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 .
This is a Non-Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on October 28th, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim 1, the claims recite the abstract idea of selecting a preferred version of a local environment, and mentally determine “wherein the edge server comprises instructions for producing a multiverse of twins of the local environment and selecting a preferred one of said twins upon request from the autonomous vehicle”, where these claims fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitation encompasses mentally generating a traveling route based off of the information provided by the car’s sensors while traveling, or alternatively, mentally generating a traveling route available to the vehicle based on observations by a human.
For example, a human could mentally and with the aid of pen and paper determine a first, second, and third safety condition based on if there are other road users and/or objects in the vicinity of the vehicle.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of a computer, sensors, transceiver, and an edge server are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
In addition, the limitation “(i) an autonomous vehicle comprising a computer, one or more sensors, and a transceiver for communication with a wireless network disposed in the local environment; and(ii) an edge server in communication with the wireless network and with a cloud server, wherein the edge server is in communication with the autonomous vehicle through the transceiver and the wireless communications network; wherein the vehicle computer comprises a trained model of the local environment and instructions for evaluating data from the sensors, identifying a change in the local environment compared to the trained model” constitutes insignificant presolution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff' d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “updating the trained model” is insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.' ” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Updating a trained model is mere insignificant extra-solution activity, as supported by the MPEP 2106.05(g), see printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a computer, sensors, transceiver, and an edge server does not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims 2-8 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant claimed invention, when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “for operating an autonomous vehicle in a local environment. . . sensors” claim 1).
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson (US 20170248963 A1) (“Levinson”) in view of Ashman (US 20230258472 A1) (“Ashman”).
With respect to claim 1, Levinson teaches a system for operating an autonomous vehicle in a local environment, the system comprising:
an autonomous vehicle comprising a computer, one or more sensors, and a transceiver for communication with a wireless network disposed in the local environment (See at least Levinson FIG. 5 and Paragraph 76 “FIG. 5 is an example of a flow diagram to control an autonomous vehicle, according to some embodiments. At 502, flow 500 begins when sensor data originating from sensors of multiple modalities at an autonomous vehicle is received, for example, by an autonomous vehicle controller. One or more subsets of sensor data may be integrated for generating fused data to improve, for example, estimates. In some examples, a sensor stream of one or more sensors (e.g., of same or different modalities) may be fused to form fused sensor data at 504.”); and
wherein the vehicle computer comprises a trained model of the local environment and instructions for evaluating data from the sensors, identifying a change in the local environment compared to the trained model, and updating the trained model (See at least Levinson FIG. 5 and Paragraph 76 “At 508, a detected object is determined to affect a planned path, and a subset of trajectories are evaluated (e.g., at a planner) responsive to the detected object at 510. A confidence level is determined at 512 to exceed a range of acceptable confidence levels associated with normative operation of an autonomous vehicle. Therefore, in this case, a confidence level may be such that a certainty of selecting an optimized path is less likely, whereby an optimized path may be determined as a function of the probability of facilitating collision-free travel, complying with traffic laws, providing a comfortable user experience (e.g., comfortable ride), and/or generating candidate trajectories on any other factor. As such, a request for an alternate path may be transmitted to a teleoperator computing device at 514. Thereafter, the teleoperator computing device may provide a planner with an optimal trajectory over which an autonomous vehicle made travel. In situations, the vehicle may also determine that executing a safe-stop maneuver is the best course of action (e.g., safely and automatically causing an autonomous vehicle to a stop at a location of relatively low probabilities of danger). Note that the order depicted in this and other flow charts herein are not intended to imply a requirement to linearly perform various functions as each portion of a flow chart may be performed serially or in parallel with any one or more other portions of the flow chart, as well as independent or dependent on other portions of the flow chart.”).
Levinson fails to explicitly disclose (ii) an edge server in communication with the wireless network and with a cloud server, wherein the edge server is in communication with the autonomous vehicle through the transceiver and the wireless communications network; and wherein the edge server comprises instructions for producing a multiverse of twins of the local environment and selecting a preferred one of said twins upon request from the autonomous vehicle.
Ashman, however, teaches (ii) an edge server in communication with the wireless network and with a cloud server, wherein the edge server is in communication with the autonomous vehicle through the transceiver and the wireless communications network (See at least Ashman Paragraph 25 “One or more HD maps (or components thereof) may be stored on a network of servers, such as a content delivery network (CDN) or other data stores (e.g., S3 web services). The network of servers may allow for the HD map data to be distributed across the network without requiring each server to store all of the HD map data of an HD map while maintaining high availability of the data to support low latency transfers to clients. When an update is performed to the HD map, the update need not be applied to every server. In at least one embodiment, a CDN may serve map data to an endpoint (such as a computer associated with a vehicle) via any of the numerous servers. The computer associated with the vehicle may request map-related content from one or more servers of the CDN, which may draw the map data from a cache(s) of one or more edge servers, if available, and otherwise draw the data from one or more origin servers. The network of servers may additionally or alternatively push map data to one or more vehicles via the server(s) of the network. The network of servers may provide scalability and reduced serving time and be more storage efficient than conventional approaches to serving map content.”); and
wherein the edge server comprises instructions for producing a multiverse of twins of the local environment and selecting a preferred one of said twins upon request from the autonomous vehicle (See at least Ashman FIG 1B and Paragraph 62 “As indicated in FIG. 1B, creating pointers and/or references relative to the first version at block B156 may, in one or more embodiments, include retaining the first version with the pointers and/or references for version control at block B160. Various branches of map data may be created as a list of edits and an associated identifier. Generally, a collection of edits may be submitted and validated, which may include manual editing of the map. The changes may then be committed and stored along with a snapshot of the map version. The network of servers 104 may then be updated with the new map data. In this way, changes to the map may be tracked and logged from an original version of the map to a current version of the map.” | Paragraph 65 “The method 150, at block B164, includes identifying a map version for the vehicle and identifying which map data is needed to fulfill the request regarding the map version. The map version may be included in the message from the vehicle, stored on one or more servers of the network of servers, or may be indicated by other information in the message or previous interactions with the vehicle. The vehicle may be operating using one of the map versions from the network of servers 104, such as the first version or the second version. Based upon the version control and item tracking, knowing the current map version for the vehicle means that the server(s) fulfilling a request and/or pushing data may know exactly what map data is on the vehicle and by extension what map data is needed without unnecessary or duplicative data transfer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Levinson to include an edge server in communication with the wireless network and with a cloud server, wherein the edge server is in communication with the autonomous vehicle through the transceiver and the wireless communications network; and wherein the edge server comprises instructions for producing a multiverse of twins of the local environment and selecting a preferred one of said twins upon request from the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Ashman as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal vehicle navigation (Ashman Paragraph 3 “Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to efficient map modification and map content serving for autonomous vehicles.”).
With respect to claim 2, Levinson in view of Ashman teach that the sensors comprise one or more of a camera, a geographical positioning system (GPS) receiver, and a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device (See at least Levinson Paragraph 62 “FIG. 3A is a diagram depicting examples of sensors and other autonomous vehicle components, according to some examples. Diagram 300 depicts an interior view of a bidirectional autonomous vehicle 330 that includes sensors, signal routers 345, drive trains 349, removable batteries 343, audio generators 344 (e.g., speakers or transducers), and autonomous vehicle (“AV”) control logic 347. Sensors shown in diagram 300 include image capture sensors 340 (e.g., light capture devices or cameras of any type), audio capture sensors 342 (e.g., microphones of any type), radar devices 348, sonar devices 341 (or other like sensors, including ultrasonic sensors or acoustic-related sensors), and Lidar devices 346, among other sensor types and modalities (some of which are not shown, such inertial measurement units, or “IMUs,” global positioning system (“GPS”) sensors, sonar sensors, etc.). ”).
With respect to claim 3, Levinson in view of Ashman teach that the cloud server and/or the edge server comprise one or more twins of the local environment or other data for use and/or modification in producing the multiverse of twins (See at least Ashman FIG 1B and Paragraph 62 “As indicated in FIG. 1B, creating pointers and/or references relative to the first version at block B156 may, in one or more embodiments, include retaining the first version with the pointers and/or references for version control at block B160. Various branches of map data may be created as a list of edits and an associated identifier. Generally, a collection of edits may be submitted and validated, which may include manual editing of the map. The changes may then be committed and stored along with a snapshot of the map version. The network of servers 104 may then be updated with the new map data. In this way, changes to the map may be tracked and logged from an original version of the map to a current version of the map.” | Paragraph 65 “The method 150, at block B164, includes identifying a map version for the vehicle and identifying which map data is needed to fulfill the request regarding the map version. The map version may be included in the message from the vehicle, stored on one or more servers of the network of servers, or may be indicated by other information in the message or previous interactions with the vehicle. The vehicle may be operating using one of the map versions from the network of servers 104, such as the first version or the second version. Based upon the version control and item tracking, knowing the current map version for the vehicle means that the server(s) fulfilling a request and/or pushing data may know exactly what map data is on the vehicle and by extension what map data is needed without unnecessary or duplicative data transfer.”).
With respect to claim 4, Levinson in view of Ashman teach that the local environment is an urban environment1 (See at least Ashman Paragraph 143 “In another example, a CNN for emergency vehicle detection and identification may use data from microphones 896 to detect and identify emergency vehicle sirens. In contrast to conventional systems, that use general classifiers to detect sirens and manually extract features, the SoC(s) 804 use the CNN for classifying environmental and urban sounds”).
With respect to claim 5, Levinson in view of Ashman teach that the change in the local environment comprises one or more of a road blocking vehicle or object, a detour, a building, a construction site, first responder activity, a pedestrian, a fire, or a weather-related hazard (See at least Levinson Paragraph 56 “Further, a perception engine (not shown) of autonomous vehicle controller 147 may be configured to detect, classify, and predict the behavior of external objects, such as external object 112 (a “tree”) and external object 114 (a “pedestrian”). Classification of such external objects may broadly classify objects as static objects, such as external object 112, and dynamic objects, such as external object 114. The localizer and the perception engine, as well as other components of the AV controller 147, collaborate to cause autonomous vehicles 109 to drive autonomously.”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson (US 20170248963 A1) (“Levinson”) in view of Ashman (US 20230258472 A1) (“Ashman”) further in view of Lynch (US 20180003512 A1) (“Lynch”).
With respect to claim 6, Levinson in view of Ashman fail to explicitly disclose that the multiverse of twins comprises two or more twins of the local environment differing from one another in one or more representation factors of the local environment.
Lynch teaches that the multiverse of twins comprises two or more twins of the local environment differing from one another in one or more representation factors of the local environment (See at least Lynch FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 38-41 “Starting at block 102, a change trigger may be received. For example, the update apparatus 10 may receive a change trigger. For example, the update apparatus may comprise means, such as processor 12, communications interface 16, and/or the like, for receiving a change trigger. For example, a change trigger may be a report from one or more vehicle apparatuses 20 indicating that a link attribute of a particular link may be incorrect. In example embodiments, a link represents a road or path segment in a map. For example, the link attributes of a particular link may comprise one or more of a link identifier configured to (uniquely) identify a link, link geometry information/data configured to describe the shape and/or length of the link, a link location configured to provide geo-location information for one or both ends of a link, one or more intersection identifiers configured to identify one or more intersections that define an end of the link, a range of street numbers configured to identify the street numbers located along the link, a speed limit, a link width, a road wall indicator, a traffic direction flow indicator, a carpool lane presence indicator, a car open indicator, a through traffic indicator, time restriction(s), a driving side indicator, a controlled access indicator, a service road indicator, a construction indicator, a ferry indicator, a private road indicator, seasonal closures, link height/weight restrictions, and/or the like. Another example of a change trigger may be that a community edited version of the map differs from a stable version of the map by more than a threshold degree of difference (e.g., the value of difference for a particular link attribute is greater than a threshold value, more than a threshold number of link attributes are different, and/or the like) … At block 106, two or more map versions of a map tile are provided. For example, the two or more map versions may comprise the stable map version and at least one of the one or more changed map versions, wherein the changed map version comprises at least one link attribute of a particular link that is different from the corresponding link attribute of the particular link in the stable map version map. In an example embodiment, the two or more map versions may comprise two or more changed versions that differ from each other by at least one link attribute of a particular link. For example, the update apparatus 10 may provide two or more map versions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Levinson in view of Ashman to include that the multiverse of twins comprises two or more twins of the local environment differing from one another in one or more representation factors of the local environment, as taught by Lynch as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate versions of the maps (Lynch Paragraph 3 “Example embodiments allow a map to be updated based on the high-volume, detailed, on-board road sensor data captured by consumer vehicles without requiring a large volume of data transmission and without raising privacy issues”).
With respect to claim 7, Levinson in view of Ashman in view of Lynch teach that the representation factors are selected from a number of reflections of one or more electromagnetic beams of the wireless network and an image resolution. (See at least Ashman FIG 1B and Paragraph 62 “As indicated in FIG. 1B, creating pointers and/or references relative to the first version at block B156 may, in one or more embodiments, include retaining the first version with the pointers and/or references for version control at block B160. Various branches of map data may be created as a list of edits and an associated identifier. Generally, a collection of edits may be submitted and validated, which may include manual editing of the map. The changes may then be committed and stored along with a snapshot of the map version. The network of servers 104 may then be updated with the new map data. In this way, changes to the map may be tracked and logged from an original version of the map to a current version of the map.” | Paragraph 65 “The method 150, at block B164, includes identifying a map version for the vehicle and identifying which map data is needed to fulfill the request regarding the map version. The map version may be included in the message from the vehicle, stored on one or more servers of the network of servers, or may be indicated by other information in the message or previous interactions with the vehicle. The vehicle may be operating using one of the map versions from the network of servers 104, such as the first version or the second version. Based upon the version control and item tracking, knowing the current map version for the vehicle means that the server(s) fulfilling a request and/or pushing data may know exactly what map data is on the vehicle and by extension what map data is needed without unnecessary or duplicative data transfer.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinson (US 20170248963 A1) (“Levinson”) in view of Ashman (US 20230258472 A1) (“Ashman”) further in view of Bhuyan (US 20210373552 A1) (“Bhuyan”).
With respect to claim 8, Levinson in view of Ashman fail to explicitly disclose that the wireless network is a mmWave wireless network.
Bhuyan teaches that the wireless network is a mmWave wireless network (See at least Bhuyan Paragraph 24 “Various embodiments disclosed herein relate to millimeter wave communication networks including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). More specifically, various embodiments of the disclosure are related to systems, networks, devices, and related methods for communicating with UAVs via Machine to Machine (M2M) communication using mmWave frequency bands, which may achieve secure communications for cellular-connected mmWave UAVs. Yet, more specifically, embodiments of the disclosure may include generating mmWave beams with antennas tilted upward for RF coverage (e.g., in the sky) to analyze the security, reliability, and/or spectral efficiency of a wireless network for UAV operation. For example, the antennas may include multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) antennas configured to generate mmWave beams.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Levinson in view of Ashman to include that the wireless network is a mmWave wireless network, as taught by Bhuyan as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal wireless connectivity (Bhuyan Paragraph 3 “that the wireless network is a mmWave wireless network”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes an environment to be “urban”