DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, and 18 have been amended. Claims 6 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 8 and 19 have been previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “First, in Venugopal, the base station sends a set of RRC parameter values to the UE, and the UE then derives an operational mode by mapping those values via a lookup table. As Venugopal explains, ‘the UE 504 may receive the at least one indication 524 of at least one operational mode from the base station 502 as a set of values for a set of RRC parameters, and the UE 504 may derive the at least one operational mode based on mapping the set of RRC parameter values to the at least one operational mode, e.g., using a lookup table.’ Venugopal, paragraph [0133]. Similarly, paragraph [0184] states that ‘the UE may determine the at least one operational mode based on the set of values respectively configured for a set of RRC parameters, which may map to at least one operational mode of multiple potential operational modes.’ Venugopal, paragraph [0184]. In contrast, claim 1 as amended recites that the first value candidate set is determined by the network device based on the terminal type indicated by first feature information, the value candidate set of the RRC parameter corresponding to the terminal type is a subset of a full value set of the RRC parameter, and a first value is selected by the network device from the first value candidate set. Venugopal fails to disclose any of these limitations.”
Reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0133], [0203] and [Fig. 6] of HE teach sending UE assistance information indicating a UE type. Furthermore, at least paragraph [0221] of VENUGOPL teaches a network device may determine and configure a value set of RRC parameters to indicate an operational mode of a terminal. This configuration is determined based on the terminal type indicated by the UE assistance information.
Therefore, a person having ordinary level of skill in the art, considering the teachings of VENUGOPAL in view of the teaching of He, would find it obvious that the first value candidate set is determined by the network device based on the terminal type indicated by the UE assistance information. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Second Argument
Applicant argues “Second, Venugopal's ‘operational mode’ is not a terminal type. Venugopal defines the operational mode as ‘a MIMO scheme, a multiplexing mode, a joint transmission scheme, and/or another transmission scheme,’ including ‘one or more of single-user (SU) MIMO, multiple user (MU) MIMO, a number of layers or streams, a number of codewords (e.g., per TB), a TB size, a DM-RS configuration.’ Venugopal, paragraph [0121]. Venugopal further states that the operational mode may include ‘an eMBB use case, a URLLC use case, mMTC use case, and/or other use case, purpose, and/or service.’ Venugopal, paragraph [0122]. Paragraph [0221] explains that ‘a combination of the set of respective values (and/or a combination of a subset of the set of respective values) indicates at least one operational mode that includes a multiplexing mode combined with a use case,’ such as ‘an SDM mode in combination with an eMBB use case’ or ‘an FDM mode in combination with a URLLC use case.’ Venugopal, paragraph [0221]. These are transmission scheme attributes or use cases, not terminal types.”
Reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0218], [0120], [0118-0123], [0178], [0184], [0219-0221], and [element 524 of Fig. 5] of Venugopal teach that a terminal or network device may determine at least one operational mode associated with the UE based on characteristics and/or capabilities of the UE to include the type of the UE. Because the terminal is able to determine the type of the UE, it is implied that the RRC parameter values sent to the UE would indicate the type of the terminal in order to facilitate communication between the terminal and UE. It is well known in the art that RRC parameters indicate the capabilities and behavior of a device, therefore indicating the type of terminal the RRC parameters correspond to for communication.
Therefore, a person having ordinary level of skill in the art, considering the teachings of VENUGOPAL in combination with He, would find it obvious that the determination of an operational mode of a terminal may also indicate the terminal type. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Third Argument
Applicant argues “Third, He's UE assistance information is a preference request whose values may be overridden by the base station, and does not determine a terminal type. As the Examiner acknowledged, He discloses that ‘the radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message may configure one or more RRC parameters of the UE 602 with values that are different from the requested parameter values in the UE assistance information message 616.’ He, paragraph [0133]. The values requested in the UE assistance information message are simply preferences that can be overridden by the base station. This is fundamentally different from the claimed first value candidate set that is determined by the network device based on the terminal type indicated by first feature information, and a first value that is selected by the network device from the first value candidate set.”
Reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification, the factors that determine a terminal’s type include at least one of the following: a service type, mobility, a transmission latency requirement, a channel environment, a reliability requirement, a coverage requirement, and a communication scenario (e.g. paragraph [0021] from the specification). In other words, from the network device’s perspective, the communication requirements of the terminal device is what determines the terminal’s type. These requirements are expressed as RRC parameter values preferred by the terminal for optimal operation.
He discloses the ability for the UE to request the RRC parameter values through the transmission of a UE assistance information message (He [0133]-[0135] and [0203]; Fig. 6). The RRC parameters indicate the capability and requirements of the system, which indicate the type of terminal the RRC parameters are associated with. Even though the values requested in the UE assistance message are considered preferences and may be overridden by the base station, they are still preferences which detail the capabilities and requirements of the system that detail the type of terminal they correspond to. Although the preferences may be overridden, this does not negate the fact that the requested values indicate the preferences, capabilities, and requirements of the system, and therefore the type of the terminal. Furthermore, He can be viewed to disclose at least two main types of UEs, UEs with reduced capabilities and premium smartphones, each having unique communication requirements (He [0203] “For example, these new categories of parameters may improve the performance of different types of UEs (e.g., UEs with reduced capabilities, premium smartphones, etc.) by allowing each UE to change parameters associated with its processing capabilities and/or power saving objectives.”). Reduced capability UEs have more stringent power requirements as compared to premium smartphones (He [0102] “Some types of UEs in a network may have reduced capabilities (also referred to as reduced capability (RedCap) UEs)… UEs with reduced capabilities (e.g., smartwatches) typically generate more traffic than NB-IoT devices but less traffic than eMBB smartphones. Moreover, UEs with reduced capabilities are typically more sensitive to power consumption than eMBB smartphones.” and [0104] “UEs with reduced capabilities may benefit from the use of UE assistance information because these types of UEs are sensitive to power consumption and many of the radio capabilities of these types of UEs are expected to be reduced…”). Since each terminal type has different communication requirements, the UE assistance information contains information which uniquely identifies the terminal type.
Therefore, a person having ordinary level of skill in the art, considering the teachings of VENUGOPAL in view of the teaching of He, would find it obvious that the UE assistance information contains information which indicates the terminal type. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Fourth Argument
Applicant argues “Fourth, the Examiner's reliance on inherency and ‘well known in the art’ assertions are unsupported. MPEP § 2112(IV) states that ‘[i]n relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.’ Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). The Examiner has not provided any factual basis or technical reasoning to support the assertion that RRC parameters ‘inherently’ indicate the terminal type. The mere fact that different devices may have different capabilities does not mean that RRC parameter values necessarily indicate a terminal type.”
Reply: This argument is rendered moot due to further clarification of the Examiner’s arguments which no longer cite the theory of inherency.
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENUGOPAL et al. (US 20210194658 A1) hereinafter VENUGOPAL, in view of HE et al. (US 20220022057 A1) hereinafter HE.
Regarding claim 1,
VENUGOPAL teaches a communication method (Figs. 5-7), comprising:
determining, by a terminal device, a first value candidate set (UE determining a set of RRC parameters [0133], [0184], and [0221]),
wherein the first value candidate set corresponds to a terminal type of the terminal device (the set of RRC parameters corresponding to at least one operational mode [0184] and [0221]),
and the first value candidate set comprises a value candidate set of a radio resource control (RRC) parameter corresponding to the terminal type (set and/or subset of RRC parameters corresponding to at least one operational mode [0184] and [0221]);
wherein the value candidate set of the RRC parameter corresponding to the terminal type is a subset of a full value set of the RRC parameter (subset of a set of RRC parameters [0184] and [0221]), and
different terminal types correspond to different first value candidate sets (a network device may configure a value set of RRC parameters to indicate an operational mode of a terminal, and terminal may determine an operational mode based on the set of RRC parameters received. This configuration implies that different value candidate sets correspond to different terminal types. [0184] and [0221]),
wherein determining the first value candidate set comprises receiving, by the terminal device, the first value candidate set from a network device (receiving values of each of the set of the RRC parameters from the base station [0118]-[0123], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; element 524 of Fig. 5), and
wherein the first value candidate set is determined by the network device based on the terminal type indicated by first feature information (a network device may determine and configure a value set of RRC parameters to indicate an operational mode of a terminal. This configuration is determined based on the terminal type indicated by the UE assistance information [0184] and [0221]);
receiving, by the terminal device, a first value from the network device, wherein the first value comprises a group of RRC parameter values in the first value candidate set (receiving values of each of the set of the RRC parameters from the base station [0118]-[0123], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; element 524 of Fig. 5);
and performing, by the terminal device, communication based on the first value (the UE transmitting group-based report based on using the received values which determine an operational mode [0123], [0171], and [0202]-[0203]).
VENUGOPAL does not explicitly teach sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type.
HE teaches sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type (sending UE assistance information message indicating UE type [0133] and [0203]; element 616 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of HE to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (HE [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 2,
VENUGOPAL and HE teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches a type of the RRC parameter corresponding to the terminal type comprises one or more of a data transmission configuration parameter, a channel state information (CSI) measurement and feedback configuration parameter (RRC IE configuring the UE for CSI reporting [0119]),
an initial access configuration parameter, a mobility configuration parameter, a power control configuration parameter, or a beam management configuration parameter (RRC parameter for the number of TCI states [0123], [0179], [0220], and [0242]).
Regarding claim 5,
VENUGOPAL and HE teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches the value candidate set of the RRC parameter indicates a configuration manner of the RRC parameter, and wherein the configuration manner comprises one of: a configuration parameter field, and the configuration parameter field comprises a configuration parameter of the configuration manner; or a configuration parameter (set and/or subset of RRC parameters [0184] and [0221]).
Regarding claim 7,
VENUGOPAL and HE teach all the features of claim 1
VENUGOPAL further teaches the value candidate set of the RRC parameter corresponding to the terminal type (set and/or subset of RRC parameters corresponding to at least one operational mode [0184] and [0221]).
VENUGOPAL does not explicitly teach before request information to the network device, wherein the first request information requests the value candidate set.
HE teaches before (before receiving RRC reconfiguration message with the RRC parameters [0133]; Fig. 6);
sending, by the terminal device, first request information to the network device, wherein the first request information requests the value candidate set (sending UE assistance information message requesting RRC parameter values [0133]; element 616 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of HE to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (HE [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 9,
VENUGOPAL and HE teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches the terminal type is determined based on one or more of a service type, mobility, a transmission latency requirement, a channel environment, a reliability requirement, a coverage requirement, or a communication scenario (operational mode based on use case [0122]).
Claims [12-13, 16, 18, and 20] “terminal device” (UE apparatus [0238]-[0258]; Fig. 8) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1-2, 5, 7, and 9] “communication method”, respectively.
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENUGOPAL and HE in further view of Zhou et al. (US 20190208436 A1) hereinafter ZHOU.
Regarding claim 3,
VENUGOPAL and HE teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches wherein at least one of: the terminal type is an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) device (UE operating in eMBB [0019]),
a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the eMBB device comprises the channel state information (CSI) measurement and feedback configuration parameter (RRC IE configuring the UE for CSI reporting [0119]);
and the beam management configuration parameter (RRC parameter for the number of TCI states [0123], [0179], [0220], and [0242]);
the terminal type is an ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) device, a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the URLLC device comprises the data transmission configuration parameter, the CSI measurement and feedback configuration parameter, and the beam management configuration parameter; the terminal type is an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the IoT comprises the data transmission configuration parameter, the initial access configuration parameter, and the mobility configuration parameter; or the terminal type is customer premises equipment (CPE), a type of an RRC parameter corresponding to the CPE comprises the data transmission configuration parameter and the CSI measurement and feedback configuration parameter.
VENUGOPAL and HE do not explicitly teach the RRC parameter comprising the data transmission configuration parameter, the initial access configuration parameter, the mobility configuration parameter, and the power control configuration parameter.
ZHOU teaches the RRC parameter comprising the data transmission configuration parameter (configuration parameters configuring numerology [0168] and [0297]) , the initial access configuration parameter (configuration parameters for cell activation [0262]-[0263]),
the mobility configuration parameter (configuration parameters configuring mobility [0262]-[0263]),
and the power control configuration parameter (configuration parameters controlling power consumption [0262]-[0263]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of ZHOU to the teachings of VENUGOPAL and HE. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would save power (ZHOU [0262]).
Regarding claim 4,
VENUGOPAL and HE and ZHOU teach all the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL further teaches at least one of: the terminal type is the eMBB device, a value candidate set of a CSI reporting time domain configuration parameter in the CSI measurement and feedback configuration parameter is periodic reporting, aperiodic reporting, and semi-persistent reporting (RRC IE configuring the UE for CSI reporting [0110] and [0119]).
VENUGOPAL and HE do not explicitly teach a value candidate set of a subcarrier spacing configuration parameter in the data transmission configuration parameter is 15 kHz, 30 kHz, 120 kHz, and 240 kHz, and a value candidate set of a beam failure recovery timing parameter in the beam management configuration parameter is 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 60 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, and 200 ms;
Zhou teaches a value candidate set of a subcarrier spacing configuration parameter in the data transmission configuration parameter is 15 kHz, 30 kHz, 120 kHz, and 240 kHz (configured SCS from 15 upto 480 KHz [0168] and [0308]),
and a value candidate set of a beam failure recovery timing parameter in the beam management configuration parameter is 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 60 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, and 200 ms (configuration parameter for BFR timer value comprising 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 60 ms, 80 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, and 200 ms [0391]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of ZHOU to the teachings of VENUGOPAL and HE. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance beam failure recovery (ZHOU [0386]).
Claims [14 and 15] “terminal device” (UE apparatus [0238]-[0258]; Fig. 8) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [3 and 4] “communication method”, respectively.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENUGOPAL and HE, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 20190394758 A1) hereinafter CHENG.
Regarding claim 10,
VENUGOPAL teaches a communication method (Figs. 5-7), comprising:
receiving, by the terminal device, indication information from the network device (receiving set of values from the base station via DCI [0118]-[0120], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; element 524 of Fig. 5),
wherein the indication information indicates a downlink control information (DCI) parameter corresponding to the terminal type and a candidate set of a value of the DCI parameter (the DCI indication comprising a set of values as parameters and at least one value from the set of values corresponding to at least one operational mode [0118]-[0123] and [0184]), and
wherein the DCI parameter corresponding to the terminal type and the candidate set of the value of the DCI parameter are determined by the network device based on the terminal type indicated by the first feature information (a network device may determine and configure a value set of parameters, transmitted via DCI, to indicate an operational mode of a terminal. This configuration is determined based on the terminal type indicated by the UE assistance information. [0184] and [0221]);
receiving, by the terminal device, (receiving set of values from the base station via DCI [0118]-[0120], [0178], [0184], and [0219]-[0221]; element 524 of Fig. 5),
wherein the first DCI comprises values of a plurality of DCI parameters (the DCI indication comprising a set of values [0118]-[0123]),
a DCI parameter from the plurality of DCI parameters comprised in the first DCI corresponds to the terminal type of the terminal device (at least one value from the set of values corresponding to at least one operational mode [0118]-[0123] and [0184]),
a candidate set of the value of the DCI parameter corresponds to the terminal type (set of values including at least one value indicating operational mode, indicating the terminal type [0118]-[0123] and [0184),
and the candidate set comprises at least one value of the DCI parameter corresponding to the terminal type (set of values including at least one value indicating operational mode [0118]-[0123] and [0184);
wherein the value of the DCI parameter comprised in the first DCI is selected by the network device from the candidate set of the value of the DCI parameter (a network device may determine and configure a value set of parameters, transmitted via DCI, to indicate an operational mode of a terminal. This configuration is determined based on the candidate set. [0184] and [0221]),
and performing, by the terminal device, communication based on the first DCI (the UE transmitting group-based report based on using the received values which determine an operational mode [0123], [0171], and [0202]-[0203]).
VENUGOPAL does not explicitly teach sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type.
HE teaches sending, by the terminal device, first feature information to the network device, wherein the first feature information indicates the terminal type (sending UE assistance information message indicating UE type [0133] and [0203]; element 616 of Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of HE to the teachings of VENUGOPAL. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce signaling overhead (HE [0006]-[0007]).
VENOGUPAL and HE do not explicitly teach, however CHENG teaches wherein a quantity of bits of the DCI parameter in the first DCI is a quantity of bits corresponding to the candidate set of the value of the DCI parameter corresponding to the terminal type, the quantity of bits being determined based on the terminal type (it is well known in the art that a quantity of bits of a DCI parameter is determined by the DCI format used, which corresponds to the terminal type [0081]), and
wherein different terminal types correspond to different candidate sets of the value of the DCI parameter (different candidate sets are determined for use based on which DCI format is used, and each DCI format is determined based on the terminal type it corresponds to, indicating that each candidate set corresponds to a terminal type [0081]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of CHENG to the teachings of VENUGOPAL and HE. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it handles multiple service types while keeping low overhead (Cheng [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 11,
VENUGOPAL and HE teach all the features of claim 10, as outlined above.
VENUGOPAL and HE do not explicitly teach determining, by the terminal device, a first DCI format, wherein the first DCI format corresponds to the terminal type; and receiving, by the terminal device, the first DCI from the network device based on the first DCI format.
CHENG teaches determining, by the terminal device, a first DCI format, wherein the first DCI format corresponds to the terminal type (UE determining DCI format corresponding to a service type [0081]); and receiving, by the terminal device, the first DCI from the network device based on the first DCI format (UE receiving DCI from base station based on the DCI format [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of CHENG to the teachings of VENUGOPAL and HE. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it handles multiple service types while keeping low overhead (CHENG [0002]-[0004]).
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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Ayman A Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2429
/AYMAN A ABAZA/SPE, Art Unit 2429
