DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the Application filed on 01/22/2024 and the preliminary amendment filed on the same date, in which claims 21-31 are pending wherein claim 21 is recited in independent form. The present Application claims foreign priority to SG102021091395 filed 08/20/2021 and is a 371 of PCT/SG2022/050424 with a filing date of 01/22/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is only limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked and is otherwise given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner has not identified any language which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, therefore the limitations will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, without importing limitations for the specification. The Examiner notes limitations set forth in the alternative using language including but not limited to “one or more of”, only require the teaching of one of the alternative in the prior art and not all.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "non- HT duplicate Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit", ‘non-HT’ is not clearly defined in the claims such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the meaning of the term in the context of the claim such that the limitations of the claims are particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly that which the Applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 28, the claim sets forth limitation “AID of the non-AP STA” wherein ‘AID’ is not clearly defined in the claims such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the meaning of the term in the context of the claim such that the limitations of the claims are particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly that which the Applicant regards as the invention.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication US-20220110119 to Song et al (hereinafter d1) in view of US Patent Application Publication US-20220061051 to Song et al (hereinafter d2).
Regarding claim 21, as to the limitations “A non-Access Point station (non-AP STA), comprising a receiver, which, in operation, receives, from an Access Point (AP), a frame including information to allocate frequency resources outside of an operating bandwidth of the non-AP STA; and circuitry, which, in operation, processes the frame” d1 discloses a system (see d1 Fig. 1) which includes at least non- AP STA (see d1 para. 0056) comprising at least a transceiver (i.e. receiver and transmitter) (see d1 Figs. 27, 28) and circuitry (see d1 para. 0307, 0313-0316) providing for receiving, from an Access Point (AP), a frame including information to allocate frequency resources outside of an operating bandwidth of the non-AP STA (see d1 Fig. 26 step S2610, paras. 0278-0280) and processing the frame (see d1 Fig. 26 step S2620, para. 0281).
As to the limitation “frequency resources outside of an operating bandwidth” , d1 discloses frequency resources which can be interpreted as outside the operating bandwidth (see d1 para. 0091), which may not directly align with the limitations required by the claims. However, the Examiner contends, although the disclosed SRS resource set configuration may differ in syntax, under a BRI it may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which also addresses all the limitations noted above which are met by d1 and further discloses teachings relative to the limitations “frequency resources outside of an operating bandwidth”, wherein d1 in view of d2 meet all the limitations in question, possibly alone, but certainly in combination. Wherein d2, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d2 para. 0066, 0115) implemented in a system (see d2 Fig. 1) which includes at least non- AP STA (see d1 para. 0061) comprising at least a transceiver (i.e. receiver and transmitter) (see d2 Figs. 30, 31) and circuitry for receiving, from an Access Point (AP), a frame including information to allocate frequency resources outside of an operating bandwidth of the non-AP STA (see d2 Figs. 28-29) and processing the frame (see d2 Figs. 28-29) and frequency resources outside of an operating bandwidth (see d2 para. 0096, 0103, 0111).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the receiver, after receiving the frame from the AP, receives, from the AP, a part of a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) in the frequency resources based on the frame” d1 in view of d2 discloses after receiving the frame from the AP, receives, from the AP, a part of a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) in the frequency resources based on the frame (see d1 Figs. 2, 3, para. 0059-0065; d2 para. 0059-0065 and Figs. 2-3).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 22, wherein the PPDU includes a plurality of data fields in different frequency segments for a plurality of non-AP STAs including the non-AP STA, and the plurality of non-AP STAs receive the frame and receive the PPDU based on the frame” d1 in view of d2 discloses a PPDU with a plurality of data fields in different frequency segments for a plurality of non-AP STAs including the non-AP STA, and the plurality of non-AP STAs receive the frame and receive the PPDU based on the frame (see d1 Tables 1, 2, 14, 15; d2 Tales 1, 2, 14, 15).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 22, comprising: a transmitter, which, in response to the receiver receiving the frame, transmits a response frame, wherein after the AP receives the response frame, the receiver of the non-AP STA receives the part of the PPDU from the AP” d1 in view of d2 discloses a transmitter (see d1 Figs 27-28; d2 Figs. 30-31) which transmits a response frame, wherein after the AP receives the response frame, the receiver of the non-AP STA receives the part of the PPDU from the AP (see d1 para. 0116, 0126, 0131-0133; d2 para. 012-015, 0174-0175, 0177).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the operating bandwidth of the non- AP STA is narrower than a basic service set bandwidth of the AP” d1 in view of d2 discloses various bandwidths (see d1 para. 0084; d2 para. 0089) wherein implementation of a narrower bandwidth comprises a design choice obvious from the disclosure of various bandwidths.
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the frequency resources are allocated on a per transmission opportunity (TXOP) basis” d1 in view of d2 discloses frequency resources allocated on a per transmission opportunity (TXOP) basis (see d1 para. 0084, Tables 1-3; d2 para. 0089 Tables 1-3).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the frame is transmitted in a non- HT duplicate Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU)” d1 in view of d2 discloses a frame transmitted in a non- HT duplicate PPDU (see d1 para. 0091; d2 para. 0096).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 28, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the frame includes an AID of the non-AP STA” d1 in view of d2 discloses a frame with an AID of the non-AP STA (see d1 para. 0115, 0130; d2 para. 0120,0133).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein a Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) including the frame has a padding which allows the non-AP STA to switch to the frequency resources from the operating bandwidth” d1 in view of d2 discloses a PPDU with a frame including padding which allows the non-AP STA to switch to the frequency resources from the operating bandwidth (see d1 tables 1-2, para. 0118, 0157; d2 Tables 1-2, para. 0123, 0160).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the frame is a Trigger frame” d1 in view of d2 discloses a Trigger frame (see d1 Fig. 9, paras. 0113-0119, Fig. 10 para. 0120-0131; d2 Figs. 24-27 paras. 0178, 0239-0246).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31, as to the limitation “The non-AP STA of claim 21, wherein the non-AP STA switches between the operating bandwidth and the frequency resources based on the frame” d1 in view of d2 discloses switching between the operating bandwidth and the frequency resources based on the frame (see d1 Fig. 24, paras. 0237-0242; d2 Figs. 24-27 paras. 0178, 0239-0246).
Thus, starting from d1 one of ordinary skill in the art would look to d2, as it is in the same field of endeavor and is directed to a similar problem and would consider to combine, without the undue experimentation, the teachings of d2 into the communication method of d1 arriving in this way at the subject-matter of the present claim, which is considered to be obvious in view of the disclosure of d1 in combination with the disclosure of d2.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (PPDU procedure) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to solve a spatial constraint of a device and enabling efficient data transmission through the multi-band (see d2 para. 0020). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved data transmission, among many other reasons obvious in the disclosure of d1 and/or d2. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (PPDU procedure) for similar purposes (frequency switching) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643