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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the claim objections to claims 9 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive (Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks, page 9). The previous ground of objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 5-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive (Id). The previous ground of rejection has been withdrawn.
The remainder Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 59, Applicant argues that Xu and Palat fail to disclose the specified SRB is SRB1 as Palat discloses a RRC resume message that cannot be the first indication message indicating whether the non-SDT DRB carries uplink data to be sent. Applicant further argues that Palat only teaches the RRC Resume Request is sent over SRB0 and not SRB1 (Id at 10-11). The Examiner agrees in part with these remarks, but they do not address the combination made.
That is, the system of Xu teaches that the first indication could be sent by RRC Resume and/or a small bit indication (i.e. additional information) (paragraphs 0142, 0411, 0164).
The system of Palat further discloses a technique for sending additional information/another signaling during an RRC resume (such as that of Xu) in which a RRC resume message is sent on SRB0 but additional uplink information that needs to be signaled may be sent via SRB1/the specified signaling bearer so it may use ciphering. Therefore, the combination made is that the additional information of Xu beyond a standard RRC resume message, including the first information, could instead be transmitted using the SRB1 as taught by Palat so that it could benefit from being ciphered. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks are correct in observing the RRC resume request is sent using SRB0 but do not address the overall combination made. Therefore, Applicant’s Arguments have been considered and are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 21 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0361239) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Palat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0039192; note also 63/094,696 – with parallel citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 59, Xu discloses a method for processing uplink data, performed by a terminal device, comprising and a communication device, comprising a processor and a memory having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory, (paragraph 0173) causing the device to implement:
sending first indication information to a network device during a small data transmission (SDT) process, wherein the first indication information indicates whether a non small data transmission data radio bearer (non SDT DRB) on the terminal device carries uplink data to be sent. (Xu discloses the UE may determine, while in an inactive state, that non-SDT data has arrived and may indicate the arrival of the non-SDT data [i.e. first information] in an uplink SDT procedure [i.e during a SDT process] [paragraphs 0142, 0145 – note these are general procedures with a variety of specific triggers and types of first information/information indicating the arrival of the non-SDT data indicated]. Among the types of first information/information indicating the arrival of the non-SDT data is a single bit indication of the arrival of non-SDT data [paragraph 0143] or indicated in a dedicated MAC CE, a BSR MAC CE, etc. carried in the SDT transmission or a SRB indicator [paragraph 0144, 0164] transmitted by the UE to the base station/network device, which receives it [paragraph 0144].)
Xu fails to disclose sending the first indication information to the network device comprises sending the first indication information to the network device based on a specified signaling radio bearer (SRB), the specified SRB is SRB1. In the same field of endeavor, Palat discloses ending the first indication information to the network device comprises sending the first indication information to the network device based on a specified signaling radio bearer (SRB), the specified SRB is SRB1. (The system of Palat discloses that a MSG3 may multiplex SRB related information such as a RRC Resume and SDT data with other uplink signaling information and indicates that the additional uplink signaling information can be sent via SRB1/specified signaling bearer [paragraph 0122; note also 61/084,696, page 6, step 3].)
Therefore, since Palat discloses transmitting additional signaling information in a SDT/MSG3 transmission using SRB1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the SDT/MSG3 transmission of Palat with the system of Xu by sending the first information to the network device using an arrived non-SRB data indicator such that SRB1 can be used to transmit the information as additional signaling. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead by using already established SRB0/1 for the transmission of the first information.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the first indication information comprises at least one of: a first identifier for indicating whether the non SDT DRB carries the uplink data to be sent (Among the types of first information/information indicating the arrival of the non-SDT data is a single bit indication of the arrival of non-SDT data on the non SDT DRB [paragraph 0143] or a dedicated MAC CE, a BSR MAC CE, etc. carried in the SDT transmission indicating specifics of exactly which non SDT DRB has new uplink data [paragraph 0144]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses sending the first indication information to the network device comprises: determining that a first triggering condition is satisfied sending the first indication information to the network device (Xu discloses the first information can be reception of SDT information [paragraph 0131] which will result in the transmission of the first indication information [paragraphs 0149-0145].)
Regarding claim 21, Xu discloses a method for processing uplink data, performed by a network device, comprising:
receiving first indication information sent by a terminal device during a small data transmission (SDT) process, wherein the first indication information indicates whether a non small data transmission data radio bearer (non SDT DRB) on the terminal device carries uplink data to be sent. (Xu discloses the UE may determine, while in an inactive state, that non-SDT data has arrived and may indicate the arrival of the non-SDT data [i.e. first information] in an uplink SDT procedure [i.e during a SDT process] [paragraphs 0142, 0145 – note these are general procedures with a variety of specific triggers and types of first information/information indicating the arrival of the non-SDT data indicated]. Among the types of first information/information indicating the arrival of the non-SDT data is a single bit indication of the arrival of non-SDT data [paragraph 0143] or indicated in a dedicated MAC CE, a BSR MAC CE, etc. carried in the SDT transmission and transmitted by the UE to the base station/network device, which receives it [paragraph 0144].)
Xu fails to disclose receiving first indication information sent by a terminal device based on a specified signaling radio bearer, the specified SRB is SRB1. In the same field of endeavor, Palat discloses first indication information sent by a terminal device based on a specified signaling radio bearer, the specified SRB is SRB1.. (The system of Palat discloses that a MSG3 may multiplex SRB related information such as a RRC Resume and SDT data with other uplink signaling information and indicates that the additional uplink signaling information can be sent via SRB1/specified signaling bearer [paragraph 0122; note also 61/084,696, page 6, step 3].)
Therefore, since Palat discloses transmitting additional signaling information in a SDT/MSG3 transmission using SRB1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the SDT/MSG3 transmission of Palat with the system of Xu by recieving the first information using an arrived non-SRB data indicator such that SRB1 can be used to transmit the information as additional signaling. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead by using already established SRB0/1 for the transmission of the first information.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0361239) and Palat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0039192; note also 63/094,696 – with parallel citations) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Yi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0090066 A1; note attached translation of KR 10-2021-0033342 (“342”)).
Regarding claim 5, Xu as modified by Palat fails to disclose the buffer status report (BSR) is not triggered through the specified SRB during the SDT process. (i.e. Xu discloses that a BSR is not triggered during the SDT process, but does not disclose a subsequent BSR is sent). In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses the buffer status report (BSR) is not triggered through the specified SRB during the SDT process. (Yu discloses when non-SDT data is generated during an SDT transmission, the UE may, after the SDT transmission, trigger transition to an RRC connected state for BSR transmission [paragraphs 0251-0260, fig. 13; note also 342, pages 19-20 – when UE performs SDT procedure, non-SDT data may be generated, in this case the UE should resume the RRC connection, after resumption of the RRC connection, the UE will trigger the transmission of the BSR for the non-SDT.)
Therefore, since Yi discloses triggering of BSR transmission upon entry into RRC connected after reception of non-SDT data, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the UE to modify the system of Xu as modified by Palat such that entry into the RRC connected state happens after the SDT transmission and includes transmission, by the UE, of an RRCConnected request using SRB1/the specified SRB (note combination with Palat in claim 4, supra- SRB1 is the SRB for RRC connection requests) entry into the connected state and of the SRB based on the RRC connection request triggering the SRB. The motive to combine is to improve compatibility by keeping the legacy RRC transition method and to further give the base station a full view of the BSR information instead of a simple new data indicator indicated in the SDT transmission.
Regarding claim 6, Xu as modified by Palat and Yi discloses the BSR is triggered through the specified SRB after ending the SDT process. (See the discussion, in claim 5, supra – the RRC connection request on SRB1/the specified SRB triggers the BSR)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0361239) and Palat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0039192; note also 63/094,696 – with parallel citations) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Park, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0199900; note also 63/133,015, with parallel citations)
Regarding claim 8, Xu as modified by Palat fails to disclose the identifier of the non SDT DRB comprises a logical channel identifier. In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses the identifier of the non SDT DRB comprises a logical channel identifier.
That is, Xu discloses that the MSG3 may include buffer status assistance information identifying the new data on the non SDT DRB and notes this information could include buffer status report like information, but gives no details as to the information contained.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses that assistance information related to buffer status could include logical channel ID or logical channel group ID information along with a size indication. (paragraph 0274; note also 63/133,015, paragraph 0255).
Therefore, since Park discloses buffer related assistance information may include LCID and size information, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the assistance information of Park with the system of Xu as modified by Palat by including as a part of the buffer assistance information of the non-SDT DRB of park, the LCID and size information of the non-SDT DRB. The motive to combine is to give the base station additional information to use when the UE enters connected mode so the base station can prepare in advance and make better decisions related to if the UE should enter connected mode.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0361239) and Palat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0039192; note also 63/094,696 – with parallel citations) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Laselva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0389117; note also 63/089,312 [“312”] – with parallel citations).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses a triggering condition comprises an amount of the uplink data to be sent in the non SDT DRB being less than or equal to a second threshold value (Xu discloses the base station determined if a SDT is to be halted by comparing the non-SDT data to a maximum threshold [paragraphs 0008, 0160 – if non-SDT data is below threshold, resume the SDT and transmit the data in the SDT channel].)
Xu as modified by Palat fails to disclose that the checking of the triggering condition for cancelling SDT transmission and proceeding to RRC connected is performed by the UE. In the same field of endeavor, Laselva discloses the checking of the triggering condition for cancelling SDT transmission and proceeding to RRC connected is performed by the UE [paragraph 0067 – UE performs determination of if the system should abort transmission of the SDT procedure; note also 312, paragraph 0055].)
Therefore, since Laselva discloses UE based checking of triggering conditions for cancelling SDT transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the checking of Laselva with the system of Xu by moving the checking of the size of the non-SDT transmission to the UE side so that the UE checks the non-SDT transmission as a part of the triggering condition to trigger the SDT transmission which will, upon passing the check, include the non-SDT data [i.e. the check can be considered a discrete re-mapped triggering condition to the triggering condition of claim 9, or it could be considered a “joint” triggering condition with the triggering condition of claim 9]. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead at the base station by performing checking at the UE.
Regarding claim 11, Xu as modified by Palat fails to disclose receiving second indication information sent by the network device, wherein the second indication information indicates the first triggering condition. In the same field of endeavor, Laselva discloses receiving second indication information sent by the network device, wherein the second indication information indicates the first triggering condition. (Lasevala discloses that the network determines/configures the UE with the size threshold to determine if the UE is to trigger the SDT transmission of RRC Resume for data transmission [0041 – SDT trigger may include a further check to make sure the total data volume for SDT is below a maximum threshold defined/configured by the network; 0035, 0038 – configuration of UE may be by message from gNB/network device; note also 312, paragraphs 0023-0028)
Therefore, since Lasevala discloses triggering SDT based on a gNB/network device second indication of maximum allowed data, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the triggers of Lasevala with the system of Xu as modified by Palay by further performing the trigger based on second indication information indicating the maximum SDT data buffered size [this can be viewed as a single joint triggering condition with the trigger of claim 9, or can be viewed as re-mapping the trigger of claim 9 directly to the maximum allowed buffered SDT data]. The motive to combine is to not trigger SDT if more data than may be transmitted is buffered.
Regarding claim 12, Xu as modified by Palat fails to disclose stopping the SDT process according to a second triggering condition. In the same field of endeavor, Laselva discloses stopping the SDT process according to a second triggering condition(paragraph 0048-0049, 0067 – UE performs determination of if the system should abort transmission of the SDT procedure based on the relative priority of the SDT and non-SDT transmissions; note also 312, paragraph 0035-0036,0055.)
Therefore, since Laselva discloses checking of second triggering conditions for cancelling SDT transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the checking of Laselva with the system of as modified by Palat by, when additional non-SDT data arrives, determining if the SDT process is to be stopped based on the relative priority of the SDT and the non-SDT data. The motive to combine is to allow transmission of higher priority data which has stricter transmission requirements.
Regarding claim 14, Xu as modified by Palat and Laselva discloses the second triggering condition comprises a priority of sending data carried by the non SDT DRB being higher than a priority of sending data carried by an SDT DRB (see claim 12, supra).
Regarding claim 16, as modified by Palat discloses fails to disclose setting a priority of sending data carried by the non SDT DRB to be lower than a priority of sending data carried by the SDT DRB. In the same field of endeavor, Laselva discloses setting a priority of sending data carried by the non SDT DRB to be lower than a priority of sending data carried by the SDT DRB (paragraph 0048-0049, 0067 – UE performs determination of if the system should abort transmission of the SDT procedure based on the relative priority of the SDT and non-SDT transmissions, indicating that any relative priority is possible, including the priority of the non-SDT being set lower than the priority of the SDT and the SDT transmission continuing; note also 312, paragraph 0035-0036,0055.)
Therefore, since Laselva discloses checking of second triggering conditions for cancelling SDT transmission, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the checking of Laselva with the system of Xu by, when additional non-SDT data arrives, determining if the SDT process is to be stopped based on the relative priority of the SDT and the non-SDT data where the non-SDT has a lower priority set than the SDT and the transmission continues. The motive to combine is to allow transmission of higher priority data which has stricter transmission requirements.
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses receiving fourth instruction information sent by the network device, and determining that the SDT process ends based on the fourth instruction information. (The system of Xu discloses that the base station/network device may signal an RRC resume to the UE to terminate the SDT transmission [paragraphs 0146-0147].)
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses the non-SDT DRB is in a data transmission and reception state when the non SDT DRB carries the uplink data to be sent. (Xu discloses that when the non-SDT DRB has data for transmission, it is in a state that allows for transmission, but gives on details as to setting such a state [paragraph 0146].)
as modified by Palat fails to disclose setting the state of the non SDT DRB. In the same field of endeavor, Laselva discloses setting the state of the non SDT DRB. (Laselva discloses that the UE initiates a resume process to enable use of the suspended DRBs not configured with SDT when they are used for transmission [paragraph 0041; see also 312, paragraph 0028).
Therefore, since Laselva discloses resuming suspended DRBs when data is to be transmitted, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the resumption of Laselva with the system of Xu by resuming the suspended non-SRT DRBs when uplink data for transmission is detected. The motive to combine is to allow the use of the suspended DRBs to allow for successful transmission of the non-SRT data.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0361239), Palat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0039192; note also 63/094,696 – with parallel citations) and Laselva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0389117; note also 63/089,312 [“312”] – with parallel citations) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of Lei et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0182876).
Regarding claim 15, Xu as modified by Palat and Laselva fails to disclose receiving third indication information sent by the network device, wherein the third indication information indicates the second triggering condition. In the same field of endeavor, Lei discloses third indication information sent by the network device, wherein the third indication information indicates the second triggering condition. (The system of Lei discloses that the priority of the SDT transmissions, used in determining/indicating the second triggering condition may be configured by the network device [paragraphs 0102, 0090].)
Therefore, since Lei discloses configuration/indication of the second triggering condition by third indication information sent by the network device, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the indication information of Lei with the system of Xu as modified by Palat and Laselva by configuring the second triggering condition/SDT transmission priority using a third indication sent from the network device. The motive to combine is to allow for greater flexibility by allowing network configured priorities.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0361239), Palat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0039192; note also 63/094,696 – with parallel citations) and Laselva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0389117; note also 63/089,312 [“312”] – with parallel citations) as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Xu II et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2020/0260498).
Regarding claim 18, Xu as modified by Palat and Laselva fails to disclose the fourth indicator information comprises a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI). In the same field of endeavor, Xu II discloses the fourth indicator information comprises a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI). (Xu II discloses that a RRC resume message sent from the base station/network device also is accompanied by the C-RNTI [paragraph 0152].)
Therefore, since Xu II discloses a C-RNTI, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the C-RNTI of Xu II with the RRC Resume of Xu as modified by Palat and Laselva by also including a C-RNTI as a part of the RRC Resume transmission from the base station/network device to the UE. The motive to combine is to allow additional identifier information for use by the receiver for identification to avoid confusion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose sending, by the terminal device, identifier information of the terminal device to the network device through a common control channel (CCCH) and deleting, by the terminal device, the identifier information of the terminal device from packet data convergence protocol PDCP data in the specified SRB, wherein the specified SRB is SRB 1.
Regarding this element, the closest prior art of record is that of R2-2009657 (“657”) (Author Unknown, Subsequent data transmission for SDT, Doc no. R2-2009657, pages 1-3, 13 November 2020), which discloses that for subsequent SDT transmissions the UE may drop the identifier information/ResumeMAC-I from the MSG3 (see page 2, proposal 3). However, 657 is deficient, as the claims require that the identifier information is sent on the CCCH (which is associated with SRB0) but the deleted information is in a PDCP transmission on SRB1. Therefore, the teachings of 657 cannot satisfy the requirements of the claim as both the identifier information in the original SRB transmission on the CCCH/SRB0 and the deleted identifier information of a subsequent SRB transmission will both be on the CCCH/SRB0, as both transmissions will be, from a control perspective, identical until the removal occurs. Furthermore, no other art teaching this limitation could be found. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose after the SDT process ends, setting a priority of sending a carrier channel configured to carry the first indication information to a priority of sending before changing or after the SDT process ends, setting a priority of sending data carried by the non SDT DRB to a priority of sending before changing. The closest prior art regarding this limitation is that of Laselva, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0389117) – which discloses ignoring the priority of the non-SDT process during the SDT process [paragraph 0044] but this is not the same as changing and changing back the priority after the SDT process ends. Furthermore, it was thought to use more generic art related to priority changes to state that (since the setting of priority is not directly linked to the ending of the SDT process) it would be possible for such a change to happen as a part of natural processes at a later time after the end of the SDT process in a way unrelated to the end of the SDT process. However, this was deemed to be too speculative as it would essentially require changing priority before the SDT process and changing back to the same priority after the SDT process and it amounts to hindsight reconstruction to state this could naturally occur based solely on a teaching that priorities can be changed and assigned differently at any time. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
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 CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466