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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Amendments in RCE of 04/20/2026 is/are entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are amended (04/20/2026) to recite, among other things, the following: “ in response to detecting that the user equipment can communicate with only one access point among the respective access points and the radio performance between the one access point and the user equipment is below a predetermined threshold, the one access point signaling the user equipment to scan for and access a cellular radio service”
The amended limitations are not sufficiently supported by the Specification, if at all.
Specifically:
The amended claim languages establishes an additional factor to trigger the access point to signal the UE to perform scanning other than the original condition of radio performance, which is detecting by the one access point that the user equipment can communicate with only one access point among others.
Regarding this topic, the Specification in ¶0025 and 0026 state the following:
[0025] 3. As will be detailed below, APs including AP 127 (and gNB 110) establish 5G domain boundary 222 (i.e., a point where the 5G signal becomes available, albeit weak). When UE 105 reaches that point, AP 127 signals to UE 105 to begin scanning for 5G service.
[0026] 4. APs in a deployment also establish WLAN usability boundary 211 (a point beyond which WLAN performance may falter) and WLAN domain boundary212 (a limit of the WLAN domain). These points can be determined using various techniques. For the WLAN usability boundary, techniques may rely on the recording of previous UE traffic, and the determination of points where retries, failure, delay or jitter exceed target thresholds. For the WLAN domain boundary 212, different techniques are also available, such as AP-based embodiments, where APs exchange messages (e.g., neighbor discovery messages) and build a constellation map where the APs end up detecting which APs are surrounded by other APs (and thus not at the edge of the WLAN domain boundary 212), and which APs are at the edge (they are at the edge of the WLAN domain boundary 212). In UE-based embodiments, APs share (e.g., to each other or to WLC 125) messages heard from UE 105. When nearing an edge of a cell, UE 105 scans (sends probe requests) all channels. By sharing the UE messages, the APs (or the WLC 125) detect when a given UE is heard only by a single AP (thus concluding that it is at the edge of WLAN domain boundary 212. In another embodiment, UEs roam, and the APs (or the WLC 125) draw a traversal graph of the coverage area (i.e., a next AP for each previous AP). APs that do not have children (UE exits the WLAN domain after these APs) are WLAN domain edge APs.
Additionally, in ¶0083, the Specification states “monitoring radio performance between an access point of a wireless local area network and a user equipment in a wireless local area network, and in response to detecting that the radio performance is below a predetermined threshold, the access point signaling the user equipment to scan for and access a cellular radio service”.
It can be seen that, while the Specification indeed offers different alternative approaches to trigger the access point to signal the UE to scan and access a new network (i.e. by virtual of performance threshold means vs. sounding means (i.e. number of messages heard by UE)). There is no evidence the two approaches can be used together in combination, nor are they ever discussed in junction with one another in the Specification. And even if the Applicant might have intended for the two approaches to be used together originally when drafting the Specification, the Specification also fails to provide explicit, clear, and concise description of how these two separate trigger approaches can be integrated together in one combined algorithm/process.
The claim construction as amended raises another curious question: before scanning even occur (given that scanning is a process to gives the network and UE the knowledge of which and how many nearby access points in vicinity), how exactly the one access point could have known that the UE can only communicate with only one access point.
Furthermore, the amendment causes further concerns with the limitation “the one access point. From the context of the independent claim, the method seems to be done from the network node’s perspective, since the one access point is actively/currently in communication with the UE. Whether the one access point is the same with the recited “only one access point” or not, either of cases is in consistent with the disclosure of the Specification cited above.
The above discussion raises further question on whether the amended limitation is supported as a matter of technicality.
As such the independent claims are rejected for new matters in view of the above discussion. Dependent claims fail to remedy the shortcomings of their respective independent claims and thus are rejected in view of dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered. With regard to the new limitation of “ in response to detecting that the user equipment can communicate with only one access point among the respective access points and the radio performance between the one access point and the user equipment is below a predetermined threshold, the one access point signaling the user equipment to scan for and access a cellular radio service” , Reference of record Yu- EP 2642785 is revisited and has shown to cover such a detecting that the user equipment can communicate with only one access point among the respective access points in at least the new sections of Yu, i.e. ¶0151-0156, wherein the one access point determines from capability information of the UE that the UE has only one extra receiver, allowing the UE to communicate with one other cell/access point among other access points in vicinity. The ground of rejection has been modified and updated to incorporate Yu’s coverage of the new limitation. See the below discussions for detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2017/0026884) in view of Yu - EP 2642785 and in further view of Olson (WO 2008016778).
As to claim 1:
Singh discloses:
A method (Abstract, Fig. 1, system comprising cellular BS 150, and access point 125, for communication with MS 100s. ¶0048, switching between cellular and WLAN is controlled by the network using network-initiated commands) comprising:
monitoring radio performance between respective access points of a wireless local area network and a user equipment in a wireless local area network; (See at least ¶0059, 0060, “MS may be currently serviced by a BS or an AP,”, “ Similarly, if the MS is currently connected to the AP, (…) the threshold values may be provided via the AP, ” - The disclosed method applies to both directions, i.e. (A) transition from cellular to WLAN as well as (B) MS currently serviced by AP and to be transitioned to be serviced by cellular BS (which explicitly noted by Singh in ¶0061, “ it will be assumed the MS is serviced by a BS rather than an AP, but the method may be modified for the opposite case as well. For example, while the communications discussed in FIG. 7 relate to communications between the MS and the BS, they may be between the MS and the AP. Alternatively, the communications may still be between the MS and the BS, but the MS may be connected to the AP instead of the BS ”. ¶0067, 0069, 0070, radio performance indicators of the currently link is evaluated by the current network access point the MS is currently under. In the context of the claim, the AP is monitoring radio performance via performance indicators obtained of the WLAN link with the MS. ¶0052, The MS may perform measurements to find the relevant APs and may trigger an indication when an event occurs, reporting the measurement to the RAN)
and in response to detecting that the radio performance between the one access point and the user equipment is below a predetermined threshold, the one access point signaling the user equipment to scan for and access a cellular radio service. (¶0069, 0070, based on the performance indicator relative to a threshold, signaling the MS to start a transition to another network, i.e. in this case to a cellular radio network since the MS is currently to be serviced by WLAN. ¶0052, “the MS may perform measurements to find the relevant APs and may trigger an indication when an event occurs, reporting the measurement to the RAN. The RAN may evaluate if bearers should be moved to the AP and issue a traffic steering command to the MS. Accordingly, the MS may steer some or all the traffic to the AP based on the command”. ¶0049, “AP radio quality becomes worse than threshold 1 and BS radio quality becomes better than threshold 2—traffic steering from WLAN”)
Singh discloses the AP signaling the MS to start the transition operation the MS to be serviced by (i.e. gain access to) a cellular network, however does not explicitly disclose such operation includes the scanning for a cellular in view of such an alert signal from the network in response to detecting that the user equipment can communicate with only one access point among the respective access points and the radio performance between the one access point and the user equipment is below a predetermined threshold.
Yu, in a related field of transition between two different networks, discloses in at least ¶0038, 0039, ¶0132, that in response to a signal quality is below a threshold, the network to signal the UE to perform cell probing (i.e. scanning cells) before the handover. Yu further discloses in at least ¶0151-0153, wherein the access point obtains capability of the UE currently in communication, and the access point determines from the capability that the UE has one unused extra receiver beside the one receiver currently in use (i.e. UE currently only communicate with the current cell but also can communicate with just another neighbor cell using the one extra receiver), and thus allows the UE to scan/communicate with one neighbor cell using the extra receiver per ¶0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Singh, the AP side’s signaling include instruction to perform cell probing when the signal quality is below the threshold. This implementation is within contemplation of one of ordinary skill in the art because the MS in Singh’s system would need to know which options of cells in the vicinity to transition traffics to, thus implying a mechanism to detect such neighbor cells. Yu’s cell probing would aptly fit such mechanism, to advantageously ascertain handover options for the MS. It would be natural such a handover is necessitated when communication degrades below a threshold. Furthermore, examination of capability to determine whether the UE can communicate with just another cell allows for multitasking, improving efficiency.
Singh and Yu both disclose network transferring (handover) based on radio network condition, however is/are silent on “in response to receiving a wireless local area network message from the user equipment indicating that the cellular radio service is available to the user equipment, the access point recording a signal level of the wireless local area network message; and in response to detecting, in connection with communication with another user equipment that is associated with the access point, a same signal level as the signal level of the wireless local area network message, the access point signaling the another user equipment to access the cellular radio service”
Olson, in a related field of facilitating handover based on signal quality, discloses a system/method in which, in at least ¶0054-0057, and 0072, the network side collects historical radio network fingerprint data over an extended period of time (radio network fingerprint data is a set of measurement reports, each entry is mapped to a corresponding location, which acts as an indicator of network condition at said location, for example a location with measurements indicating handover is necessary) recorded from mobile devices for the detected coverages of the network APs.
The fingerprint data collection is then used to predict/determine handover trigger for the particular location a future mobile device is in, which is described in further ¶0111-0114, wherein upon detecting a mobile device with fingerprint matches one of the historical recorded fingerprint (i.e. the mobile device has approached the fingerprint where handover is to be occurred historically), the network is configured to initiate signaling to facilitate handover to move the mobile device to a new network with better coverage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the feature of radio fingerprint-based handover to the system of Singh and Yu. This implementation advantageously provides a timely as to provide sufficient time to enable the system to set up the call on a new interface prior to the old interface becoming unusable. The result of this evaluation can then be made available for a higher level mobility functions that determine on which RAT interface communication should take place (Olson, ¶0005).
As to claim 11:
Singh discloses:
A device comprising: an interface configured to enable network communications; a memory; and one or more processors (¶0031, 0024) coupled to the interface and the memory, and configured to:
monitoring radio performance between respective access points of a wireless local area network and a user equipment in a wireless local area network; (See at least ¶0052, The MS may perform measurements to find the relevant APs and may trigger an indication when an event occurs, reporting the measurement to the RAN, ¶0059, 0060, “MS may be currently serviced by a BS or an AP,”, “ Similarly, if the MS is currently connected to the AP, (…) the threshold values may be provided via the AP, ” - The disclosed method applies to both directions, i.e. (A) transition from cellular to WLAN as well as (B) MS currently serviced by AP and to be transitioned to be serviced by cellular BS (which explicitly noted by Singh in ¶0061, “ it will be assumed the MS is serviced by a BS rather than an AP, but the method may be modified for the opposite case as well. For example, while the communications discussed in FIG. 7 relate to communications between the MS and the BS, they may be between the MS and the AP. Alternatively, the communications may still be between the MS and the BS, but the MS may be connected to the AP instead of the BS ”. ¶0067, 0069, 0070, radio performance indicators of the currently link is evaluated by the current network access point the MS is currently under. In the context of the claim, the AP is monitoring radio performance via performance indicators obtained of the WLAN link with the MS)
and in response to detecting that the radio performance between the one access point and the user equipment is below a predetermined threshold, cause the access point to signal the user equipment to scan for and access a cellular radio service. (¶0069, 0070, based on the performance indicator relative to a threshold, signaling the MS to start a transition to another network, i.e. in this case to a cellular radio network since the MS is currently to be serviced by WLAN. ¶0052, “the MS may perform measurements to find the relevant APs and may trigger an indication when an event occurs, reporting the measurement to the RAN. The RAN may evaluate if bearers should be moved to the AP and issue a traffic steering command to the MS. Accordingly, the MS may steer some or all the traffic to the AP based on the command”. ¶0049, “AP radio quality becomes worse than threshold 1 and BS radio quality becomes better than threshold 2—traffic steering from WLAN”)
Singh discloses the AP signaling the MS to start the transition operation the MS to be serviced by (i.e. gain access to) a cellular network, however does not explicitly disclose such operation includes the scanning for a cellular in view of such an alert signal from the network in response to detecting that the user equipment can communicate with only one access point among the respective access points and the radio performance between the one access point and the user equipment is below a predetermined threshold.
Yu, in a related field of transition between two different networks, discloses in at least ¶0038, 0039, ¶0132, that in response to a signal quality is below a threshold, the network to signal the UE to perform cell probing (i.e. scanning cells) before the handover. Yu further discloses in at least ¶0151-0153, wherein the access point obtains capability of the UE currently in communication, and the access point determines from the capability that the UE has one extra receiver beside the one receiver currently in use (i.e. UE can communicate with just another neighbor cell using the one extra receiver), and thus allows the UE to scan/communicate with one neighbor cell using the extra receiver per ¶0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Singh, the AP side’s signaling include instruction to perform cell probing when the signal quality is below the threshold. This implementation is within contemplation of one of ordinary skill in the art because the MS in Singh’s system would need to know which options of cells in the vicinity to transition traffics to, thus implying a mechanism to detect such neighbor cells. Yu’s cell probing would aptly fit such mechanism, to advantageously ascertain handover options for the MS. It would be natural such a handover is necessitated when communication degrades below a threshold. Furthermore, examination of capability to determine whether the UE can communicate with just another cell allows for multitasking, improving efficiency.
Singh and Yu both disclose network transferring (handover) based on radio network condition, however is/are silent on “in response to receiving a wireless local area network message from the user equipment indicating that the cellular radio service is available to the user equipment, the access point recording a signal level of the wireless local area network message; and in response to detecting, in connection with communication with another user equipment that is associated with the access point, a same signal level as the signal level of the wireless local area network message, the access point signaling the another user equipment to access the cellular radio service”
Olson, in a related field of facilitating handover based on signal quality, discloses a system/method in which, in at least ¶0054-0057, and 0072, the network side collects historical radio network fingerprint data over an extended period of time (radio network fingerprint data is a set of measurement reports, each entry is mapped to a corresponding location, which acts as an indicator of network condition at said location, for example a location with measurements indicating handover is necessary) recorded from mobile devices for the detected coverages of the network APs.
The fingerprint data collection is then used to predict/determine handover trigger for the particular location a future mobile device is in, which is described in further ¶0111-0114, wherein upon detecting a mobile device with fingerprint matches one of the historical recorded fingerprint (i.e. the mobile device has approached the fingerprint where handover is to be occurred historically), the network is configured to initiate signaling to facilitate handover to move the mobile device to a new network with better coverage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the feature of radio fingerprint-based handover to the system of Singh and Yu. This implementation advantageously provides a timely as to provide sufficient time to enable the system to set up the call on a new interface prior to the old interface becoming unusable. The result of this evaluation can then be made available for a higher level mobility functions that determine on which RAT interface communication should take place (Olson, ¶0005).
Claim 18 is directed to one or more non-transitory CRM encoded with instruction to cause n processor to perform the method steps similar claims 1 and/or 11, and thus is rejected by the same reasonings.
As to claims 2, 12, 19:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1/11/18, further comprising causing the user equipment to progressively moving traffic from the wireless local area network to the cellular radio service. (Singh, ¶0070, current and future data to be switch to the new network, i.e. progressively, current and future data are moved to the new network over time (i.e. from present to future). Also in another embodiment, only a portion is transitioned currently based on requirement QoS)
As to claims 4, 14:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 2/12, further comprising progressively moving the traffic from the wireless local area network to the cellular radio service based on sensitivity of the traffic. (Singh, ¶0070, QoS requirement of an application data (voice/video) is based on to determine whether said data to be moved or remain with the current network)
As to claims 5, 15:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1/11, wherein the radio performance is a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). (Singh, ¶0054, 0055, RSSI)
As to claims 7/17:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein a location at which the predetermined threshold is met corresponds to a wireless local area network usability boundary, beyond which bandwidth of a channel of the wireless local area network decreases. (Singh, ¶0054, SNR and RSNI. SNR decreases leading to bandwidth reduction. Naturally, SNR can decrease relative to the distance of MS moving away from the AP. Thus when SNR falls below a threshold, i.e. when the MS is furthest away enough from the AP to cause the SNR to fall under the threshold, that location is considered the boundary location defining a usable quality from the cell’s center)
As to claim 9:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the cellular radio service and wireless local area network are operated by a same enterprise. (Singh, ¶0044, “the access points may be managed by a service provider or operator of the base stations,”)
Claim(s) 3, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2017/0026884) in view of Yu - EP 2642785 and in further view of Olson (WO 2008016778) and in further view of Haverinen et al. (US 2007/0047490) .
As to claims 3, 13, 20:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 2/12/18, however is silent on comprising moving all traffic from the wireless local area network to the cellular radio service prior to losing connectivity to the wireless local area network.
Haverinen, in a related field of handover, discloses in ¶0016-0017, that when a user device 10 is moving from a first network to a second network, a current ongoing communication must be transition/transferred from old network to the new network before termination of connection with the previous network (AP1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Singh/Yu to implement moving all traffic from the wireless local area network to the cellular radio service prior to losing connectivity to the wireless local area network. Given Singh is concerned with moving traffic to the new network, doing so prior to losing connectivity of the old network will ensure avoidance of interruption or breaks in voice communications (¶0016).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2017/0026884) in view of Yu - EP 2642785 and in further view of Olson (WO 2008016778) and in further view of Yu Rongdao (US 2018/0124649).
As to claims 6, 16:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1/11, however does not explicitly disclose the cellular radio service is a fifth generation (5G) cellular radio service.
Yu Rongdao, in a related field of handover, discloses system/method for handover wherein the context/protocol of the network environment of the system includes a 5G cellular network (¶078, 0077, 5G)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Singh/Yu includes a 5G cellular network. Given ¶0031-0032 of Singh discusses the cellular network can be of implementation, protocol in a inclusive spirit, the implementation in context of a 5G network would reap benefit of modern state of the art improvements intrinsic to 5G, such as dual connectivity/mak-before-break handover and multi-RAT integrations.
As to claim 8:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1, however does not explicitly disclose requesting grant-free access to the cellular radio service.
Yu Rongdao, in a related field of handover, discloses system/method for handover wherein requesting grant-free access to the cellular radio service (Abstract, ¶0031, 0035 request for grant-free access)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Singh/Yu includes a requesting grant-free access to the cellular radio service. This implementation advantageously allow for scheduling-free ease of access to a new network while allowing for level of control via a request/reject mechanism based on new network’s condition, thus avoiding overburdening the network (¶0141, 0005 of Yu Rongdao).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2017/0026884) in view of Yu - EP 2642785 and in further view of Olson (WO 2008016778) and in further view of Meylan et al. (US 2013/0242897).
As to claim 10:
Singh in view of Yu and Olson discloses all limitations of claim 1, however does not explicitly disclose a same Internet Protocol address is used for communicating traffic over each of the wireless local area network and the cellular radio service.
Meylan, in a related field of handover, discloses system/method for interworking between cellular network and WLAN for a roaming mobile device 600, wherein the WLAN carrier uses the same IP address as the cellular carrier (¶0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Singh/Yu includes same Internet Protocol address is used for communicating traffic over each of the wireless local area network and the cellular radio service. This implementation advantageously allow for removing the necessity of asking the DHCP for a different IP address, i.e. reduces signal overhead as well as usage of IP address pool (¶0081 of Meylan).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0017805 - A wireless terminal (30) receives a handover command message (64) from a Long Term Evolution (LTE) radio access network (22). The handover command message (64) includes an indicated cell and an alternative transfer authorization. The wireless terminal (30), in response to the handover command message (64), at least attempts to perform a handover of a radio connection involving the wireless terminal from the LTE radio access network (22) to an indicated cell in another radio access network (24). If the handover does not succeed within a predetermined time and in response to the alternative transfer authorization, the wireless terminal (30) releases the connection and re-establishes the connection in a selected cell of the other radio access network instead of returning the wireless terminal to the LTE radio access network, thereby improving success of transfer of the wireless terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights