,894 B2, Futaki et al. (hereinafter “Futaki”).
With respect to claim 10, Liu-918 teaches:
the method according to claim 7,
However, Liu-918 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the configuration of the common resource bandwidth and location of the broadcast/multicast is configured according to a location and a bandwidth in the initial BWP common parameter, and the bandwidth is greater or smaller than the initial BWP bandwidth.
Futaki does teach:
configuration of a common resource bandwidth and location of a broadcast/multicast that is configured according to a location and a bandwidth of the initial BWP common parameter, where the bandwidth is greater or smaller than the initial BWP bandwidth (col. 2, ln. 45 to col. 3, ln. 10, and col. 7, lines 7-59 —the second initial BWP configuration can include a frequency location and bandwidth size, i.e., indicated in locationAndBandwidth field of a BWP-DownlinkCommon IE, of an initial BWP common parameter, and the configured bandwidth thereof can be narrower/smaller than an initial/first BWP bandwidth —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lui-918’s BWP configuration with a BWP configuration where a bandwidth size of an initial BWP common parameter is smaller than an initial BWP bandwidth, as taught by Futaki.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signaling overhead by utilizing a smaller bandwidth size for an initial BWP common parameter, as recognized by Futaki (col. 2, ln. 45 to col. 3, ln. 10, and col. 7, lines 7-59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights