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
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 17, 2025. Claims 1-24 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2014/0301367, “Wang”) in view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0156767, “Hu”) and further in view of Wu (US 2019/0053122).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method performed by a wireless device (FIG. 6, UE), the method comprising:
starting transmission {of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer} in a first cell, the transmission comprising a plurality of data units ([0087] “the UE sends data a, b, c and d to the S_eNB”);
performing a handover to a second cell ([0066] “the S_eNB sends a Handover Command message to the UE to instruct the UE to perform handover”);
determining that not all of the plurality of data units {of the SRB} were transmitted to the first cell ([0087] “however, the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according. The S_eNB receives only the data a, c and d, and the data c and d becomes disordered”); and
transmitting {the QoE report} to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Wang does not teach transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer. However, the Examiner submits that data being sent by the UE and received by S_eNB is not limited to any type of data. Therefore, it is obvious to include the feature transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer. Further, Hu teaches transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer ([0286] “the access network device may configure a dedicated signaling bearer (for example, an SRB 4) for the terminal device to transmit the QoE measurement result” [0201] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the MN”, [0204] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the SN” [0299] “The MN sends the QoE measurement result to the SN”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report a signaling radio bearer, as taught by Hu in Wang so that a carrier can better optimize a network to improve user experience.
Wang does not particularly teach not all of the plurality of data units of the SRB were transmitted to the first cell. However, Wang teaches “the UE sends data a, b, c and d to the S_eNB, however, the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according” and that the data a, b, c and d are transmitted as “PDCP-SDUs” (see [0087] the received data is described as “received PDCP-SDUs” by S_eNB. [0089] recites “ensuring no re-transmission of redundant PDCP-SDUs from the UE”). The Examiner submits that it is well known in the art PDCP-SDU can be transmitted in both SRB and DRB (for example, Wu discloses [0016] “a communicate device (e.g., the communication device 100 or the BS (s) 102/104) may use the following state variables to communicate PDCP Service Data Units (SDUs) associated to a DRB or a SRB). In other words, Wang’s application is not limited to DRB only and can be applied for SRB as well.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature determining that not all of the plurality of data units of the SRB were transmitted to the first cell, in Wang to prevent waste of precious radio resource.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 1, and Wang further teaches wherein transmitting the QoE report to the second cell comprises retransmitting the {entire} QoE report to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Although Wang does not teach retransmitting the entire QoE report, however, the Examiner submits that such feature is obvious when “only the failed data” is all transmitted data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature retransmitting the entire QoE report, in Wang so that all data can be delivered to the target destination.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 1, and Wang further teaches
wherein transmitting the QoE report to the second cell comprises transmitting the data units that were not transmitted to the first cell to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 1, and Wang further teaches wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data units (SDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP SDUs were delivered ([0087] “the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 1, and Wang further teaches wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises determining an absence of a report received confirmation from the first cell ([0087] “the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according… UE does not receive any ACK to the data c and d”).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 1, and Wang further teaches wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises at least one of: determining that not all data units were transmitted; and determining that not all data units associated with a particular signaling radio bearer (SRB) were transmitted ([0087] “T_eNB informs the UE that which PDCP-SDUs have been received by the S_eNB successfully through a Synchronization Reply message, i.e., the data a, c and d has been received”).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a wireless device (FIG. 6, UE) comprising processing circuitry operable to:
start transmission {of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer} in a first cell, the transmission comprising a plurality of data units ([0087] “the UE sends data a, b, c and d to the S_eNB”);
perform a handover to a second cell ([0066] “the S_eNB sends a Handover Command message to the UE to instruct the UE to perform handover”);
determine that not all of the plurality of data units {of the SRB} were transmitted to the first cell ([0087] “however, the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according. The S_eNB receives only the data a, c and d, and the data c and d becomes disordered”); and
transmit {the QoE report} to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Wang does not teach transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer. However, the Examiner submits that data being sent by the UE and received by S_eNB is not limited to any type of data. Therefore, it is obvious to include “transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report. Further, Hu also teaches transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer ([0286] “the access network device may configure a dedicated signaling bearer (for example, an SRB 4) for the terminal device to transmit the QoE measurement result” [0201] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the MN”, [0204] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the SN” [0299] “The MN sends the QoE measurement result to the SN”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature transmission of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer, as taught by Hu in Wang so that a carrier can better optimize a network to improve user experience.
Wang does not particularly teach not all of the plurality of data units of the SRB were transmitted to the first cell. However, Wang teaches “the UE sends data a, b, c and d to the S_eNB, however, the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according” and that the data a, b, c and d are transmitted as “PDCP-SDUs” (see [0087], the received data is described as “received PDCP-SDUs” by S_eNB. Also [0089] recites “ensuring no re-transmission of redundant PDCP-SDUs from the UE”). The Examiner submits that it is well known in the art PDCP-SDU can be transmitted in both SRB and DRB (for example, Wu discloses [0016] “a communicate device (e.g., the communication device 100 or the BS (s) 102/104) may use the following state variables to communicate PDCP Service Data Units (SDUs) associated to a DRB or a SRB). In other words, Wang’s application is not limited to DRB only and can be applied for SRB as well.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to determine that not all of the plurality of data units of the SRB were transmitted to the first cell, in Wang to prevent waste of precious radio resource.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 9, and Wang further teaches to transmit the QoE report to the second cell by retransmitting the {entire} QoE report to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Although Wang does not teach retransmitting the entire QoE report, however, the Examiner submits that such feature is obvious when “only the failed data” is all transmitted data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature retransmitting the entire QoE report, in Wang so that all data can be delivered to the target destination.
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 9, and Wang further teaches
to transmit the QoE report to the second cell by transmitting the data units that were not transmitted to the first cell to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 9, and Wang further teaches to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) service data units (SDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP SDUs were delivered ([0087] “the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according”).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 9, and Wang further teaches to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by determining an absence of a report received confirmation from the first cell ([0087] “the data b fails during transmission, and the UE does not receive any ACK to the data b according… UE does not receive any ACK to the data c and d”).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 9, and Wang further teaches to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by at least one of: determining that not all data units were transmitted; and determining that not all data units associated with a particular signaling radio bearer (SRB) were transmitted ([0087] “T_eNB informs the UE that which PDCP-SDUs have been received by the S_eNB successfully through a Synchronization Reply message, i.e., the data a, c and d has been received”).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hu in view of Wu and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0090156, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 1, and but fails to teach wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data units (PDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP PDUs were delivered
Kim teaches wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data units (PDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP PDUs were delivered ([0167] - the terminal receives the handover command from the base station, performs the PDCP re-establishment procedure, performs the handover to the target base station (BS), and then retransmits a first PDCP PDU, for which ACK is not acknowledged).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data units (PDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP PDUs were delivered, as taught by Kim in Wang to ensure that all data are delivered.
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 9, and but fails to teach to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data units (PDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP PDUs were delivered.
Kim teaches to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data units (PDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP PDUs were delivered ([0167] - the terminal receives the handover command from the base station, performs the PDCP re-establishment procedure, performs the handover to the target base station (BS), and then retransmits a first PDCP PDU, for which ACK is not acknowledged).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by at least one of: receiving an indication that one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) protocol data units (PDUs) were not delivered; and not receiving an indication that one or more PDCP PDUs were delivered, as taught by Kim in Wang to ensure that all data are delivered.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hu and Wu and further in view of Iwamura (US 2010/0111036, “Iwamura”).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 1, and but fails to teach wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises determining a starting time for transmission of the QoE report occurred less than a predetermined amount of time from the handover.
Iwamura teaches “there is a high probability that PDU #4 and #5 may be discarded without receipt of acknowledgement… the acknowledgement cannot be easily obtained for PDU #4 and #5 (also for PDU #3 in some cases) within a short time period before a handover command is issued”. It should be noted “short period of time” suggests that short period of time must be considered as a period of time that is shorter than a predetermined time, or a threshold, considered as short. Therefore, Iwamura in combination with Wang and Hu teaches wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises determining a starting time for transmission of the QoE report occurred less than a predetermined amount of time from the handover
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein determining that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell comprises determining a starting time for transmission of the QoE report occurred less than a predetermined amount of time from the handover, as suggested taught by Kim in Wang to prevent incomplete data transmissions.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Hu and Wu teaches claim 9, and but fails to teach to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by determining a starting time for transmission of the QoE report occurred less than a predetermined amount of time from the handover.
Iwamura teaches “there is a high probability that PDU #4 and #5 may be discarded without receipt of acknowledgement… the acknowledgement cannot be easily obtained for PDU #4 and #5 (also for PDU #3 in some cases) within a short time period before a handover command is issued”. It should be noted “short period of time” suggests that short period of time must be considered as a period of time that is shorter than a predetermined time, or a threshold, considered as short. Therefore, Iwamura in combination with Wang and Hu teaches to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by determining a starting time for transmission of the QoE report occurred less than a predetermined amount of time from the handover.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to determine that not all of the plurality of data units were transmitted to the first cell by determining a starting time for transmission of the QoE report occurred less than a predetermined amount of time from the handover, as suggested taught by Kim in Wang to prevent incomplete data transmissions.
Claims 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2014/0301367, “Wang”) in view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0156767, “Hu”).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches a method performed by a target network node (FIG. 6, T_enb), the method comprising:
receiving, from a source network node, a first portion {of a quality of experience (QoE) report} (FIG. 6 shows S_eNB sends data c and d to T_eNB. [0087] “The S_eNB delivers the PDCP-SDU SN report to the T_eNB at an appropriate time (on receiving the RLC Acknowledge message, or after the S_eNB waits for a period of time”);
receiving, from a wireless device, a second portion {of the QoE report portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer} (FIG. 6 shows UE sends data b to T_eNB. [0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”); and
combining the first portion {of the QoE report} and the second portion {of the QoE report} to form a complete {QoE report} [data] (FIG. 6 shows T_eNB “combines” b, c, d data and sends them to S_GW).
Wang does not teach portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report.
Hu teaches portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report ([0201] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the MN”, [0204] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the SN” [0299] [0299] “The MN sends the QoE measurement result to the SN”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report, as taught by Hu in Wang so that a carrier can better optimize a network to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 17 and further teaches wherein the first portion of the QoE report is received from the source network node as part of a mobility procedure (FIG. 6 shows S_eNB sends data c and d to T_eNB. [0087] “The S_eNB delivers the PDCP-SDU SN report to the T_eNB at an appropriate time (on receiving the RLC Acknowledge message, or after the S_eNB waits for a period of time”) and the second portion of the QoE report is received from the wireless device after a mobility procedure from the source network node to the target network node ([0066] “the S_eNB sends a Handover Command message to the UE to instruct the UE to perform handover.” FIG. 6 shows UE sends data b to T_eNB. [0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”) .
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 17, and further teaches “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB” ([0087]).
Although Wang does not teach wherein the second portion of the QoE report comprises the complete QoE report, however, the Examiner submits that such feature is obvious when “only the failed data” is all transmitted data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the second portion of the QoE report comprises the complete QoE report, in Wang so that all data can be delivered to the target destination.
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 17, and Wang further teaches
wherein transmitting the QoE report to the second cell comprises transmitting the data units that were not transmitted to the first cell to the second cell ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches a network node (FIG. 6, T_enb) comprising processing circuitry operable to:
receive, from a source network node, a first portion {of a quality of experience (QoE) report} (FIG. 6 shows S_eNB sends data c and d to T_eNB. [0087] “The S_eNB delivers the PDCP-SDU SN report to the T_eNB at an appropriate time (on receiving the RLC Acknowledge message, or after the S_eNB waits for a period of time”);
receive, from a wireless device, a second portion {of the QoE report via a signaling radio bearer} (FIG. 6 shows UE sends data b to T_eNB. [0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”); and
combine the first portion {of the QoE report} and the second portion {of the QoE report} to form a complete {QoE report} [data] (FIG. 6 shows T_eNB “combines” b, c, d data and sends them to S_GW).
Wang does not teach portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report.
Hu teaches portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer ([0286] “the access network device may configure a dedicated signaling bearer (for example, an SRB 4) for the terminal device to transmit the QoE measurement result” [0201] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the MN”, [0204] “The UE sends the QoE measurement result to the SN” [0299] “The MN sends the QoE measurement result to the SN”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature portion of a quality of experience (QoE) report via a signaling radio bearer, as taught by Hu in Wang so that a carrier can better optimize a network to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 21 and further teaches wherein the first portion of the QoE report is received from the source network node as part of a mobility procedure (FIG. 6 shows S_eNB sends data c and d to T_eNB. [0087] “The S_eNB delivers the PDCP-SDU SN report to the T_eNB at an appropriate time (on receiving the RLC Acknowledge message, or after the S_eNB waits for a period of time”) and the second portion of the QoE report is received from the wireless device after a mobility procedure from the source network node to the target network node ([0066] “the S_eNB sends a Handover Command message to the UE to instruct the UE to perform handover.” FIG. 6 shows UE sends data b to T_eNB. [0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Regarding claim 23, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 21, and further teaches “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB” ([0087]).
Although Wang does not teach wherein the second portion of the QoE report comprises the complete QoE report, however, the Examiner submits that such feature is obvious when “only the failed data” is all transmitted data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein the second portion of the QoE report comprises the complete QoE report, in Wang so that all data can be delivered to the target destination.
Regarding claim 24, Wang in view of Hu teaches claim 21, and Wang further teaches
wherein the second portion of the QoE report comprises a portion of the QoE report not included in the first portion of the QoE report ([0087] “the UE re-transmits only the failed data b to the T_eNB”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues Wang’s title states “processing data during cell handover in an LTE system” therefore, Wang discloses retransmitting data for data radio bearers (DRBs).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no mentioning of data processing in Wang is for DRBs only. Wang teaches transmission/retransmission of data as PDCP-SDUs (see [0087]). The Examiner submits that it is well known in the art PDCP-SDU can be transmitted in both SRBs and DRBs which can be found in Wu that discloses [0016] “a communicate device (e.g., the communication device 100 or the BS (s) 102/104) may use the following state variables to communicate PDCP Service Data Units (SDUs) associated to a DRB or a SRB). The Examiner submits that Wang’s application is not limited to DRBs only and can be applied for SRBs as well.
Independent claims 9, 17 and 21 and dependent claims rely on the same argument, accordingly the same response applies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642