Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 12/17/2025. Claims 41-63 were previously pending. Claims 41-63 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12/17/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 41-50 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mallikarjunan et al., US 20210/392548 A1.
Therefore, a second Non-Final is issued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
4.1. 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 of this title, 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.
4.2. 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.
4.3. Claims 41, 43-44, 47-50, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao et al., (“Pao”, US 2018/0035438 A1) in view of Mallikarjunan et al., (”Malli”, US 20210/392548 A1).
Regarding Claim 41, Pao teaches a method performed by a wireless device for handling quality-of-experience (QoE) data, wherein the wireless device comprises a storage medium (Pao, Abstract, FIG.1A, M node (eNB), UEs, [0004]: a method by an UE for controlling QoE; FIG.2C, storage medium 223, [0055]: UE includes a storage medium 223), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a request to perform one or more QoE measurements according to a QoE measurement configuration (Pao, FIG.2A, [0049], Claim 13: receiving a first configuration message from a eNB including an enable indicator which indicates that a first feedback signaling measurement) is to be transmitted);
initiating one or more QoE measurements according to the QoE measurement configuration (Pao, [0049]: performing a quality of experience (QoE) evaluation for fulfilling a performance requirement); and
storing results of the one or more QoE measurements in a storage portion of the storage medium allocated for the storage of QoE measurements (Pao,, Claim 11: the radio configuration received comprising one or a combination of channel, frequency, MCS, bandwidth, data rate, coding rate, buffer size, power level, antenna configuration, and aggregation capability. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the 'QoE measurement” is stored and the 'buffer size' is configurable).
Pao does not expressly teach
the storage portion has a configured maximum size.
Malli teaches (Malli, [0079]: data storage limits, which may be configured for all streams (“QoE measurements report”) by the wireless device. For example, it may be possible that the upper buffer threshold is limited by the amount of data that can be stored within a configured data storage limit (e.g., 64 MB, 96 MB, 128 MB, etc.) for the stream).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “configured data storage limit” of Malli into the invention of Pao. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce power by stopping data requests for the stream when the amount of buffered data for the stream is above an configured data storage limit (Malli, Abstract). Including “configured data storage limit” of Malli into the invention of Pao was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Malli.
Regarding Claim 43, Pao-Malli teaches the method of claim 41, wherein the configured maximum size is one of a plurality of possible values (Malli, [0079]: For example, it may be possible that the upper buffer threshold (“maximum size”) is limited by the amount of data that can be stored within a configured data storage limit (e.g., 64 MB, 96 MB, 128 MB, etc.) for the stream).
Regarding Claim 44, Pao-Malli teaches the method of claim 41, further comprising transmitting an indication of the configured maximum size to the base station (Pao, Claim 13: transmit, a first feedback signaling comprising a first preferred configuration (e.g. “maximum size”) of a wireless connection in response to performing the first QoE evaluation. Combined Pao, claim 13-Malli, [0079] teaches transmit, an indication of the configured maximum size).
Regarding Claim 47, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, wherein the configured maximum size is configured by the base station, and further comprising receiving an indication of the configured maximum size from the base station (Pao, Claim 13: transmit, a first feedback signaling comprising a first preferred configuration (e.g. “maximum size”) of a wireless connection in response to performing the first QoE evaluation. Combined Pao, claim 13-Malli, [0079] teaches receiving, a first configuration message indicating configured maximum size of storage).
Regarding Claim 48, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 47, wherein the indication of the configured maximum size is received with the request to perform one or more QoE measurements according to the QoE measurement configuration (Pao, [0049]: performing a quality of experience (QoE) evaluation for fulfilling a performance requirement).
Regarding Claim 49, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, wherein the storage portion has at least one of:
configured maximum sizes for multiple radio-access technologies (RATs) (Pao, [0058]: the M Node (“base station”) configured UE measurements for multiple RATs (e.g. both LTE and WLAN. Combined Pao, [0058]-Malli, [0079] teaches configuring maximum size for multiple RATs.
Regarding Claim 50, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, wherein the configured maximum size relates to storage of a defined number of QoE reports (Pao, [0111]: The preference indication may imply that a UE would like to increase or decrease the performance (e.g., data rate). For example, “increase performance”, the preference indication may indicate “multiple RATs”, may indicate “LTE only” with QoS requirement or QoE reporting).
Regarding Claim 63, Pao teaches a wireless device for handling quality-of-experience, QoE, data, the wireless device is configured to (Pao, Abstract, FIG.1A, M node (eNB), UEs, [0004]: a method by an UE for controlling QoE; FIG.2C, processor 221, transceiver 222, storage medium 223, [0054-55]: A UE includes a processor 221 coupled to a transmitter and/or receiver (transceiver) 222, a storage medium 223):
receive, from a base station, a request to perform one or more QoE measurements according to a QoE measurement configuration (Pao, FIG.2A, [0049], Claim 13: receiving a first configuration message from a eNB including an enable indicator which indicates that a first feedback signaling measurement) is to be transmitted);
initiate one or more QoE measurements according to the QoE measurement configuration (Pao, [0049]: performing a quality of experience (QoE) evaluation for fulfilling a performance requirement); and
store results of the one or more QoE measurements in a storage portion of the storage medium allocated for the storage of QoE measurements; and power supply circuitry configured to supply power to the wireless device (Pao,, Claim 11: the radio configuration received comprising one or a combination of channel, frequency, MCS, bandwidth, data rate, coding rate, buffer size, power level, antenna configuration, and aggregation capability. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the 'QoE measurement” is stored and the 'buffer size' is configurable).
Pao does not expressly teach
the storage portion has a configured maximum size.
Malli teaches (Malli, [0079]: data storage limits, which may be configured for all streams (“QoE measurements report”)) by the wireless device. For example, it may be possible that the upper buffer threshold is limited by the amount of data that can be stored within a configured data storage limit (e.g., 64 MB, 96 MB, 128 MB, etc.) for the stream)
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “configured data storage limit” of Malli into the invention of Pao. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reduce power by stopping data requests for the stream when the amount of buffered data for the stream is above an configured data storage limit (Malli, Abstract). Including “configured data storage limit” of Malli into the invention of Pao was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Malli.
4.4. Claims 42, 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao et al., (“Pao”, US 2018/0035438 A1) in view of Mallikarjunan et al., (”Malli”, US 20210/392548 A1), and further in view of Wang et al., ("Wang", US 2021/0320879 A1).
Regarding Claim 42, Pao-Malli teaches the method of claim 41, but does not expressly teach wherein the configured maximum size is hard-coded in the wireless device,
Wang teaches (Wang, [0072]: the UE capability information (“hard-coded”) may include a storage capacity of the respective UE Combined Malli, [0079]-Wang, [0072] teaches the UE capability information (“hard-coded”) includes a storage capacity (maximum size) of the UE).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “UE capability” of Wang into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve data storage efficiency by storing QoE measurement data during user is inactive or idle mode (Wang, [0072]). Including “UE capability” of Wang into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wang.
Regarding Claim 45, Pao-Malli teaches the method of claim 44, but does not expressly teach wherein the indication of the configured maximum size is transmitted in a message indicating the capabilities of the wireless device .
Wang teaches (Wang, [0072]: the UE capability information (“hard-coded”) may include a storage capacity of the respective UE Combined Pao, claim 13-Malli, [0079]-Wang, [0072] teaches the UE capability information (“hard-coded”) includes a storage capacity (maximum size) of the UE).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “UE capability” of Wang into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve data storage efficiency by storing QoE measurement data when user is inactive or idle mode (Wang, [0072]). Including “UE capability” of Wang into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wang.
Regarding Claim 46, Pao-Malli teaches the method of claim 44, but does not expressly teach wherein the indication of the configured maximum size comprises an indication that the wireless device is capable of storing the results of the one or more QoE measurements in the storage portion up to at least the hard-coded configured maximum size.
Wang teaches (Wang, [0072]: the UE capability information (“hard-coded”) may include a storage capacity of the respective UE. Combined Pao, claim 13-Malli, [0079]-Wang, [0072] teaches the UE capability information (“hard-coded”) includes a storage capacity (maximum size) of the UE. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art the storing of QoE measurements is up to the configured maximum size).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “UE capability” of Wang into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve data storage efficiency by storing QoE measurement data when user is inactive or idle mode (Wang, [0072]). Including “UE capability” of Wang into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wang.
4.5. Claims 51-53, 56-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao et al., (“Pao”, US 2018/0035438 A1) in view of Mallikarjunan et al., (”Malli”, US 20210/392548 A1), and further in view of Kumar et al., (“Kumar”, US 2022/0046503 A1).
Regarding Claim 51, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but does not expressly teach wherein the configured maximum size is a first configured maximum size applicable when the QoE measurement configuration is associated with a first priority value.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0051]: If a number of QoE configurations of the UE exceeds a threshold, the UE may selectively release one or more QoE configurations (e.g., by releasing a lower-priority QoE configuration, such as by ceasing to perform QoE measurements based on the lower-priority QoE configuration and by replacing the lower-priority QoE configuration with the higher-priority QoE (“first priority value) configuration). Combined Malli, [0079]-Kumar, [0051] teaches the QoE measurement configuration is higher-priority QoE. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the configured maximum size of QoE measurement is the higher-priority QoE (“1st priority value)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
Regarding Claim 52, Pao-Malli-Kumar teaches the method according to claim 51, wherein a second configured maximum size, greater than the first configured maximum size, is applicable when the QoE measurement configuration is associated with a second priority value, higher than the first priority value (Kumar, [0085]: determine whether the second QoE configuration priority exceeds the first QoE configuration priority. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when the second QoE configuration priority greater than the first QoE configuration priority, configuring the second configured maximum size greater than the first configured maximum size).
Regarding Claim 53, Pao-Malli-Kumar teaches the method according to claim 52, wherein the second configured maximum size is applicable only while a timer associated with second priority value is running (Kumar, [0076-77]: The network operating entity may also be allocated other time resources where the entity is given priority (“2nd priority”) over other network operating entities to communicate using the shared spectrum for a period of time. These time resources, prioritized for use by the network operating entity, may be utilized by other network operating entities on an opportunistic basis if the prioritized network operating entity does not utilize the resources.).
Regarding Claim 56, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but does not expressly teach further comprising, responsive to a determination that the storage portion is full to the configured maximum size, transmitting stored results of the one or more QoE measurements to the base station.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0136]: The UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on a QoE configuration threshold. Combined Malli, [0079]-Kumar, [0136] teaches the UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on a QoE configuration threshold (“configured maximum size”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
Regarding Claim 57, Pao-Malli-Kumar teaches the method according to claim 56, further comprising, after transmission of the stored results, continuing to initiate QoE measurements according to the QoE measurement configuration (Kumar, [0130]: UE 115 may continue to perform QoE measurement until a notification is received from the modem of the UE 115.).
Regarding Claim 58, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but does not expressly teach further comprising, responsive to a determination that it is not possible to transmit the stored results, continuing to store the results of the one or more QoE measurements until it is possible to transmit the results and/or the storage portion is full to the configured maximum size.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0130]: one or more of a QoE suspend, or a QoE stop based on one or more of a change in RRC state of the UE. The UE may continue to perform QoE measurement until a notification is received. [0136]: The UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on a QoE configuration threshold. Combined Malli, [0079]-Kumar, [0136] teaches the UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on a QoE configuration threshold (“maximum size”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
Regarding Claim 59, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but not expressly teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that it is not possible to transmit the stored results, continuing to store only a fraction of the results of the one or more QoE measurements until it is possible to transmit the results to the base station.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0130]: one or more of a QoE suspend, or a QoE stop based on one or more of a change in RRC state of the UE. The UE may continue to perform QoE measurement (“fraction”) until a notification is received. [0136]: The UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on one or more of a first priority associated with the first QoE configuration, a second priority associated with the second QoE configuration, or a QoE configuration threshold).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
Regarding Claim 60, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but not expressly teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that it is not possible to transmit the stored results, storing only statistical data relating to the results of the one or more QoE measurements, wherein the statistical data comprises one or more average values for the results of the QoE measurements.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0130]: one or more of a QoE suspend, or a QoE stop based on one or more of a change in RRC state of the UE. The UE may continue to perform QoE measurement until a notification is received; [0136]: The UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on one or more of a first priority associated with the first QoE configuration, a second priority associated with the second QoE configuration, or a QoE configuration threshold. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide consecutive measurement values that do not meet the threshold criteria in a simpler way, i.e., by providing an average of these values).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
Regarding Claim 61 Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but not expressly teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that it is not possible to transmit the stored results, deleting one or more results of the QoE measurements based on relative priority values associated with the QoE measurements.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0051]: If a number of QoE configurations of the UE exceeds a threshold, the UE may selectively release one or more QoE configurations (e.g., by releasing a lower-priority QoE configuration, such as by ceasing to perform QoE measurements based on the lower-priority QoE configuration and by replacing the lower-priority QoE configuration with the higher-priority QoE (“1st priority value) configuration). Combined Malli, [0079]-Kumar, [0051] teaches the QoE measurement configuration is higher-priority QoE. It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the configured maximum size of QoE measurement is the higher-priority QoE (“1st priority value)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
Regarding Claim 62, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but not expressly teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that the storage portion is full to a threshold value less than the configured maximum size, transmitting an information message to the base station comprising an indication that the storage portion is full to the threshold value.
Kumar teaches (Kumar, [0136]: The UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on a QoE configuration threshold. Combined Malli, [0079]-Kumar, [0136] teaches the UE transmits the QoE measurement report based on a QoE configuration threshold (“configured value less than the configured maximum size”)).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable improving user experience by reducing or eliminating the QoE configuration of the UE. Thus reducing or eliminating interference between the UE and the base station, and hence improving performance on both the downlink and the uplink of the wireless communication network (Kumar, [0049]). Including “QoE configuration priority” of Kumar into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kumar.
4.6. Claims 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pao et al., (“Pao”, US 2018/0035438 A1) in view of Mallikarjunan et al., (”Malli”, US 20210/392548 A1), and further in view of Fukuta et al., (“Fukuta”, US 2016/0212595 A1).
Regarding Claim 54, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but not expressly teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that the storage portion is full to the configured maximum size, transmitting stored results of the one or more QoE measurements to the base station, stopping further QoE measurements and deleting the QoE measurement configuration.
Fukuta teaches (Fukuta, [0038]: a storage area of fixed size in which the multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS) measurement log is stored; and stopping the MBMS measurement and discarding the MBMS measurement configuration information, when an amount of the MBMS measurement log stored in the storage area reaches an upper limit. Combined Pao, Claim 11-Malli, [0079]-Fukuta, [0038] teaches when storage medium of configured maximum size is full, transmitting measurements results, stopping further QoE measurements, and discarding the measurement configuration).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “MBMS measurement” of Fukuta into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable controlling MBMS measurement in mobile communication system (Fukuta, [0095-967]). Including “MBMS measurement” of Fukuta into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Fukuta.
Regarding Claim 55, Pao-Malli teaches the method according to claim 41, but not expressly teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that the storage portion is full to the configured maximum size, pausing further QoE measurements according to the QoE measurement configuration.
Fukuta teaches (Fukuta, [0038]: a storage area of fixed size in which the MBMS measurement log is stored; and stopping the MBMS measurement and discarding the MBMS measurement configuration information, when an amount of the MBMS measurement log stored in the storage area reaches an upper limit. Combined Pao, Claim 11-Malli, [0079]-Fukuta, [0038] teaches when storage medium of configured maximum size is full, transmitting measurements results, stopping further QoE measurements).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate “MBMS measurement” of Fukuta into the invention of Pao-Malli. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable controlling MBMS measurement in mobile communication system (Fukuta, [0095-967]). Including “MBMS measurement” of Fukuta into the invention of Pao-Malli was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Fukuta.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Meylan et al., US 2021/0235465 A1, Method for wireless communication at a User Equipment, involves identifying a size capability for a buffer associated with a protocol layer of the UE, transmitting an indication of the identified size capability for the buffer.
Chen, US 2017/0013499 A1, Method for controlling capability of terminal, involves receiving uplink authorization information sent by various evolved node B by UE, where uplink authorization information is configured by various evolved node B
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHHIAN (AMY) LING whose telephone number is (571)270-1074. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 ET.
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, BRIAN J GILLIS can be reached on (571) 272-7952. 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.
/C.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446