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 filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below:
Applicant's arguments and the examiner’s response:
Applicant's arguments 1: Applicant's arguments, page 12, recite “Applicant respectfully submits that HUI and FARAG do not disclose each and every feature recited in claim 1. For example, HUI and FARAG do not disclose "transmit, based at least in part on receiving a negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request within a time period, the data via a second resource that is selected based at least in part on sensing information obtained by the UE," as recited in claim 1 ( emphasis added). The Office Action concedes that HUI does not disclose the above-quoted features of claim 1 and instead relies on FIGS. 13A-13F and paragraphs [0181] and [0184] of FARAG for allegedly disclosing the above-quoted feature. See Office Action, pages 3-5. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As discussed during the interview, FARAG' s negative acknowledgement is a HARQ-NACK for a PS SCH data transmission, not a negative acknowledgement associated with an inter-UE coordination request.”
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s rejection based on the recited claim limitations and the examiner must interpret each and every claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), see MPEP 2106.07(c) Clarifying the Record [R-08.2017]. In reference to the arguments stated above, Hui does not explicitly teach: transmit, based at least in part on receiving a negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request within a time period the data via a second resource that is selected based at least in part on sensing information obtained by the UE (Farag: fig 12 and 13A-F, para [0081], where, Farag teaches supporting inter UE coordination signalling, fig 2, para [0052]-[0055] and para [0181], where, “If the UE fails to correctly decode the TB, the UE multiplexes a negative acknowledgement (NACK) in a PSFCH transmission. In this option, the UE does not transmit a PSFCH with a positive acknowledgment (ACK) when the UE correctly decodes the TB” indicating NACK with retransmission on reserved resource preferred (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource), and m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (e.g., conflict detected on reserved resource) (m.sub.cs=9 can be used instead of m.sub.cs=3)”), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Farag into Hui to achieve a low latency and high reliable communication conditions. Therefore, Hui in view of Farag teach the limitations as argued above. Hence the arguments are traversed and maintained the rejections.
The arguments in reference to the independent claims 9, 17 and 26 are geared towards the same limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore the response (i) is also applied to claims 9, 17 and 26. Therefore, all the arguments are traversed and maintained the rejection.
All the remaining arguments are based on the arguments above and are responded to in full.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17, 19-24 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui et al (US 2024/0080869 A1), hereinafter, “Hui” in view of Farag et al (US 2023/0337193 A1), hereinafter, “Farag”.
Regarding claim 1, Hui discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (Hui: fig 28, para [0324]), where, 1st wireless device and 2nd wireless device (equivalent to “UE user equipment”) comprising: a memory (Hui: fig 28, para [0300]), where, the wireless device/UE includes memory); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (Hui: fig 24 and 28, para [0271]), where, the wireless device/UE includes processor), configured to: transmit, via sidelink communication an inter-UE coordination request requesting coordination information (Hui: fig 28-30, para [0324]), where, the 2nd wireless device/UE transmit one inter-UE coordination request via sidelink for a set of resources to 1st wireless device/UE), associated with selecting a first resource for transmitting data (Hui: fig 28-30, para [0324]), where, the 2nd wireless device/UE transmit one inter-UE coordination request via sidelink for a first set of resources to 1st wireless device/UE), and Hui does not explicitly teach: transmit, based at least in part on receiving a negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request within a time period, the data via a second resource that is selected based at least in part on sensing information obtained by the UE.
Farag teaches: transmit, based at least in part on receiving a negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request (Farag: fig 12 and 13A-F, para [0181], where, “FIG. 13A illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300a, e.g., for unicast HARQ-ACK feedback and Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (2), wherein for a two-bit PSFCH resource m.sub.cs=6 indicates ACK, m.sub.cs=0, indicates NACK with retransmission on reserved resource preferred (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource), and m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (e.g., conflict detected on reserved resource) (m.sub.cs=9 can be used instead of m.sub.cs=3)”),
within a time period the data via a second resource that is selected based at least in part on sensing information obtained by the UE (Farag: fig 12 and fig 13A-F, para [0184], where, “FIG. 13C illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300c, e.g., for Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (1), m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (equivalent to “second resource”) (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “transmit, based at least in part on receiving a negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request associated with the inter-UE coordination request within a time period, the data via a second resource that is selected based at least in part on sensing information obtained by the UE” as taught by Farag into Hui in order to keep providing the use cases requiring low latency and high reliability under such communication conditions (Farag: para [0098]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission processing by the user equipment, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim require feedback indicating a positive acknowledgement (ACK) by the UE. However, Hui discloses positive feedback (Hui: para [0203]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission processing by the user equipment, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 26, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding packet transmission processing by the user equipment, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim requires indicating unavailability of first resource. However, Farag discloses unavailability of first resources (Farag: para [0168]).
Regarding claim 2, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: retransmit the inter-UE coordination request based at least in part on receiving the negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving the feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request within the time period (Farag: fig 12 and 13A-F, para [0181], where, “FIG. 13A illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300a, e.g., for unicast HARQ-ACK feedback and Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (2), wherein for a two-bit PSFCH resource m.sub.cs=6 indicates ACK, m.sub.cs=0, indicates NACK with retransmission on reserved resource preferred (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource), and m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (e.g., conflict detected on reserved resource) (m.sub.cs=9 can be used instead of m.sub.cs=3)”),
wherein the data is transmitted via the second resource based at least in part on receiving a negative acknowledgement associated with retransmitting the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving feedback associated with retransmitting the inter-UE coordination request within another time period (Farag: fig 12 and fig 13A-F, para [0184], where, “FIG. 13C illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300c, e.g., for Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (1), m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (equivalent to “second resource”) (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource)”).
Regarding claim 3, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 2, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted via a third resource (Hui: fig 20, para [0266], where, “The wireless device may transmit a second retransmission (2.sup.nd re-Tx in FIG. 20) of the first TB via a third resource of the three resources”), and wherein the third resource is reserved prior to transmitting the inter-UE coordination request (Hui: fig 20, para [0266], where, “The third SCI may further indicate the reservation period of resource reservation for the second TB”).
Regarding claim 4, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 2, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted via a third resource (Farag: fig 12, para [0170], where, “a UE-B can receive the grant/trigger signaling intended to that UE-B, a UE-B could also receive the grant/trigger signaling of other UE-Bs, and take that into account when making a decision on transmission on a SL resource (equivalent to “third resource”)”), and wherein the third resource is selected by the UE based at least in part on receiving the negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination request or based at least in part on not receiving the feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request within the time period (Farag: fig 12, para [0175], where, “UE-A can indicate to UE-B a negative acknowledgement (NACK) for retransmission and indicate to UE-B that the pre-indicated/reserved resource is preferred for SL transmission”).
Regarding claim 5, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 1, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is not retransmitted based at least in part on a latency or a level of interference associated with retransmitting the inter-UE coordination request (Hui: para [0220], where, “The duration of a timer may not be updated until the timer is stopped or expires (e.g., due to BWP switching). A timer may be used to measure a time period/window for a process”).
Regarding claim 6, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 1, wherein the time period corresponds to an inter-UE coordination request delay budget (Hui: fig 24, para [0271], where, “the PDB (packet delay budget) may be the maximum allowable delay (e.g., a delay budget) for successfully transmitting the new data via the one or more sidelink transmissions”), wherein the feedback associated with the inter-UE coordination request is received after expiration of the time period (Hui: para [0220], where, “The duration of a timer may not be updated until the timer is stopped or expires (e.g., due to BWP switching). A timer may be used to measure a time period/window for a process”), and wherein the data is transmitted via the second resource based at least in part on the feedback being received after the expiration of the time period (Hui: para [0220], where, “The duration of a timer may not be updated until the timer is stopped or expires (e.g., due to BWP switching). A timer may be used to measure a time period/window for a process”).
Regarding claim 7, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 6, wherein the inter-UE coordination request delay budget corresponds to a timeline configuration indication provided by an upper layer of the UE to a physical layer of the UE (Hui: fig 24-25, para [0271], where, “where the PDB (packet delay budget) may be the maximum allowable delay (e.g., a delay budget) for successfully transmitting the new data via the one or more sidelink transmissions”), and wherein the inter-UE coordination request delay budget enables a latency associated with reserving the second resource to satisfy a condition associated with a packet delay budget associated with transmitting the data (Hui: fig 24-25, para [0325], where, “The first time duration may be associated/defined with a first packet delay budget (PDB)/latency requirement of the one or more first sidelink transmissions”).
Regarding claim 8, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 7, wherein the condition is satisfied when an amount of time associated with selecting the second resource (Hui: fig 24, para [0271], where, “The wireless device may determine to trigger the resource selection procedure at time n to select the resources for the new data arrived at time (n−T.sub.proc,0)”), reserving the second resource, transmitting the data, and retransmitting the data is less than the packet delay budget (Hui: fig 24, para [0271], where, “the wireless device may determine the parameter T2 subject to T2 min≤T2≤PDB, where the PDB (packet delay budget) may be the maximum allowable delay (e.g., a delay budget) for successfully transmitting the new data via the one or more sidelink transmissions”).
Regarding claim 10, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: reserve the second resource prior to transmitting the inter-UE coordination request (Hui: fig 25, para [0273], where, “The wireless device may determine second resources (e.g., reselected resource after resource reselection in FIG. 25) via the resource reselection procedure (e.g., a second resource selection procedure). The start time of the second resources may be time m”).
Regarding claim 11, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 9, wherein the second resource is reserved based at least in part on not receiving the inter-UE coordination message including the coordination information within the time period (Farag: fig 12 and fig 13A-F, para [0184], where, “FIG. 13C illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300c, e.g., for Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (1), m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (equivalent to “second resource”) (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource)”).
Regarding claims 12-13, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive the inter-UE coordination message after an expiration of the other time period (Hui: para [0127], where, “the UE may run the BWP inactivity timer toward expiration (for example, increment from zero to the BWP inactivity timer value, or decrement from the BWP inactivity timer value to zero)”), wherein the data is transmitted via the third resource based at least in part on the inter-UE coordination message being received after the expiration of the other time period (Hui: para [0204], where, the data may be transmitted selecting third PUCCH resource).
Regarding claim 14, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 12, wherein the inter-UE coordination response delay budget corresponds to a timeline configuration indication provided by an upper layer of the UE to a physical layer of the UE (Hui: fig 32, para [0341], where, “The first wireless device may determine a selection window for the group of wireless devices in a duration of [n+T1, n+T2], where 1st PDB≤(n+T2)≤2nd PDB”), and wherein the inter-UE coordination response delay budget enables a latency associated with reserving the second resource to satisfy a condition associated with a packet delay budget associated with transmitting the data (Hui: fig 32, para [0341], where, “The first wireless device may determine a selection window for the group of wireless devices in a duration of [n+T1, n+T2], where 1st PDB≤(n+T2)≤2nd PDB”).
Regarding claim 15, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 14, wherein the condition is satisfied when an amount of time associated with selecting the third resource, reserving the third resource, transmitting the data, and retransmitting the data is less than the packet delay budget (Hui: fig 32, para [0341], where, “The first wireless device may determine a selection window for the group of wireless devices in a duration of [n+T1, n+T2], where 1st PDB≤(n+T2)≤2nd PDB”).
Regarding claim 16, Hui modified by Farag tech: 16. The UE of claim 14, wherein the condition is satisfied when a remaining portion of the inter-UE coordination packet delay budget is less than, or equal to, a minimum time interval, wherein the minimum time interval is preconfigured or configured by an upper layer of the UE (Hui: fig 27, para [0277], where, “The higher layer (e.g., RRC layer and/or MAC layer) of the wireless device may perform the second action based on the reported the subset of resources from the physical layer”), and wherein the inter-UE coordination request indicates one or more of the time period or the other time period (Hui: fig 27 and fig 29, para [0324], where, “The coordinating wireless device may trigger resource selection procedure multiple times for the selecting of the plurality sets of resources”),
Regarding claim 19, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 17, wherein the inter-UE coordination message is retransmitted based at least in part on receiving the inter-UE coordination message feedback indicating the negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination message, and wherein the inter-UE coordination message feedback corresponds to a retransmission of the inter-IE coordination request (Farag: fig 12 and fig 13A-F, para [0184], where, “FIG. 13C illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300c, e.g., for Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (1), m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (equivalent to “second resource”) (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource)”).
Regarding claim 20, Hui modified by Farag tech: 20. The LE of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select a resource for retransmitting the inter-UE coordination message based at least in part on receiving the inter-UE coordination message feedback indicating the negative acknowledgement associated with the inter-UE coordination message or based at least in part on not receiving the inter-UE coordination message feedback within the time period (Farag: fig 12 and fig 13A-F, para [0184], where, “FIG. 13C illustrates a PSFCH signaling design 1300c, e.g., for Groupcast HARQ-ACK reporting option (1), m.sub.cs=3, indicates a NACK with retransmission on reserved resource not preferred (equivalent to “second resource”) (e.g., no conflict detected on reserved resource)”).
Regarding claim 21, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit a positive acknowledgement associated with receiving the inter-UE coordination request (Hui: para [0202], where, “The UE may transmit UCI in a PUCCH resource using PUCCH format 0 if the transmission is over one or two symbols and the number of HARQ-ACK information bits with positive or negative SR (HARQ-ACK/SR bits) is one or two”) and perform a resource selection process associated with selecting the first resource based at least in part on receiving the inter-UE coordination request (Hui: fig 28-30, para [0324]), where, the 2nd wireless device/UE transmit one inter-UE coordination request via sidelink for a first set of resources to 1st wireless device/UE).
Regarding claim 22, Hui modified by Farag tech: 22. The UE of claim 17, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is received from another UE and indicates a set of candidate resources (Hui: fig 14B, para [0201]), where, “The UE may monitor a set of PDCCH candidates in one or more CORESETs for detecting one or more DCIs”), wherein the other UE determines the set of candidate resources based at least in part on sensing information obtained by the other UE (Hui: fig 25, para [0273]), where, “The wireless device may determine a resource collision between the first resources and other resources reserved by another wireless device”).
Regarding claim 23, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 22, wherein the coordination information indicates that a candidate resource, included in the set of candidate resources, corresponds to a preferred resource or a non-preferred resource (Hui: fig 25, fig 28-30, para [0321]), where, the candidate resource of the wireless device/UE indicates preferred resource).
.
Regarding claim 24, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 22, wherein the first resource is included in the set of candidate resources, and wherein the coordination information indicates that the first resource is a preferred resource, and the other UE transmits the data via the first resource based at least in part on the coordination information indicating that the first resource is the preferred resource. (Hui: fig 25, fig 28-30, para [0321]), where, the candidate resource of the wireless device/UE indicates preferred resource).
Regarding claim 27, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 26, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted based at least in part on a remaining portion of a packet delay budget associated with transmitting the data satisfying a condition (Hui: fig 24, para [0271], where, “the wireless device may determine the parameter T2 subject to T2 min≤T2≤PDB, where the PDB (packet delay budget) may be the maximum allowable delay (e.g., a delay budget) for successfully transmitting the new data via the one or more sidelink transmissions”).
Regarding claim 28, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 26, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted with the data via a last reserved data transmission resource, a second to last reserved data transmission resource, or a reserved data transmission resource that is a quantity of slots from a reference time, wherein the reference time corresponds to a start time of a resource selection window occurring after the first resource is determined to be unavailable for transmitting the data (Farag: para [0095], where, “if the pre-selected and reserved resource is available in the candidate sidelink resource set, then the resource is used/signaled for sidelink transmission, otherwise the pre-selected and reserved resource is not available in the candidate sidelink resource set”), and wherein the quantity of slots corresponds to a time interval sufficient for retransmitting the inter-UE coordination request, receiving a new inter-UE coordination message, processing the new inter-UE coordination message, and selecting a new resource for transmitting the data (Hui: fig 24-26, para [0295], where, “The wireless device may assume that a set of L.sub.subCH contiguous sub-channels in the resource pool within a time interval [n+T.sub.1, n+T.sub.2] correspond to one candidate single-slot resource”).
Regarding claim 29, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 26, wherein transmitting the data is associated with a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) mode (Farag: para [0089], where, “The resources excluded are based on reserved transmissions or semi-persistent transmissions that can collide with the excluded resources or any of reserved or semi-persistent transmissions”), wherein the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted to reselect a resource for transmitting the data (Hui: fig 28-29, para [0223] and para [0324], the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted with PSSCH) and wherein the inter-UE coordination request is retransmitted during an SPS transmission period (Farag: para [0089], where, “The resources excluded are based on reserved transmissions or semi-persistent transmissions that can collide with the excluded resources or any of reserved or semi-persistent transmissions”),
Regarding claim 30, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 29, wherein the UE transmits the inter-UE coordination request (Hui: fig 25, fig 28-30, para [0324]), where, “a coordinating wireless device that receives more than one inter-UE coordination requests”) and the data to a same coordinating UE and a receiver of the data transmission (Hui: fig 20, para [0266], where, “The wireless device may transmit a second retransmission (2.sup.nd re-Tx in FIG. 20) of the first TB via a third resource of the three resources”), and wherein the retransmitted inter-UE coordination request is multiplexed with the data on a reserved data transmission resource (Farag: fig 4-5, para [0077], where, “the first SCI format is multiplexed on a PSCCH and the second SCI format is multiplexed along with SL data on a PSSCH that is transmitted in physical resources indicated by the first SCI format”).
Regarding claim 31, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 1, wherein the inter-UE coordination request is a self- contained inter-UE coordination request transmitted separately from a data transmission (Hui: fig 29, para [0324]-[0325], where, “The coordinating wireless device may trigger resource selection procedure multiple times for the selecting of the plurality sets of resources. FIG. 29 illustrates an example of a coordinating wireless device that receives more than one inter-UE coordination requests”).
Regarding claim 32, Hui modified by Farag tech: The UE of claim 1, wherein the negative acknowledgement indicates a decoding failure of the inter-UE coordination request at another UE (Farag: para [0081], where, “If the UE fails to correctly decode the TB, the UE multiplexes a negative acknowledgement (NACK) in a PSFCH transmission”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights