DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The following communication is in response to Amendment filed on November 28, 2025.
Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended to include, in part, limitations “wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM” and “wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK.”
Examiner is unable to find support for the aforementioned limitations in the originally filed specification. Paragraphs [0164]-[0169] and [0202]-[0205] describe that an MCS table may be selected according to a target BLER value. For example, as a corresponding target BLER is higher, an MCS table having an MCS index may be configured based on a higher order modulation scheme such as 64QAM, 256QAM, or 1024QAM. And, as a target BLER is lower, another MCS table having an MCS index may be configured based on a lower order modulation scheme such as QPSK or 16 QAM.
However, the originally filed specification is silent on the specific relative counts of indices per modulation order within each MCS table, as described in the amended claims. Therefore, the amended claims 1, 7, and 13 and the corresponding dependent claims introduce new matter.
For the purpose of examination on the merit, the amended claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the originally filed specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,258,532 in view of in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0366406 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, claims 1, 4, and 8 of USPN 11,258,532 disclose or suggest a communication method, comprising:
receiving, from a base station, control information through a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)(see claims 1, 4, and 8, first limitation);
selecting a first modulation coding scheme (MCS) table among a plurality of MCS tables based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) of the PDCCH and an MCS cell radio network temporary indicator (MCS-C-RNTI) (see claims 1, 4, and 8, tenth and last limitations); and
performing, based on the control information and the first MCS table, downlink data reception from the base station through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or uplink data transmission to the base station through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (see claims 1, 4, and 8, tenth and last limitations),
wherein the plurality of MCS tables include the first MCS table and a second MCS table (see at least claims 1, 4, and 8, third limitation).
Claims 1-11 of USPN 11,258,532 does not explicitly disclose that the first MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, a highest modulation order of the first MCS table is 64 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), the second MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, and a highest modulation order of the second MCS table is 256 QAM, wherein each of a first plurality of indices includes in the first MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, and the 64 QAM, wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM, wherein each of a second plurality of indices includes in the second MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, the 64 QAM, and the 256 QAM, and wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses or suggests that the first MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, a highest modulation order of the first MCS table is 64 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), the second MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, and a highest modulation order of the second MCS table is 256 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM), wherein each of a first plurality of indices includes in the first MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, and the 64 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, which includes a number of indices indicating QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), wherein each of a second plurality of indices includes in the second MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, the 64 QAM, and the 256 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM), and wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, which includes a number of indices indicating QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim in to the invention of claims 1-11 of USPN 11,258,532 in order to enhance the data transmission by selecting an appropriate MCS table.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, claims 1, 4, and 8 of USPN 11,258,532 disclose or suggest that the plurality of MCS tables is determined by a type of search space through which physical downlink control channel transmission is performed (see claims 1, 4, and 8, fourth/fifth limitation).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, claims 3, 6, and 10 of USPN 11,258,532 disclose or suggest that the type of search space is a UE-specific search space.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, claims 2, 5, and 9 of USPN 11,258,532 disclose or suggest receiving the MCS-C-RNTI from the base station using RRC signaling.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, claims 1, 4, and 8 of USPN 11,258,532 disclose or suggest that the downlink data is transmitted using a plurality of code block groups (see sixth and seventh limitations).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, claims 1, 4, and 8 of USPN 11,258,532 disclose or suggest that the uplink data is transmitted using a plurality of code block groups (see sixth and seventh limitations).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 line 9, the limitation “MSC” should be replaced with ---MCS---.
Regarding claim 7 line 12, the limitation “MSC” should be replaced with ---MCS---.
Regarding claim 13 line 11, the limitation “MSC” should be replaced with ---MCS---.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 depend on claims 1, 7, and 13, respectively, and are objected to for the same reason as claims 1, 7, and 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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, 7, and 13 have been amended to include, in part, limitations “wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM” and “wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK.”
Examiner is unable to find support for the aforementioned limitations in the originally filed specification. Paragraphs [0164]-[0169] and [0202]-[0205] describe that an MCS table may be selected according to a target BLER value. For example, as a corresponding target BLER is higher, an MCS table having an MCS index may be configured based on a higher order modulation scheme such as 64QAM, 256QAM, or 1024QAM. And, as a target BLER is lower, another MCS table having an MCS index may be configured based on a lower order modulation scheme such as QPSK or 16 QAM.
However, the originally filed specification is silent on the specific relative counts of indices per modulation order within each MCS table, as described in the amended claims. Therefore, the amended claims 1, 7, and 13 and the corresponding dependent claims introduce new matter.
For the purpose of examination on the merit, the amended claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the originally filed specification.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0190644 (Cited in 07/20/2023 IDS, hereinafter “Ugurlu”) in view of Kim.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Ugurlu discloses or suggests a communication method and a communication device, comprising:
a memory (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph 60, memory 414); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph 60, processor 412 coupled to the memory 414) and configured to:
cause the device to receive, from a base station, first control information through a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (see at least paragraphs 27 and 30, the UE may receive DCI in a PDCCH from the network apparatus for a downlink transmission);
select a first modulation coding scheme (MCS) table among a plurality of MCS tables based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) of the PDCCH and an MCS cell radio network temporary indicator (MCS-C-RNTI) (see at least paragraphs 30, 31, and 34, in a case that MCS-C-RNTI is configured, the UE may be configured to use the qam64LowSE MCS table); and
perform, based on the control information and the first MCS table, downlink data reception from the base station through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or uplink data transmission to the base station through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (see at least paragraph 31, the UE may be configured to use the qam64LowSE MCS table for a PDSCH or a PUSCH),
wherein the plurality of MCS tables include the first MCS table and a second MCS table (see at least paragraphs 27 and 28, multiple MCS tables).
Ugurlu does not explicitly disclose that the first MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, a highest modulation order of the first MCS table is 64 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), the second MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, and a highest modulation order of the second MCS table is 256 QAM, wherein each of a first plurality of indices includes in the first MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, and the 64 QAM, wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM, wherein each of a second plurality of indices includes in the second MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, the 64 QAM, and the 256 QAM, and wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses or suggests that the first MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, a highest modulation order of the first MCS table is 64 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), the second MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, and a highest modulation order of the second MCS table is 256 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM), wherein each of a first plurality of indices includes in the first MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, and the 64 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, which includes a number of indices indicating QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), wherein each of a second plurality of indices includes in the second MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, the 64 QAM, and the 256 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM), and wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, which includes a number of indices indicating QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim in to the invention of Ugurlu in order to enhance the data transmission by selecting an appropriate MCS table.
Ugurlu further discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 2 and 8, the two or more MCS tables is determined by a type of search space through which physical downlink control channel transmission is performed (see at least paragraphs 32 and 33, the physical layer indication may comprise a type of search space, where the UE may be configured with multiple search spaces for different PDCCH candidates);
regarding claims 3 and 9, the type of search space is a UE-specific search space (see at least paragraph 33, UE-specific PDCCH search spaces); and
regarding claims 4 and 10, receiving the MCS-C-RNTI from the base station using RRC signaling (see at least paragraphs 27-30, higher layer indication including RRC indication/signaling).
Regarding claim 13, Ugurlu discloses or suggests a communication device (see at least Fig. 4, network apparatus 420), comprising:
a memory (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph 60, memory 424); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph 60, processor 422 coupled to the memory 424) and configured to:
generate control information (see at least paragraphs 27 and 30, the network apparatus may use a specific RNTI to scramble a CRC of DCI for configuring a MCS table);
select a first modulation coding scheme (MCS) table among a plurality of MCS tables, wherein the plurality of MCS tables include the first MCS table and a second MCS table, the first MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, a highest modulation order of the first MCS table is 64 quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), the second MCS table includes a plurality of modulation orders, and a highest modulation order of the second MCS table is 256 QAM (see at least paragraphs 28, 31, and 34, the network apparatus configure the UE to use the qam64LowSE MCS table, where a second MCS table maybe a qam256 MCS table);
cause the device to transmit, to a user equipment (UE), the first control information through a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (see at least paragraphs 27 and 30, the UE may receive DCI in a PDCCH from the network apparatus for a downlink transmission), wherein a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) of the PDCCH is scrambled with an MCS cell radio network temporary indicator (MCS-C-RNTI) (see at least paragraphs 30, 31, and 34, in a case that MCS-C-RNTI is configured, the UE may be configured to use the qam64LowSE MCS table); and
cause the device to, based on the control information and the MCS table, transmit downlink data to the UE through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or receive uplink data from the UE through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (see at least paragraph 31, the UE may be configured to use the qam64LowSE MCS table for a PDSCH or a PUSCH).
Ugurlu does not explicitly disclose that each of a first plurality of indices includes in the first MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, and the 64 QAM, wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM, wherein each of a second plurality of indices includes in the second MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, the 64 QAM, and the 256 QAM, and wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK.
However, in an analogous art, Kim discloses or suggests that each of a first plurality of indices includes in the first MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, and the 64 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), wherein, among the first plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the QPSK is greater than a number of indices indicating the 64 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 13-17, which includes a number of indices indicating QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM), wherein each of a second plurality of indices includes in the second MCS table indicates one of quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 16 QAM, the 64 QAM, and the 256 QAM (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM), and wherein, among the second plurality of indices, a number of indices indicating the 256 QAM is greater than a number of indices indicating the QPSK (see at least Fig. 6 and Tables 1-12, which includes a number of indices indicating QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim in to the invention of Ugurlu in order to enhance the data transmission by selecting an appropriate MCS table.
Ugurlu further discloses or suggests:
regarding claim 14, the plurality of MCS tables is determined by a type of search space through which physical downlink control channel transmission is performed (see at least paragraphs 32 and 33, the physical layer indication may comprise a type of search space, where the UE may be configured with multiple search spaces for different PDCCH candidates);
regarding claim 15, the type of search space is a UE-specific search space (see at least paragraph 33, UE-specific PDCCH search spaces); and
regarding claim 16, the processor is further configured to cause the device to transmit the MCS-C-RNTI to the UE using RRC signaling (see at least paragraphs 27-30, higher layer indication including RRC indication/signaling).
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ugurlu in view of Kim, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0374040 (hereinafter “Lou”).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18, Ugurlu, as modified by Kim, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of the invention of claims 1, 7, and 13 described above but does not explicitly disclose that the downlink data or the uplink data is transmitted using a plurality of code block groups.
However, in an analogous art, Lou discloses or suggests that the downlink data or the uplink data is transmitted using a plurality of code block groups (see at least paragraphs 170 and 200, CBG-based transmissions on PDSCH and PUSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Lou in to the invention of Ugurlu, as modified by Kim, in order to utilize the CBG-based transmission to efficiently manage data transmission and to enable an efficient retransmission.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 03/05/2026