DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 4/27/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “field process automation module”, “network performance data analytics module” and “management module” in claim 1; “hardware check module” in claim 3; “license validation and setup module” in claim 4; “route determination module” in claim 5; “geofencing module” in claim 6; “vendor agnostic module” in claim 7; “data collection module” in claim 8; “integrated crowdsource data module” in claim 10; “automated analytics platform” in claim 11 and “network performance scoring module” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1; claim limitations “a field process automation module configured to automate field processes in a drive testing procedure”, “a network performance data analytics module configured to perform centralized automated analytics on the data retrieved from the automated field processes”, and “a management module configured to manage the field process automation module and the network performance data analytics module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 2-15; claims 2-15 are dependent claims of claim 1, and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issues of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 3; claim limitation wherein the hardware check module is configured to evaluate all required components and raise an alarm even before a field team sets out for the activity in case any modification is required invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 4; claim limitation wherein the license validation and setup module comprises a plurality of prebuilt scripts and is configured to check software versions, and to ensure that compatible settings are performed from central location invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 5; claim limitation wherein the route determination module is configured to determine the shortest path or route to the starting point for drive testing and provides route MAP automation / centralization invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 6; claim limitation “wherein the geofencing module is configured to prevent the drive test team from diverting to an undesired location and starting to collect data before they should” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 7; claim limitation wherein the vendor agnostic module is configured to standardize the field data collection process in a common database invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 8; claim limitation wherein the data collection module is configured to automate the data collection by making a sequence of test cases, as well as to create and auto upload data per unit test case invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 10; claim limitation wherein the integrated crowdsource data module is configured to provide real 360 degrees view of Geospatial Intelligence of network performance data with associated customer experience data invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 11; claim limitation wherein the automated analytics platform is configured to provide context sensitive layer 3 (L3) message drill down with correlation for addressing the associated problems invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 12; claim limitation wherein the network performance scoring module is configured to compare gold standard performance with current performance, thereby generating a rank of operators invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any structure that performs the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (US 2018/0287926 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16; Williams discloses automating field processes in a drive testing procedure (a cellblock testing module generating a test run based on scripts received; the scripts are for drive testing procedure; see paragraphs [0043], [0052] and Fig. 3); performing centralized automated analytics on the data retrieved from the automated field processes (the cellblock testing module can communicate the results of the test run to the system administration module via the network for further analysis; the test result data that is output to the configuration service provider system includes the results of the test run that was executed simultaneously on the multiple mobile devices; see paragraphs [0034], [0045], [0060] and Fig. 4); and managing the field process automation module and the network performance data analytics module (the communication and integration system can analyze the test configuration parameters and test scripts included in the test request, and distribute the test run request to cellblock testing modules; the communication and integration system can also receive test run result data from the cellblock testing module of each of the cellblock testing devices and distribute this test result data to the system administration module for further analysis; see paragraph [0060] and Fig. 4 ).
Specifically for claim 1; Williams discloses a radio network performance optimization system comprising: a field process automation module (cellblock testing module; see Fig. 4); a network performance data analytics module (system administration module; see Fig. 4) and a management module (communication and integration system; see Fig. 4).
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.
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams; in view of Xiao et al. (CN 110208001 A); and in further view of Bechtold et al. (US 2022/0063678 A1).
Regarding claim 2; William discloses wherein the field process automation module further comprises a vendor agnostic module (test run monitoring module; see paragraphs [0044] – [0045] and Fig. 3) and a data collection module (test result data module; see Fig. 3).
Williams discloses the field process automation module comprises a vendor agnostic module and a data collection module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the field process automation module comprises a hardware check module and a license validation and setup module.
Xiao discloses the field process automation module comprises a hardware check module (a module checks hardware is in operation state; see paragraph 5 of page 10) and a license validation and setup module (a version matching module and a version change module; see paragraph 4 of page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Xiao to include a hardware check module and a license validation and setup module to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the vehicle road test (see ABSTRACT).
The combination of Williams and Xiao discloses the field process automation module comprises a hardware check module, a license validation and setup module, a vendor agnostic module and a data collection module.
The combination of Williams and Xiao does not explicitly disclose the field process automation module comprises a route determination module and a geofencing module.
Bechtold discloses the field process automation module comprises a route determination module (the routing system may use the map information to determine a shortest route; see paragraph [0033]) and a geofencing module (the vehicle may use geo-fencing to limit movements of the vehicle; see paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams, Xiao and Bechtold to improve the safety of a vehicle (see paragraph [0022] of Bechtold).
Regarding claim 3; Williams discloses the field process automation module comprises a test run monitor module and a data collection module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the field process automation module comprises a hardware check module.
Xiao discloses wherein the hardware check module is configured to evaluate all required components and raise an alarm even before a field team sets out for the activity in case any modification is required (before the test, the vehicle needs to ensure the hardware can start working normally; otherwise, a warning of the hardware state will be prompted; see paragraph 4 of page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Xiao to include a hardware check module to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the vehicle road test (see ABSTRACT).
Regarding claim 4; Williams discloses the field process automation module comprises a test run monitor module and a data collection module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the field process automation module comprises a license validation and setup module.
Xiao discloses wherein the license validation and setup module comprises a plurality of prebuilt scripts and is configured to check software versions, and to ensure that compatible settings are performed from central location (checking whether the software version corresponding to the current vehicle is matched with the standard test version; if not matched, the background server sends the correct software version; see paragraphs 8-9 of page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Xiao to include a license validation and setup module to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the vehicle road test (see ABSTRACT).
Regarding claim 5; Williams discloses the field process automation module comprises a test run monitor module and a data collection module.
The combination of Williams and Xiao does not explicitly disclose the field process automation module comprises a route determination module.
Bechtold discloses wherein the route determination module is configured to determine the shortest path or route to the starting point for drive testing and provides route MAP automation / centralization (the routing system may use the map information to determine a shortest route (e.g. in distance or time) from a current location to a destination; see paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams, Xiao and Bechtold to include a route determination module for shortest route to be cost effective (see paragraph [0033] of Bechtold).
Regarding claim 6; Williams discloses the field process automation module comprises a test run monitor module and a data collection module.
The combination of Williams and Xiao does not explicitly disclose the field process automation module comprises a geofencing module.
Bechtold discloses wherein the geofencing module is configured to prevent the drive test team from diverting to an undesired location and starting to collect data before they should (vehicles may be using geo-fencing to limit movements of the vehicle; see paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams, Xiao and Bechtold to include a geofencing module to limit a vehicle in certain area (see paragraph [0059] of Bechtold).
Regarding claim 7; Williams discloses wherein the vendor agnostic module is configured to standardize the field data collection process in a common database (the test run monitoring module performs the test run on mobile devices indicated in the request and monitors the mobile devices as the test run is performed for test result data; see paragraphs [0044] – [0045] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8; Williams discloses wherein the data collection module is configured to automate the data collection by making a sequence of test cases, as well as to create and auto upload data per unit test case (tests run sequentially based on test script received; test result data module collects test result data and upload to the configuration service provider system for analysis via test result output module; see paragraph [0045] and Fig. 3).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams; in view of Jat (US 11153765 B1).
Regarding claim 9; Williams discloses wherein the network performance data analytics module comprises an automated analytics platform (the test management module receives and analyze configuration test results; see paragraphs [0048], [0060] and Fig. 4), and a network performance scoring module (the network performance module measures and benchmarks the performance of mobile networks for the quality of experience and service for users; see paragraph [0055] and Fig. 4).
Williams discloses a network performance data analysis module comprises an automated analytics platform and a network performance scoring module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the network performance data analysis module comprises an integrated crowdsource data module.
Jat discloses the network performance data analytics module comprises an integrated crowdsource data module (the site behavior data module receives data records including crowdsourced data associated with the network performance indicator; see lines 4-67, col. 5 and lines 1-6, col. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Jat to include an integrated crowdsource data module to efficiently and optimally detect cell site anomalies (see lines 53-67, col. 2 of Jat).
Regarding claim 10; Williams discloses a network performance data analysis module comprises an automated analytics platform and a network performance scoring module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the network performance data analysis module comprises an integrated crowdsource data module.
Jat discloses wherein the integrated crowdsource data module is configured to provide real 360 degrees view of Geospatial Intelligence of network performance data with associated customer experience data (the crowdsourced data can help to determine customer experience with location; see lines 4-67, col. 5 and lines 1-6, col. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Jat to include an integrated crowdsource data module to efficiently and optimally detect cell site anomalies (see lines 53-67, col. 2 of Jat).
Regarding claim 12; Williams discloses wherein the network performance scoring module is configured to compare gold standard performance with current performance, thereby generating a rank of operators (the network performance module measures and benchmarks the performance of mobile networks for the quality of experience and service for users; see paragraph [0055] and Fig. 4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams; in view of Jat; and in further view of Levy et al. (US 9456361 B1).
Regarding claim 11; the combination of Williams and Jat discloses a network performance data analysis module comprises an automated analytics platform.
The combination of Williams and Jat does not explicitly disclose the automated analytics platform provides context sensitive L3 message drill down analysis.
Levy discloses wherein the automated analytics platform is configured to provide context sensitive layer 3 (L3) message drill down with correlation for addressing the associated problems (upon analyzing the data, the ground system performs drill down analysis for by message layer 3 analysis; see lines 57-67, col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams, Jat and Levy to provide content-sensitive L3 message to enable detailed investigation into service performance (see lines 57-67, col. 3 of Levy).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams; in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0285596 A1).
Regarding claim 13; Williams discloses a network performance system comprises a network performance data analytics module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the network performance system comprises a network performance data repository.
Jones discloses the system as claimed in claim 1 further comprises a network performance data repository to understand the trend of network performance (the data store may include historical performance data associated with the network entities to identify trends; see paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Jones to include a network performance data repository to generate alerts based on the trends (see paragraph [0028]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams; in view of Verret (US 11676374 B1).
Regarding claim 14; Williams discloses a network performance system comprises a network performance data analytics module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose employing machine learning and geospatial intelligence to store data.
Verret discloses the system as claimed in claim 1 employs Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven approach with Geospatial intelligence driven algorithms to store data in the network performance data repository (a two-dimensional image is registered to a three-dimensional geospatial intelligence data; an image coordinates may be automatically determined by machine learning; the geodetic coordinates are stored in a database; see lines 7-46, col. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Verret to employ machine learning and geospatial intelligence to automate the process of selecting an image coordinate of a target (see ABSTRACT of Verret).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams; in view of Lo et al. (US 2006/0184566 A1).
Regarding claim 15; Williams discloses a network performance system comprises a network performance data analytics module.
Williams does not explicitly disclose the system comprises a big data architecture to quickly scan and capture data of interest.
Lo discloses the system as claimed in claim 1 further comprises a big data architecture that is configured to quickly scan and capture data of interest (organizing unstructured data to related to structure data and search engine data that would enable quick and progressive grasp of data structure, and search of information of interest; see paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Williams and Lo to include a big data architecture to improve system for storage, retrieval and integration of digital content (see paragraph [0114] of Lo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/N.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415