DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially states the prior art Lee et al., fails to anticipate each and every limitation of the independent claims as required under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding instant claim 1, which recites specifies "receiving... configuration information for a common frequency resource (CFR) for group common data". This directly maps to "receive, via a frequency resource common to a plurality of wireless devices associated with a G-RNTI" (Lee, see Claim 19 and figure 10; S710) Further, Lee et al teaches "monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for detecting a downlink control information (DCI) format which is cyclic redundancy check(CRC)-scrambled by the G-RNTI" (see Lee, Claim 1 and fig, 7 (s730); paragraphs 138, 139) (see Also; see Lee, fig. 10 (element 1030); a terminal may monitor a PDCCH to receive DCI as a G-RNTI (activating a common frequency resource in a shared BWP monitored by terminals)) . This DCI format (e.g., 4_0/4_1/4_2) functions as the "common dynamic indication" in the instant independent claim, which dictates how the terminal behaves, including PDSCH scheduling and potential power-saving information. Finally, Lee et al. discloses that monitoring occurs "on an active first BWP, based on the active first BWP" (see Claim 1 and figure 7; 730 of Lee). The G-RNTI monitoring is constrained within the CFR (common frequency resource), which is typically confined within the active BWP to support simultaneous unicast/multicast reception. This aligns with "monitor, based on the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, for a DCI" of the instant claim.
Both claims address the same technical problem: enabling a terminal (or user equipment, UE) to efficiently receive group-specific control and data. In 5G NR Rel-17, this is handled by a group-common PDCCH/PDSCH. The use of G-RNTI (Group RNTI) to scramble the CRC of the DCI is the mechanism for providing a "common dynamic indication" that tells a group of devices how to behave (e.g., schedule resources).
Therefore, Because Lee et al. defines a method that includes setting up a CFR, using a G-RNTI for common DCI (the common dynamic indication), and monitoring it on an active BWP, any terminal operating must necessarily perform the acts of receiving a common dynamic indication and monitoring it via a common frequency resource as claimed the instant application. Therefore, Lee et al. anticipates the functional apparatus requirements of the independent instant claim language as required under 35 USC 102.
Not related to the current rejection, but included as a reference. The following PGPUBs also fully anticipate the independent claim language as written:
Cheema et al. (US Publication 2024/0137098) teaches a group-common DCI is used to indicate only a common BWP applied to a group of UEs. Including a group-common configuration received via through RRC. In certain embodiments, the group-common DCI indicates a set of BWPs (common frequency resources) to be applied for a group of UEs that are configured to monitor the group-common DCI.
Zhou et al. (US Publication 2023/0209465) teaches a wireless device may receive first configuration parameters may comprise configuration associated with the MBS DRX configuration on the configuration, monitor a first PDCCH, a group-common PDCCH in MBS dedicated common frequency resources for receiving the first PS signal.
Zhang et al. (US Publication 2024/0080767) teaches receiving first configuration sets respectively associated with first search space sets, each configuration set including at least one first group configuration; receiving a first indication indicating a group index; and performing PDCCH monitoring in the first search space sets based on a first group configuration indicated by the first indication. Wherein, the search space sets may be associated with a control resource set (CORESET). define the shared time and frequency resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12 – 14, 24 - 26, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication 2023/0164807) published under PCT/KR22/006733.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Lee teaches an apparatus and a method of wireless communication at a first wireless device, comprising: (fig. 11 shows wireless network devices comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 279 - 281)
receiving, via a frequency resource common to a plurality of wireless devices including the first wireless device, a common dynamic indication indicating at least a downlink control information (DCI) monitoring behavior for the plurality of wireless devices; (i.e. fig. 7 shows a UE may receive configuration information for group multi-cast broadcast (MBS) on a common frequency resource (element 710); see paragraphs 133 - 136) and
monitoring, based on the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, for a DCI via the frequency resource common to the plurality of wireless devices. (i.e. fig. 7 shows the UE may monitor a PDCCH for detection of a DCI based on the received configuration information (elements 720, 730); see paragraphs 137 - 139)
Regarding claims 2, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to receive the common dynamic indication, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to receive the common dynamic indication in one of a scheduling DCI or a non-scheduling DCI. (i.e. multiple DCI formats may be utilized for monitoring including scheduled or non-scheduled; see paragraphs 108 - 113 )
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Lee teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the frequency resource common to the plurality of wireless devices is a common frequency resource (CFR) associated with at least one of groupcast communication, multicast communication, or broadcast communication and to receive the common dynamic indication the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to receive the common dynamic indication as a groupcast transmission, a multicast transmission, or a broadcast transmission via the CFR. (i.e. the common frequency resource (CFR) of the plurality of devices is associated with MBS (multicast broadcast service; see paragraph 134)
Regarding claims 13 and 28, Lee teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to: (fig. 11 shows wireless network devices comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 279 - 281)
outputting a common dynamic indication indicating at least a downlink control information (DCI) monitoring behavior for a plurality of wireless devices for transmission to the plurality of wireless devices via a frequency resource common to the plurality of wireless devices; (i.e. fig. 7 shows a UE may receive configuration information for group multi-cast broadcast (MBS) on a common frequency resource (element 710); see paragraphs 133 - 136) and
outputting, based on the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, a DCI for transmission via the frequency resource common to the plurality of wireless devices. (i.e. fig. 7 shows the UE may monitor a PDCCH for detection of a DCI based on the received configuration information (elements 720, 730); see paragraphs 137 - 139)
Regarding claims 14, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein, to receive the common dynamic indication, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to receive the common dynamic indication in one of a scheduling DCI or a non-scheduling DCI. (i.e. multiple DCI formats may be utilized for monitoring including scheduled or non-scheduled; see paragraphs 108 - 113 )
Regarding claims 24 and 29, Lee teaches The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the frequency resource common to the plurality of wireless devices is a common frequency resource (CFR) associated with at least one of groupcast communication, multicast communication, or broadcast communication and to receive the common dynamic indication the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to receive the common dynamic indication as a groupcast transmission, a multicast transmission, or a broadcast transmission via the CFR. (i.e. the common frequency resource (CFR) of the plurality of devices is associated with MBS (multicast broadcast service; see paragraph 134)
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 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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 - 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 – 23, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee et al. (US Publication 2023/0164807) published under PCT/KR22/006733 in view of Ma et al. (US Publication 2025/0126622).
Regarding claim 3 and 27, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 3 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with switching from monitoring a first SSSG to monitoring a second SSSG.
However, Ma teaches wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with switching from monitoring a first SSSG to monitoring a second SSSG. (Ma discloses that PDCCH monitoring behavior may be based upon switching from monitoring a first SSSG to a second SSSG see paragraphs 35, 36, 100, 101)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to utilize SSSG group monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by categorizing UEs into SSSG which may have differing frequencies.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 3 as described previously from which claim 4 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the switching from monitoring the first SSSG to monitoring the second SSSG is indicated for one or more of: unicast resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR.
However, Ma teaches wherein the switching from monitoring the first SSSG to monitoring the second SSSG is indicated for one or more of: unicast resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR. (Ma discloses that switching from monitoring a first SSSG to a second SSSG, a frequency for the search space set or monitoring frequency is indicated; see paragraphs 36 - 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to utilize SSSG group monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by categorizing UEs into SSSG which may have differing frequencies.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 6 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with omitting monitoring of indicated PDCCH resources.
However, Ma teaches wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with omitting monitoring of indicated PDCCH resources. (Ma discloses that PDCCH monitoring behavior may include skipping a portion of indicated resources; see paragraphs 35 - 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to skip monitoring a portion of PDCCH of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance and power saving by reducing the scope of PDCCH monitoring.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 6 as described previously from which claim 7 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the indicated PDCCH resources comprise one or more of: unicast PDCCH resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR.
However, Ma teaches wherein the indicated PDCCH resources comprise one or more of: unicast PDCCH resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR. (Ma discloses that PDCCH monitoring behavior may include skipping a portion of indicated time- frequency resources; see paragraphs 35 - 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to skip monitoring a portion of PDCCH of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance and power saving by reducing the scope of PDCCH monitoring.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 9 depends. Lee does not teach wherein different types of common dynamic indications for different DCI monitoring behavior are associated with one or more of: different radio network temporary identifiers (RNTIs),different control resource sets (CORESET) within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices, or different search spaces within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices.
However, Ma teaches wherein different types of common dynamic indications for different DCI monitoring behavior are associated with one or more of: different radio network temporary identifiers (RNTIs),different control resource sets (CORESET) within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices, or different search spaces within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices. (Ma discloses that conditions for PDCCH monitoring may be based upon different RNTI, CORESET or DCI for4may; see paragraphs 114, 128)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to associate PDCCH monitoring types with different RNTI or CORESETS of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance and power saving by reducing the scope of PDCCH monitoring.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 as described previously from which claim 10 depends. Lee does not teach receive an indication of a time delay for applying the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, wherein, to monitor for the DCI, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to begin monitoring for the DCI based on the time delay.
However, Ma teaches receive an indication of a time delay for applying the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, wherein, to monitor for the DCI, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to begin monitoring for the DCI based on the time delay. (Ma discloses PDCCH monitoring behavior may be based upon a timing delay to avoid interruptions in ongoing tasks; see paragraphs 128 - 131)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to introduce a timing delay for PDCCH monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by having a time delay to prevent interruption of ongoing tasks.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 10 as described previously from which claim 11 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the common dynamic indication is associated with a plurality of component carriers (CCs) comprising at least a first CC associated with a first numerology and a second CC associated with a second numerology that is higher than the first numerology, wherein the time delay is defined in terms of a number of symbols associated with one of the first numerology or the second numerology.
However, Ma teaches wherein the common dynamic indication is associated with a plurality of component carriers (CCs) comprising at least a first CC associated with a first numerology and a second CC associated with a second numerology that is higher than the first numerology, wherein the time delay is defined in terms of a number of symbols associated with one of the first numerology or the second numerology. (Ma discloses PDCCH monitoring behavior may be based upon a timing delay to avoid interruptions in ongoing tasks; see paragraphs 128 - 131)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to introduce a timing delay for PDCCH monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by having a time delay to prevent interruption of ongoing tasks.
Regarding claim 15 and 30, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 13 as described previously from which claim 15 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with switching from monitoring a first SSSG to monitoring a second SSSG.
However, Ma teaches wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with switching from monitoring a first SSSG to monitoring a second SSSG. (Ma discloses that PDCCH monitoring behavior may be based upon switching from monitoring a first SSSG to a second SSSG see paragraphs 35, 36, 100, 101)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to utilize SSSG group monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by categorizing UEs into SSSG which may have differing frequencies.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 13 as described previously from which claim 16 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the switching from monitoring the first SSSG to monitoring the second SSSG is indicated for one or more of: unicast resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR.
However, Ma teaches wherein the switching from monitoring the first SSSG to monitoring the second SSSG is indicated for one or more of: unicast resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR. (Ma discloses that switching from monitoring a first SSSG to a second SSSG, a frequency for the search space set or monitoring frequency is indicated; see paragraphs 36 - 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to utilize SSSG group monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by categorizing UEs into SSSG which may have differing frequencies.
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 13 as described previously from which claim 18 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with omitting monitoring of indicated PDCCH resources.
However, Ma teaches wherein the indicated DCI monitoring behavior is associated with omitting monitoring of indicated PDCCH resources. (Ma discloses that PDCCH monitoring behavior may include skipping a portion of indicated resources; see paragraphs 35 - 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to skip monitoring a portion of PDCCH of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance and power saving by reducing the scope of PDCCH monitoring.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 18 as described previously from which claim 19 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the indicated PDCCH resources comprise one or more of: unicast PDCCH resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR.
However, Ma teaches wherein the indicated PDCCH resources comprise one or more of: unicast PDCCH resources for the first wireless device, an indicated common frequency resource (CFR), a set of CFRs, or each CFR. (Ma discloses that PDCCH monitoring behavior may include skipping a portion of indicated time- frequency resources; see paragraphs 35 - 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to skip monitoring a portion of PDCCH of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance and power saving by reducing the scope of PDCCH monitoring.
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 13 as described previously from which claim 21 depends. Lee does not teach wherein different types of common dynamic indications for different DCI monitoring behavior are associated with one or more of: different radio network temporary identifiers (RNTIs),different control resource sets (CORESET) within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices, or different search spaces within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices.
However, Ma teaches wherein different types of common dynamic indications for different DCI monitoring behavior are associated with one or more of: different radio network temporary identifiers (RNTIs),different control resource sets (CORESET) within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices, or different search spaces within the frequency resource that is common to the plurality of wireless devices. (Ma discloses that conditions for PDCCH monitoring may be based upon different RNTI, CORESET or DCI for4may; see paragraphs 114, 128)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to associate PDCCH monitoring types with different RNTI or CORESETS of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance and power saving by reducing the scope of PDCCH monitoring.
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 13 as described previously from which claim 22 depends. Lee does not teach receive an indication of a time delay for applying the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, wherein, to monitor for the DCI, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to begin monitoring for the DCI based on the time delay.
However, Ma teaches receive an indication of a time delay for applying the indicated DCI monitoring behavior, wherein, to monitor for the DCI, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to begin monitoring for the DCI based on the time delay. (Ma discloses PDCCH monitoring behavior may be based upon a timing delay to avoid interruptions in ongoing tasks; see paragraphs 128 - 131)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to introduce a timing delay for PDCCH monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by having a time delay to prevent interruption of ongoing tasks.
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses all the recited limitations of claim 22 as described previously from which claim 23 depends. Lee does not teach wherein the common dynamic indication is associated with a plurality of component carriers (CCs) comprising at least a first CC associated with a first numerology and a second CC associated with a second numerology that is higher than the first numerology, wherein the time delay is defined in terms of a number of symbols associated with one of the first numerology or the second numerology.
However, Ma teaches wherein the common dynamic indication is associated with a plurality of component carriers (CCs) comprising at least a first CC associated with a first numerology and a second CC associated with a second numerology that is higher than the first numerology, wherein the time delay is defined in terms of a number of symbols associated with one of the first numerology or the second numerology. (Ma discloses PDCCH monitoring behavior may be based upon a timing delay to avoid interruptions in ongoing tasks; see paragraphs 128 - 131)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to introduce a timing delay for PDCCH monitoring of Ma into Lee. Both Lee and Ma teach the transmission of multicast/broadcast data to multiple UEs on a common frequency.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Lee to improve network performance by having a time delay to prevent interruption of ongoing tasks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
April 17, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights