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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2026 and 8/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Ye.
Further it is noted that examiner called the office of Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP and left a voice mail requesting Scott McMillan (attorney of Record) return the call to advance prosecution and discuss a possible further amendment to allowability on 9/9/2026 however no response was received, therefore the rejection was performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-14 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first wireless reference signal comprises :a Positioning Reference Signal (PRS),a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS),a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSIRS), or Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS), or any combination thereof” and [0105] of the instant specification (PgPub) repeats such, however no actual combination of signals is shown nor contemplated much less taught how or what a ‘combination’ of any two of the types much less 3, 4, or all 5 would encompass or look like.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the second wireless reference signal comprises: a sidelink PRS (SL-PRS), a DMRS, or a CSIRS, or any combination thereof.” and [0105] of the instant specification (PgPub) repeats such, however no actual combination of signals is shown nor contemplated much less taught how or what a ‘combination’ of any two of the types much less all 3 would encompass or look like.
Claim 14 recites “wherein: the first wireless reference signal is on a first wireless frequency band and the second wireless reference signal is on a second frequency band” however the instant specification merely repeats such in [0165] of the instant specification (PgPub) repeats such, however no actual implementation nor embodiment is provided and it therefore it is not understood how a single device (second mobile) nor the coordination of the three devices could operate on two different bands.
Claims 29-31 correspond to claims 12-14
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14,16-31 and 34-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 12704582 in view of Marinier (2005/0288037), Okamura et al. (2003/0114169) hereinafter “Okamura”, Ye et al. (2022/0317235) hereinafter “Ye”, and Wodrich et al. (2020/0250352) hereinafter “Wodrich”.
The scope of Claim 1 of the conflicting patent is essentially old claim 15 which has been incorporated into claim 1. As provided below nothing recited in instant claim 1 is allowable therefore the differences are obvious. See art rejection below for details.
Claims 1-14,16-31 and 34-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 12704582 in view of Marinier (2005/0288037), Okamura et al. (2003/0114169) hereinafter “Okamura”, Ye et al. (2022/0317235) hereinafter “Ye”, and Wodrich et al. (2020/0250352) hereinafter “Wodrich”.
The scope of Claim 1 of the conflicting patent is essentially old claim 15 which has been incorporated into claim 1 plus differential tdoa which was well known. As provided below nothing recited in instant claim 1 is allowable therefore the differences are obvious. See art rejection below for details.
Claims 1-14,16-31 and 34-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-37 of copending Application No. 18552392 (PgPub 2023/0333194) in view of Marinier (2005/0288037), Okamura et al. (2003/0114169) hereinafter “Okamura”, Ye et al. (2022/0317235) hereinafter “Ye”, and Wodrich et al. (2020/0250352) hereinafter “Wodrich”.
The scope of Claim 1 of the conflicting patent is essentially old claim 15 which has been incorporated into claim 1 plus tdd which was well known. As provided below nothing recited in instant claim 1 is allowable therefore the differences are obvious. See art rejection below for details.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16-18, 20, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier (2005/0288037), Okamura et al. (2003/0114169) hereinafter “Okamura”, Ye et al. (2022/0317235) hereinafter “Ye”, and Wodrich et al. (2020/0250352) hereinafter “Wodrich”.
As to claim 1, (Original) Marinier discloses A method of enabling low-power positioning of a first mobile device using differential Angle of Arrival (AoA), the method (Fig 2) comprising:
obtaining a differential AoA between a first AoA of a first wireless reference signal at a second mobile device and a second AoA of a second wireless reference signal at the second mobile device, (see step 60, [0029]: “The direction of arrival of the signal from the base station acts as a reference for measuring an angle (theta) between the two signals.”, & [0031]:”… each mobile unit measures and reports angle measurement (theta) between the two directions of arrival in step 62”), wherein:
the first wireless reference signal is transmitted by a first wireless network node (base station), and the second wireless reference signal is transmitted by the first mobile device (target mobile), see [0027]-[0029];
determining the position of the first mobile device based at least in part on the differential AoA ([0031]: “In step 64 the system compounds all of the reported information and computes a position for the target… ”).
Also see [0013]-[0016], [0019].
Marinier fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art Okamura discloses wherein after positioning a mobile it was known to provide the position of the first mobile device. See Fig 3. (steps 108-109, after 300).
Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Marinier to include the additional step of providing the position of the first
mobile device, as taught by Okamura for the purpose of providing the mobile with its position as offered in [0004].
Marinier fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art Ye discloses obtaining a first time difference (t3-t2) from the first mobile device, wherein the first time difference comprises a time difference between: a time a third wireless reference signal (s1) transmitted by a network entity (102 – A) arrives (t2) at the first [[mobile]] device (104 – B), and a time the first [[mobile]] device transmits (t3) the second wireless reference signal (s2); determining a second time difference (t4-t1), wherein the second time difference comprises a time difference between: a time (t1) the first wireless reference signal (S1) arrives at the second mobile device (M), and a time (t4) the second wireless reference signal (S2) arrives at the second mobile device; See Figs 1-2 and [0028]-[0031]
determining the position of the first mobile device based at least in part on the [[differential AoA,]] the first time difference, and the second time difference; See [0033].
Further it is noted that in an analogous art, Wodrich discloses it was known to use both distance and angle of arrival to determine a precise location. See [0252]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Marinier to use distance (in the form of first and second time differences) as taught by Ye for the purpose of improving location precision as suggested by Wodrich.
As to claim 3, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses everything as applied above to claim 1, and Marinier further provides for wherein determining the position of the first mobile device comprises resolving an ambiguity of the position of the first mobile device based on:
a second differential AoA indicative of an angle at the second (neighboring mobile units, (see [0029], [0031], etc) mobile device between a second wireless network node and the first mobile device, historical location information or tracking information for the first mobile device, or location information for the first mobile device obtained from the first mobile device, or any combination thereof.
As to claim 16, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, discloses The method of claim 1, Ye discloses wherein the first wireless reference signal and the third wireless reference signal comprise the same signal. See [0029]: “In an embodiment, anchor 102 transmits the first wireless signal (s.sub.1) at time t.sub.0, which in turn is received by the mobile tag 101 at time t.sub.1 and anchor 104 at time t.sub.2.”.
As to claim 17, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, discloses The method of claim 1, but silent on wherein the first wireless reference signal and the third wireless reference signal comprise different signals and determining the position of the first mobile device is further based on a difference in time between the transmission of the first wireless reference signal and the third wireless reference signal.
The examiner takes official notice that before the effective filing date of the instant invention it was well known in the art to sending two separate directional signals to intended recipients as opposed to one omnidirectional signal depending on equipment capabilities, conditions, etc. Ye teaches the time difference as applied above to claim 1. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the first wireless reference signal and the third wireless reference signal comprise different signals and determining the position of the first mobile device is further based on a difference in time between the transmission of the first wireless reference signal and the third wireless reference signal for the purpose of accounting for equipment and/or environmental conditions.
Claims 18 and 20, recite devices corresponding to method claims 1 and 3, as applied above. In addition see Fig.1 of Marinier which implies transceiver, memory, and processing units.
Claims 34 and 35 recite a device and CRM corresponding to claim 18 and are considered similarly.
As to claim 36, (Currently Amended), the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses the method of claim 1, Ye implies wherein the first wireless reference signal and the third wireless reference signal are transmitted using the same beam. See [0029].
Claim(s) 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich as applied to claim 1/18 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (U 2021/0022105) hereinafter “Yu”.
As to claim 2. The combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses the method of claim 1, is silent but in an analogous art Yu discloses wherein the second time difference comprises a Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD) measurement, and wherein determining the position of the first mobile device is based on a determination that the second time difference is below a threshold. See [0052]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the second time difference comprises a Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD) measurement, and wherein determining the position of the first mobile device is based on a determination that the second time difference is below a threshold as suggested by Yu [0002].
Claim 19 recites a device corresponding to the method of claim 2 and is considered similarly.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich as applied to claim 1/18 above, and further in view of Shimoda et al. (2023/0422201) hereinafter “Shimoda”.
As to claim 4, (Original) The combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses the method of claim 1, is silent but in an analogous art Shimoda discloses wherein the method is performed by the second mobile device (UE#2 performs method for UE#1, see Fig 14, [0233]-[0234]). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method by the second mobile device, as taught by Shimoda for the purposes of distributed processing and/or quickness.
As to claim 5, (Original) The combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda discloses the method of claim 4, and it is considered that the addition of Shimoda would logically result in wherein providing the position of the first mobile device comprises sending the position of the first mobile device from the second mobile device to the first mobile device.
Claims 21-22 recite a device corresponding to the method of claims 4-5 and are considered similarly.
Claim(s) 6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda as applied to claim 4/21 above, and further in view of Arsian (2014/0365488).
As to claim 6, (Original) The combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda discloses the method of claim 4, is silent to yet in an analogous art Arslan disclose wherein providing (S1210) the position of the first mobile device comprises providing the position of the first mobile device to an application executed by the second mobile device [0235]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the position of the first mobile device to an application executed by the second mobile device for display on a map or other required usage as suggested by Arslan.
Claim 23 recites a device corresponding to the method of claim 6 and is considered similarly.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda as applied to claim 4/21 above, and further in view of Khoryaev et al. (US 9713117) hereinafter “Khoryaev” .
As to claim 5, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda discloses The method of claim 4, fails to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Khoryaev discloses wherein providing the position of the first mobile device (UE) comprises sending the position of the first mobile device from the second mobile device (location server / entity performing method) to the first mobile device (see col. 2, lines 38-45). See also col 4, lines 39-41 and 65-67. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the position of the first mobile device from the second mobile device to the first mobile device as taught by Khoryaev for the purpose of informing the UE of interest.
As to claim 7, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda discloses The method of claim 4, fail to explicitly recite however in an analogous art Khoryaev discloses prior to obtaining the differential AoA: obtaining motion data regarding a motion of the second mobile device; and
sending information indicative of the motion data to a location server (location server periodically calculates UE location from received data). See col. 7, lines 17-34 and col 4, lines 39-41. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to periodically (and thus prior to obtaining the differential AoA): obtaining motion data regarding a motion of the second mobile device; and sending information indicative of the motion data to a location server as taught by Khoryaev for the purpose of having updated location data.
Claims 22 and 24 recite a device corresponding to the method of claims 5 & 7 and are considered similarly.
Claim(s) 8 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Marinier, Okamura, and Shimoda as applied to claim 4 / 21 above, and further in view of KO et al. (US 2022/0236365) hereinafter “KO”.
As to claim 8, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Shimoda discloses The method of claim 4, fail to explicitly recite however in an analogous art KO discloses sending, from the second mobile device to a location server, information indicative of a capability of the second mobile device for determining the differential AoA. See [0121],[0126]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send, from the second mobile device to a location server, information indicative of a capability of the second mobile device for determining the differential AoA (capability information) as taught by KO for the purpose of enabling the network to function according to 5G NR standards.
Claim 25 recites a device corresponding to method claim 8 as applied above.
Claim(s) 9 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich as applied to claim 1/18 above, and further in view of Khoryaev (9713117).
As to claim 9, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, discloses The method of claim 1, fails to explicitly recite however Khoryaev discloses wherein the method is performed by a location server (see col. 2, lines 38-45, col 4, lines 20-41 and col. 7, lines 17-34), and wherein obtaining the differential AoA comprises receiving the differential AoA from the second mobile device. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method by a location server (see col. 2, lines 38-45, col 4, lines 20-41 and col. 7, lines 17-34), and wherein obtaining the differential AoA comprises receiving the differential AoA from the second mobile device for the purpose of utilizing the system resources (inherently) wherein obtaining the first time difference from the first mobile device comprises receiving, from the second mobile device, the first time difference provided by the first mobile device, and wherein determining the second time difference comprises receiving, from the second mobile device, the second time difference determined by the second mobile device.
Claim 26 recites a device corresponding to method claim 9 as applied above.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Khoryaev as applied to claim 9 / 26 above, and further in view of KO.
As to claim 10, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Khoryaev discloses The method of claim 9, Khoryaev further discloses:
receiving motion data regarding a motion of the second mobile device (see col 4, lines 20-41 and col. 7, lines 17-34);
determining a time-domain proximity (up-to-date data) for the first wireless reference signal and second wireless reference signal based at least in part on the motion data (see col. 7, lines 17-34). Khoryaev fail however KO discloses configuring the first wireless network node to send the first wireless reference signal, configuring the first mobile device to send the second wireless reference signal, or both, based at least in part on the time-domain proximity. See [0119]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to perform the steps of Khoryaev and KO for the purpose of taking advantage of 5G NR specifications.
As to claim 11, the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich, and Khoryaev, discloses The method of claim 9, KO further discloses
receiving a request at the location server [0125] for the position of the first mobile device from a requesting entity, and wherein providing the position of the first mobile device comprises sending the position of the first mobile device from the location server to the requesting entity [0127]. Before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receiving a request and sending the position as taught by Ko for the purpose of utilizing specialized network equipment.
Claims 27-28 recite devices corresponding to method claims 10-11 as applied above.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keating et al (2024/0022375) hereinafter “Keating”.
As to claim 12, (Original) the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses the method of claim 1, Marinier is silent on however in an analogous art Keating [0043] discloses wherein the first wireless reference signal comprises: a Positioning Reference Signal (PRS), a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS), a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSIRS), or Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS), or any combination thereof. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Marinier such that the first wireless reference signal comprises: a Positioning Reference Signal (PRS), a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS), a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSIRS), or Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS), or any combination thereof for the purpose of employing known standards.
As to claim 13, (Original) the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses the method of claim 1, Marinier is silent on however in an analogous art Keating [0043] discloses wherein the second wireless reference signal comprises: a sidelink PRS (SL-PRS), aDMRS, or a CSIRS, or any combination thereof. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Marinier such that the second wireless reference signal comprises: a sidelink PRS (SL-PRS), aDMRS, or a CSIRS, or any combination thereof for the purpose of employing known standards.
Claims 29-30 recite devices corresponding to method claims 10-11 as applied above.
Claim(s) 14 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (2022/0240134) hereinafter “Yang”.
As to claim 14. (Original) the combination of Marinier, Okamura, Ye, and Wodrich discloses the method of claim 1, Marinier is silent on however in an analogous art Yang discloses wherein: the first wireless reference signal is on a first wireless frequency band; and the second wireless reference signal is on a second frequency band.
See Tables 3-6 and their descriptions, particularly Table 4, [0132] for different frequency band allocations for UU (mobile – network) and PC5 (mobile – mobile) configurations [0131]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Marinier such that the first wireless reference signal is on a first wireless frequency band and the second wireless reference signal is on a second frequency band for the purpose of enabling utilization of all of the possible 5G / NR frequency bands.
Claim 31 recites devices corresponding to method claim 14 as applied above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights