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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 05/12/2023 is received prior to the examination of the instant application and has not introduced any new matter, thus, has been entered and is examined on the merits.
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)(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 1-5, 7, 15, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu).
Regarding claims 1, 22 and 31, Fu teaches a method of wireless communication at a user equipment(UE) (a method of wireless communication performed at a UE/terminal, Fig. 3, 5 and paragraphs [70-71, 94-97]), an apparatus configured for wireless communication (UE/terminal for perform the method, Fig. 3, 5 and paragraphs [70-71, 94-97]), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor (wherein the UE/terminal comprises an CPU, paragraphs [69-70, 75, 76, 84, 212]); and a memory comprising instructions coupled to the at least one processor (wherein the UE/terminal comprises a memory storing instructions, wherein the memory coupled to the CPU/controller, paragraphs [69-70, 74-75, 76, 84, 85, 211-212]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform the method (wherein the CPU/controller executes/reads instructions to cause the UE/terminal to perform the method, paragraphs [75-76, 84-85, 211-212]) and a user equipment (UE/terminal for perform the method, Fig. 3, 5 and paragraphs [70-71, 94-97]) comprising:
a transceiver (wherein the UE/terminal comprises a communication interface 310, paragraphs [69-71] and Fig. 3);
at least one processor (wherein the UE/terminal comprises an CPU, paragraphs [69-70, 75, 76, 84, 212]); and
a memory comprising instructions (wherein the UE/terminal comprises a memory storing instructions, wherein the memory coupled to the CPU/controller, paragraphs [69-70, 74-75, 76, 84, 85, 211-212]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions and cause the UE (wherein the CPU/controller executes/reads instructions to cause the UE/terminal to perform the method, paragraphs [75-76, 84-85, 211-212]) to:
monitor, via the transceiver (via communication interface, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [71-72]), at least one physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission for a downlink control information (DCI) message (the UE, via the communication interface, monitors PDCCH transmission for a DCI message, paragraphs [21, 90, 93]) having one of a number of different formats and one of a number of different sizes (wherein the DCI having one of a number of different formats and one of a number of different sizes, paragraphs [90, 92, 106-108]),
wherein the UE is configured with a DCI sizes budget indicating a number of different DCI sizes that the UE is configured to decode (wherein the UE is configured with a maximum number of DCI sizes for detections, by a base station based on a capability of the UE, paragraphs [96, 106, 107, 170]),
wherein the configuration of the at least one processor to monitor the at least one PDCCH transmission for the DCI message includes configuration of the at least one processor to:
apply a DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate a prioritized set of DCI sizes wherein the prioritized set of DCI sizes includes a number of DCI sizes to be monitored (generates a set of DCI sizes, i.e. reduced number of DCI formats with different sizes, for monitoring using priority rule, such as removing a lower priority DCI size(s), paragraphs [95-99, 175-178]), and wherein the number of DCI sizes to be monitored is less than or equal to the DCI sizes budget (wherein the number of the reduced number of DCI formats with different sizes, to be monitored is less than or equal to the maximum number of configured DCI sizes, paragraphs [95-97, 130-131, 170, 175-178]); and
decode the DCI message based on the prioritized set of DCI sizes (the UE/terminal decodes the DCI messages using the reduced number of DCI formats with different sizes, paragraphs [93, 95]).
Regarding claim 2, Fu further teaches wherein applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate the prioritized set of DCI sizes:
prioritizing DCI sizes based on the DCI sizes prioritization rule (DCI formats with different sizes is prioritized for generating the reduced number of DCI formats with different sizes, such as removing a lower priority DCI size(s), paragraphs [95-99, 175-178]); and
including highest prioritized DCI sizes in the prioritized set of DCI sizes until the number of DCI sizes in the prioritized set of DCI sizes reaches the DCI sizes budget of the UE (including highest prioritized DCI formats with different sizes prior to including a lower priority DCI formats with different sizes, until reaches the maximum number of DCI sizes, paragraphs [98-99, 131, 171, 175-178]).
Regarding claim 3, Fu further teaches wherein decoding the DCI based on the prioritized set of DCI sizes includes: dropping DCI sizes that are excluded from the prioritized set of DCI sizes (removes the lower priority DCI formats from the reduced number of DCI formats with different sizes for monitoring, paragraphs [26, 41, 97, 171, 185]).
Regarding claim 4, Fu further teaches wherein applying the DCI sizes prioritization rule to generate the prioritized set of DCI sizes is applied to PDCCH configuration for a single slot (wherein reduced number of DCI formats is applied to PDCCH for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Regarding claim 5, Fu further teaches wherein the DCI sizes budget of the UE is configured for the single slot (wherein the maximum number of DCI sizes for detection is configured for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Fu further teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a priority of a DCI format (generates the set of DCI sizes, i.e. reduced number of DCI formats with different sizes, for monitoring based on priority of DCI format, paragraphs [95-99, 175-178]).
Regarding claims 15 and 26, Fu further teach wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored (prioritizing the DCI sizes based on a format of the DCI, wherein each of the DCI formats has different number of bits, i.e. size of the DCI message, to be monitored, paragraphs [15, 16, 27, 98, 104]).
Regarding claims 19 and 28, Fu further teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a type of a DCI message to be monitored (wherein the priority of the DCI format is determined by based on types of services scheduled by the DCI message, i.e. URLLC, paragraphs [17, 19, 101-103]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0386285 A1 to Hu et al. (hereafter refers as Hu).
Regarding claim 6, Fu further teaches wherein a number of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes is configured for the single slot (wherein reduced number of DCI formats is applied to PDCCH for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]) and a number of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for another slot (wherein reduced number of DCI formats is applied to PDCCH for each slot, paragraphs [20, 21, 132, 140, 194, 200-203]).
However, Fu does not explicitly teach a number of DCI sizes for another slot is “different” than a number of DCI sizes for the single slot.
Hu teaches a number of DCI sizes for another slot is different than a number of DCI sizes for the single slot (a number of DCI sizes/candidates, i.e. limit, for another slot is different from a number of DCI sizes/candidates for a slot, paragraphs [6, 33, 37, 73, 100, 107-110, 117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the number of DCI sizes for another slot is different than the number of DCI sizes for the single slot as taught by Hu, with the teachings of the number of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes is configured for the single slot and the number of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for another slot as taught by Fu, for a purpose of increase diversity and efficiency in generating the prioritized set of DCIS sizes for each slot by setting different number of DCI sizes to be included in the prioritized set of DCI sizes for different slots (see Hu, paragraphs [6, 33, 37, 73, 100, 107-110, 117]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0296701 A1 to Park et al. (hereafter refers as Park).
Regarding claim 8, Fu does not explicitly teach wherein “a non-fallback DCI message is prioritized higher than a fallback DCI message”.
Park teaches a non-fallback DCI message is prioritized higher than a fallback DCI message (a non-fallback DCI message has higher priority than a fallback DCI message, paragraph [142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the non-fallback DCI message is prioritized higher than a fallback DCI message as taught by Park, with the teachings of Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communicating the non-fallback DCI message by provide the non-fallback DCI message with higher priority (see Park, paragraphs [142-144]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) in view of US 2020/0296701 A1 to Park et al. (hereafter refers as Park) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0386361 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereafter refers as Takahashi).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fu and Park further teaches a non-fallback downlink DCI message and a non-fallback uplink DCI message (non-fallback DCI for PUSCH and a non-fallback DCI for PDSCH, see Park, paragraphs [140-144]).
However, the combination of Fu and Park does not explicitly teach the non-fallback downlink DCI message is “prioritized higher” than the non-fallback uplink DCI message.
Takahashi teaches a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than a uplink DCI message (DL DCI message has a higher priority than an uplink DCI message, paragraphs [163, 165, 166]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than a uplink DCI message as taught by Takahashi, with the teachings of combination of Fu and Park, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communicating the non-fallback DCI message and the non-fallback uplink DIC message by specifying priority of the non-fallback downlink DCI message and the non-fallback uplink DCI message (see Takahashi, paragraphs [163, 165, 166]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0386361 A1 to Takahashi et al (hereafter refers as Takahashi).
Regarding claim 10, Fu does not explicitly teach “wherein the priority of the DCI format is based on a configuration of the at least one PDCCH, wherein: when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is uplink dominant, an uplink DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message; and when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is downlink dominant, a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than an uplink DCI message”.
Takahashi teaches when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is uplink dominant, an uplink DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message (when an DCI includes a UL scheduling with a higher priority, then the UL DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message, i.e. not to multiplex the UCI with the PUSCH/uplink transmission, paragraph [162-165]); and
when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is downlink dominant, a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than an uplink DCI message (when an DCI includes a DL scheduling with a higher priority, then the DL DCI message is prioritized than an uplink DCI message, i.e. drop the PUSCH/uplink transmission, paragraph [162-165]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the priority of the DCI format is based on a configuration of the at least one PDCCH, wherein: when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is uplink dominant, an uplink DCI message is prioritized higher than a downlink DCI message; and when the configuration of the at least one PDCCH is downlink dominant, a downlink DCI message is prioritized higher than an uplink DCI message as taught by Takahashi, with the teachings of Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communicating message/data related to the UL DCI message and DL DCI, by based on the configuration of the at least one PDCCH (see Takahashi, paragraph [162-165]).
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0282123 A1 to Wong et al (hereafter refers as Wong).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Fu does not explicitly teach wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on “a priority of a search space associated with the at least one PDCCH”.
Wong teaches the DCI prioritization rule is based on a priority of a search space associated with the at least one PDCCH (prioritizing DCI based on a priority of search space associated with at least one PDCCH, paragraphs [87, 97, 103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the DCI prioritization rule is based on a priority of a search space associated with the at least one PDCCH as taught by Wong, with the teachings of DCI size prioritization rule of Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in prioritizing the DCI sizes, by using other priorities, i.e. such as based on the priority of each search space associated with at least one PDCCH (see Wong, paragraphs [87, 97, 103]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) in view of US 2021/0282123 A1 to Wong et al (hereafter refers as Wong) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2019/0297607 A1 to Kim et al. (hereafter refers as Kim).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fu and Wong does not explicitly teach “wherein a PDCCH having a lower identification (ID) is prioritized lower than a PDCCH having a higher ID”.
Kim teaches wherein a PDCCH having a lower identification (ID) is prioritized lower than a PDCCH having a higher ID (prioritizing the PDCCH with a lower ID, paragraphs [134-136, 192-194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein a PDCCH having a lower identification (ID) is prioritized lower than a PDCCH having a higher ID as taught by Kim, with the teachings of DCI size prioritization rule as taught by combination of Fu and Wong, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by further using the identification of the PDCCH for prioritizing (see Kim, paragraphs [134-136, 192-194]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) in view of US 2021/0282123 A1 to Wong et al (hereafter refers as Wong) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0417977 A1 to Takahashi et al. (hereafter refers as Takahashi’977).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Fu and Wong does not explicitly teach “wherein a PDCCH associated with a search space having a first type is prioritized higher than a PDCCH associated with a search space having a second type”.
Takahashi’977 teaches a PDCCH associated with a search space having a first type is prioritized higher than a PDCCH associated with a search space having a second type (DCI/PDCCH associated with a search space having a first type, is prioritized higher than a PDCCH/DCI associated with a search space having a second type, paragraphs [163, 166, 169, 145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of a PDCCH associated with a search space having a first type is prioritized higher than a PDCCH associated with a search space having a second type as taught by Takahashi’977, with the teachings of DCI size prioritization rule as taught by combination of Fu and Wong, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by further using the type of the search space for prioritizing the DCIs (see Takahashi’977, paragraphs [163, 166, 169, 145]).
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0360683 A1 to Chen et al. (hereafter refers as Chen).
Regarding claims 14 and 25, Fu does not explicitly teach wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is “based on a priority of a control resource set (CORESET) identification (ID) associated with the at least one PDCCH”.
Chen teaches wherein the DCI prioritization rule is based on a priority of a control resource set (CORESET) identification (ID) associated with the at least one PDCCH (the DCI is prioritized based on a priority of an CORESET ID associated with at least one PDCCH, paragraphs [57, 74]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DCI prioritization rule is based on a priority of a control resource set (CORESET) identification (ID) associated with the at least one PDCCH as taught by Chen, with the teachings of DCI size prioritization rule of Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by further using priority of the CORESET ID (see Chen, paragraphs [57, 74]).
Claims 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0417977 A1 to Takahashi et al. (hereafter refers as Takahashi’977).
Regarding claim 16, Fu does not explicitly teach wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message “having a second size larger than the first size”.
Takahashi’977 teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored (prioritizing the DCI based on a size of the DCI message to be monitored, paragraphs [139-141]),
wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size larger than the first size (wherein the DCI message having a first size, is assigned a first priority when has a smaller size, paragraphs [139-141], wherein the first priority is higher than a second priority, paragraph [60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored, wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size larger than the first size as taught by Takahashi’977, with the teachings of the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored, as taught by Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes, by prioritizing the DCI with a smaller size (see Takahashi’977, paragraphs [60, 139-141]).
Regarding claim 17, Fu does not explicitly teach wherein a DCI message having a first size is “prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size smaller than the first size”.
Takahashi’977 teaches wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored (prioritizing the DCI based on a size of the DCI message to be monitored, paragraphs [139-141]),
wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size smaller than the first size (wherein the DCI message having a first size, is assigned a first priority when has a larger size, paragraphs [139-141], wherein the first priority is higher than a second priority, paragraph [60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored, wherein a DCI message having a first size is prioritized higher than a DCI message having a second size smaller than the first size as taught by Takahashi’977, with the teachings of the DCI sizes prioritization rule is based on a size of a DCI message to be monitored, as taught by Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes, by prioritizing the DCI with a larger size (see Takahashi’977, paragraphs [60, 139-141]).
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0385826 A1 to Moon et al. (hereafter refers as Moon).
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Fu does not explicitly teach the prioritization rule is based on “a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) associated with the at least one PDCCH”.
Moon teaches a prioritization rule is based on a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) associated with the at least one PDCCH (prioritizing PDCCH including the DCI based on an RNTI associated with the PDCCH, paragraph [185]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the prioritization rule is based on a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) associated with the at least one PDCCH as taught by Moon, with the teachings of the DCI sizes prioritization rule as taught by Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by using the RNTI associated with the PDCCH (see Moon, paragraph [185]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0217755 A1 to Fu et al. (hereafter refers as Fu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0352703 A1 to Zhang et al. (hereafter refers as Zhang).
Regarding claim 20, Fu does not explicitly teach wherein the type of the DCI message to be monitored is “one of: compact and non-compact”.
Zhang teaches wherein the type of the DCI message to be monitored is one of: compact and non-compact (prioritizing the DCI message based on whether the DCI message is the compact or non-compact, paragraphs [94, 152, 240, 298]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein the type of the DCI message to be monitored is one of: compact and non-compact as taught by Zhang, with the teachings of DCI sizes prioritization rule as taught by Fu, for a purpose of increase efficiency for prioritizing the DCI sizes by identifying whether the DCI message is compact or non-compact (see Zhang, paragraphs [94, 152, 240, 298]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0086883 A1 discloses prioritizing a CORESET having a lowest index (paragraph [66]).
US 2022/0124788 A1 discloses limiting a total number of different DCI sizes that a UE is configured to monitor, based on a format of the DCI (see paragraphs [54-56, 104, 219]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 February 18, 2026