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 the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
On p. 20, line 5, "370to" should be replaced with --370 to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-10, 13, 19, 21-22, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan (US 2023/0095394 A1) in view of Ying (US 2017/0261615 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Srinivasan discloses a user equipment, comprising:
a first receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a first frequency band (660, Fig. 6);
a second receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a second frequency band (670, Fig. 6; ¶49);
one or more memories (630, Fig. 6); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the first receive chain, the second receive chain, and the one or more memories (210, Fig. 2; 610, Fig. 6; ¶35), the one or more processors being configured to:
measure signal conditions of the satellite positioning signals in the first frequency band and the second frequency band (750, Fig. 7);
determine whether the measured signal conditions meet positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7);
cause, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63), the first receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for first ON times, a first state and being OFF, for first OFF times, a second state and the second receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for second ON times, and being OFF, for second off times, such that each of the first ON times of the first receive chain at least partially overlaps with at least a corresponding one of the second ON times of the second receive chain (750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; Fig, 8-9; ¶70) [where, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750 resulting in YES), the first receive chain may result in 795 in combination with the other conditions of the first frequency band signals, and the second receiver chain may result in 795 in combination with the other conditions of the second frequency band signals. Fig. 8 explicitly illustrates the duty cycles fully overlapping. Fig. 9 explicitly illustrates the duty cycles of the first receive chain and the second receive chain partially overlapping. ¶70 describes a scenario where both duty cycles fully overlap (e.g. line 16) and a scenario where both duty cycles partially overlap (e.g. lines 34-36)]; and
causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between at least two consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (first receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; second receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7) [where the process repeats and when/as long as the conditions remain the same, the first receiver chain will continue to duty cycle and the second receive chain will continue to be ON].
Srinivasan fails to teach measuring elevations of satellite vehicles acquired using the first receive chain or the second receive chain.
Ying teaches setting an acceptable carrier to noise ratio as a function of elevation (¶157-159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately determine the signal conditions for each satellite signal by taking into account that satellite signals received at a receiver from a satellite at different elevations travel through different path lengths of atmosphere, and thus are expected to have different carrier to noise ratios/signal strengths during the same signal conditions (i.e. in perfect signal conditions without obstructions or multipath, a signal from a satellite directly above will travel through less atmosphere that a signal from a satellite near the horizon, and thus the signal from the satellite directly above will have a higher signal strength, but not be subject to any less multipath that the signal from the satellite near the horizon).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the signal conditions affecting each signal are more accurately determined.
In the combination, the carrier to noise ratio test in 750, Fig. 7 of Srinvasan will be a function of frequency, and thus the result of the test is based on both carrier to noise ratio/signal strength and elevation. Thus, in the combination, when the measured signal conditions comprising the combination meet the positioning performance criteria (for the first frequency band signal: 750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63; added 755, Fig. 7 being NO (downward)), the first receive chain is caused to duty cycle (750 to 755 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7) and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (for the second frequency band signal: 750 to 755 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7; ¶64).
In regard to claim 7, Srinivasan further discloses causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be ON for at least three consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (first receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; second receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7) [where the process repeats and when/as long as the conditions remain the same over at least three cycles of the process, the first receiver chain will continue to duty cycle and the second receive chain will continue to be ON for at least three consecutive ON times of the first receive chain].
In regard to claim 9, Srinivasan further discloses:
measuring signal conditions of the satellite positioning signals in the first frequency band and the second frequency band over at least a first time interval (750, Fig. 7);
determining whether the measured signal conditions over at least the first time interval meet the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7); and
causing, based on the measured signal conditions over the at least first time interval failing to meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to change from being duty cycled to being continuously ON over at least a second time interval (795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 10, Srinivasan further discloses causing the first receive chain to change, between a beginning of the second time interval and an end of the second time interval, from being duty cycled to being continuously ON (795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 730 to 732 to 733 to 710, Fig. 7) [where each time interval as claimed is completely arbitrary and can be defined in any way, such as each subsequent time interval beginning/each previous time interval ending whenever step 710 begins. In that case, step 733 occurs before looping to step 710, and thus the change from being duty cycled to being continuously ON occurs before the end of the second time interval at following step 710].
In regard to claim 25, Srinivasan discloses a user equipment, comprising:
means for measuring signal conditions of satellite positioning signals received using a first receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a first frequency band and a second receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a second frequency band (210, Fig. 2; 610, Fig. 6; ¶35; 750, Fig. 7);
means for determining whether the measured signal conditions meet positioning performance criteria (210, Fig. 2; 610, Fig. 6; ¶35; 750, Fig. 7); and
means for (210, Fig. 2; 610, Fig. 6; ¶35) causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63),
causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63), the first receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for first ON times, a first state and being OFF, for first OFF times, a second state and the second receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for second ON times, and being OFF, for second off times, such that each of the first ON times of the first receive chain at least partially overlaps with at least a corresponding one of the second ON times of the second receive chain (750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; Fig, 8-9; ¶70) [where, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750 resulting in YES), the first receive chain may result in 795 in combination with the other conditions of the first frequency band signals, and the second receiver chain may result in 795 in combination with the other conditions of the second frequency band signals. Fig. 8 explicitly illustrates the duty cycles fully overlapping. Fig. 9 explicitly illustrates the duty cycles of the first receive chain and the second receive chain partially overlapping. ¶70 describes a scenario where both duty cycles fully overlap and a scenario where both duty cycles partially overlap]; and
means for (210, Fig. 2; 610, Fig. 6; ¶35) causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between at least two consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (first receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; second receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7) [where the process repeats and when/as long as the conditions remain the same, the first receiver chain will continue to duty cycle and the second receive chain will continue to be ON].
Srinivasan fails to teach measuring elevations of satellite vehicles acquired using the first receive chain or the second receive chain.
Ying teaches setting an acceptable carrier to noise ratio as a function of elevation (¶157-159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately determine the signal conditions for each satellite signal by taking into account that satellite signals received at a receiver from a satellite at different elevations travel through different path lengths of atmosphere, and thus are expected to have different carrier to noise ratios/signal strengths during the same signal conditions (i.e. in perfect signal conditions without obstructions or multipath, a signal from a satellite directly above will travel through less atmosphere that a signal from a satellite near the horizon, and thus the signal from the satellite directly above will have a higher signal strength, but not be subject to any less multipath that the signal from the satellite near the horizon).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the signal conditions affecting each signal are more accurately determined.
In the combination, the carrier to noise ratio test in 750, Fig. 7 of Srinvasan will be a function of frequency, and thus the result of the test is based on both carrier to noise ratio/signal strength and elevation. Thus, in the combination, when the measured signal conditions comprising the combination meet the positioning performance criteria (for the first frequency band signal: 750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63; added 755, Fig. 7 being NO (downward)), the first receive chain is caused to duty cycle (750 to 755 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7) and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (for the second frequency band signal: 750 to 755 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7; ¶64).
In regard to claim 28, Srinivasan discloses a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions (630, Fig. 6) to cause one or more processors of a user equipment (210, Fig. 2; 610, Fig. 6; ¶3) to:
measure signal conditions of satellite positioning signals received using a first receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a first frequency band and a second receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a second frequency band (750, Fig. 7);
determine whether the measured signal conditions meet positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7); and
cause, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63), the first receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for first ON times, a first state and being OFF, for first OFF times, a second state and the second receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for second ON times, and being OFF, for second off times, such that each of the first ON times of the first receive chain at least partially overlaps with at least a corresponding one of the second ON times of the second receive chain (750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; ¶70, lines 34-37) [where, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria (750 resulting in YES), the first receive chain may result in 795 in combination with the other conditions of the first frequency band signals, and the second receiver chain may result in 795 in combination with the other conditions of the second frequency band signals. ¶70 describes a scenario where both duty cycles fully overlap (e.g. line 16) and a scenario where both duty cycles partially overlap (e.g. lines 34-36)]; and
causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between at least two consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (first receive chain: 795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7; second receive chain: 733 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7) [where the process repeats and when/as long as the conditions remain the same, the first receiver chain will continue to duty cycle and the second receive chain will continue to be ON].
Srinivasan fails to teach measuring elevations of satellite vehicles acquired using the first receive chain or the second receive chain.
Ying teaches setting an acceptable carrier to noise ratio as a function of elevation (¶157-159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately determine the signal conditions for each satellite signal by taking into account that satellite signals received at a receiver from a satellite at different elevations travel through different path lengths of atmosphere, and thus are expected to have different carrier to noise ratios/signal strengths during the same signal conditions (i.e. in perfect signal conditions without obstructions or multipath, a signal from a satellite directly above will travel through less atmosphere that a signal from a satellite near the horizon, and thus the signal from the satellite directly above will have a higher signal strength, but not be subject to any less multipath that the signal from the satellite near the horizon).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the signal conditions affecting each signal are more accurately determined.
In the combination, the carrier to noise ratio test in 750, Fig. 7 of Srinvasan will be a function of frequency, and thus the result of the test is based on both carrier to noise ratio/signal strength and elevation. Thus, in the combination, when the measured signal conditions comprising the combination meet the positioning performance criteria (for the first frequency band signal: 750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63; added 755, Fig. 7 being NO (downward)), the first receive chain is caused to duty cycle (750 to 755 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7) and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (for the second frequency band signal: 750 to 755 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7; ¶64).
In regard to claim 13, Srinivasan discloses a satellite signal processing method, comprising:
measuring signal conditions of satellite positioning signals received using a first receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a first frequency band (660, Fig. 6) and a second receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a second frequency band (670, Fig. 6; ¶49; 750, Fig. 7);
determining whether the measured signal conditions meet positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7);
[the measured signal conditions failing to meet the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7 resulting in NO)].
In the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria does not occur, and thus the final step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
In the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria does not occur, and thus the step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
Thus, the limitations addressed above have been shown to be anticipated by Srinivasan.
However, if the claim were amended to make the signal condition meeting the performance criteria a positively-recited limitation, Srinivasan further discloses an embodiment where the signal condition meets the performance criteria and the final claimed step occurs, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Srinivasan fails to teach determining elevations of satellite vehicles acquired using the first receive chain or the second receive chain.
Ying teaches setting an acceptable carrier to noise ratio as a function of elevation (¶157-159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately determine the signal conditions for each satellite signal by taking into account that satellite signals received at a receiver from a satellite at different elevations travel through different path lengths of atmosphere, and thus are expected to have different carrier to noise ratios/signal strengths during the same signal conditions (i.e. in perfect signal conditions without obstructions or multipath, a signal from a satellite directly above will travel through less atmosphere that a signal from a satellite near the horizon, and thus the signal from the satellite directly above will have a higher signal strength, but not be subject to any less multipath that the signal from the satellite near the horizon).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the signal conditions affecting each signal are more accurately determined.
In the combination, the carrier to noise ratio test in 750, Fig. 7 of Srinvasan will be a function of frequency, and thus the result of the test is based on both carrier to noise ratio/signal strength and elevation. Thus, in the combination, when the measured signal conditions comprising the combination meet the positioning performance criteria (for the first frequency band signal: 750, Fig. 7 being YES; ¶63; added 755, Fig. 7 being NO (downward)), the first receive chain is caused to duty cycle (750 to 755 to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795, Fig. 7) and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (for the second frequency band signal: 750 to 755 to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7; ¶64).
In regard to claim 19, in the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria does not occur, and thus the step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
In regard to claim 21, Srinivasan further discloses
measuring signal conditions of the satellite positioning signals in the first frequency band and the second frequency band over at least a first time interval (750, Fig. 7);
determining whether the measured signal conditions over at least the first time interval meet the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7); and
causing, based on the measured signal conditions over the at least first time interval failing to meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to change from being duty cycled to being continuously ON over at least a second time interval (795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 22, Srinivasan further discloses causing the first receive chain to change, between a beginning of the second time interval and an end of the second time interval, from being duty cycled to being continuously ON (795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 730 to 732 to 733 to 710, Fig. 7) [where each time interval as claimed is completely arbitrary and can be defined in any way, such as each subsequent time interval beginning/each previous time interval ending whenever step 710 begins. In that case, step 733 occurs before looping to step 710, and thus the change from being duty cycled to being continuously ON occurs before the end of the second time interval at following step 710].
Claim(s) 5-6 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan and Ying, as applied to claims 1 and 13, above, and further in view of Krasner (US 2002/0084933 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Srinvasan further discloses comparing measured signal conditions of individual satellite signals to performance criteria (720, 740, 750, Fig. 7).
Srinvasan and Ying fail to disclose the measured signal conditions comprise occurrence of cycle slips on the first frequency band or the second frequency band, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause, based on the measured signal conditions comprising the occurrence of the cycle slips meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain.
Krasner teaches that cycle slips are a measure of poor signal conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the occurrence of cycle slips as a measure of measured signal conditions into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further ensure that signal conditions are good before implementing or reducing a duty cycle (i.e. determining position less often).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that an additional chance of detecting poor signal conditions is added to the system/method of Srinvasan to prevent implementing or reducing a duty cycle in poor signal conditions.
In the combination, an additional signal condition test would be added among steps 720, 740, 750, where, when the measured signal conditions comprising the occurrence of the cycle slips meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle (for the first frequency band signal: YES output downward from a decision step 755 inserted below 750 in Fig. 7 of Srinvasan to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795) and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (for the second frequency band signal: YES output downward from a decision step 755 inserted below 750 in Fig. 7 of Srinvasan to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 6, Srinvasan further discloses measuring the strengths of the satellite positioning signals received on the first frequency band or the second frequency band (750, Fig. 7) [where carrier to noise ratio is a well known measure of signal strength].
Krasner further teaches measuring the occurrence of the cycle slips received on the first frequency band or the second frequency band (¶77), as detailed in the rejection of claim 5, above.
Ying further teaches setting an acceptable carrier to noise ratio as a function of elevation (¶157-159).
In regard to claim 17, Srinvasan further discloses comparing measured signal conditions of individual satellite signals to performance criteria (720, 740, 750, Fig. 7).
Srinvasan and Ying fail to disclose the measured signal conditions comprise occurrence of cycle slips on the first frequency band or the second frequency band, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause, based on the measured signal conditions comprising the occurrence of the cycle slips meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain.
Krasner teaches that cycle slips are a measure of poor signal conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the occurrence of cycle slips as a measure of measured signal conditions into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further ensure that signal conditions are good before implementing or reducing a duty cycle (i.e. determining position less often).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that an additional chance of detecting poor signal conditions is added to the system/method of Srinvasan to prevent implementing or reducing a duty cycle in poor signal conditions.
In the combination, an additional signal condition test would be added among steps 720, 740, 750, where, when the measured signal conditions comprising the occurrence of the cycle slips meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle (for the first frequency band signal: YES output downward from a decision step 755 inserted below 750 in Fig. 7 of Srinvasan to 760 to 770 to 780 to 790 to 795) and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between consecutive ON times of the first receive chain (for the second frequency band signal: YES output downward from a decision step 755 inserted below 750 in Fig. 7 of Srinvasan to 760 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7).
In the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of added 755, Fig. 7 of Srinvasan (Are there cycle slips?) is NO (downward), the condition of the measured signal conditions failing to meet meeting positioning performance criteria does not occur, and thus the final step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
Thus, the claim has been shown to be obvious.
In regard to claim 18, Srinvasan further discloses measuring the strengths of the satellite positioning signals received on the first frequency band or the second frequency band (750, Fig. 7) [where carrier to noise ratio is a well known measure of signal strength].
Krasner further teaches measuring the occurrence of the cycle slips received on the first frequency band or the second frequency band (¶77), as detailed in the rejection of claim 5, above.
Ying further teaches setting an acceptable carrier to noise ratio as a function of elevation (¶157-159).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-10, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
1006
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ying has relevance to identifying what an acceptable C/N threshold should be for a GNSS satellite. Ying teaches that the expected C/N from a satellite depends on the elevation of the satellite. The addition of Ying allows Srinvasan to more accurately determine what the C/N threshold should be. It is further noted that Srinvasan explicitly disclosed determining whether or not there is jamming (e.g. 770, Fig. 7), so that Ying is relevant to Srinvasan for that additional reason. One of ordinary skill in the art would find Ying to be analogous art for both the foregoing reasons, and based on the teachings of Ying would improve the accuracy of the C/N threshold of Srinvasan by setting the C/N threshold based on the elevation of the corresponding satellite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights