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 December 10, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220166535 A1) in view of PANIGRAHI et al. (US 20190320445 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. teaches a transmission parameter adjustment method, the method comprising: increasing a downlink transmission bandwidth of a service from a first downlink transmission bandwidth B1D to a second downlink transmission bandwidth B2D, wherein the second downlink transmission bandwidth is less than or equal to a target downlink transmission bandwidth, and the target downlink transmission bandwidth is a smaller value between a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a system and a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a terminal device (Paragraph 64, 67, 77–78, 82, Allocating a greater number of PRBs/RBs (e.g., 10 to 20 RBs) constitutes increasing transmission bandwidth within a predefined supported RB set established by the protocol and system configuration, which operates within bandwidth limits supported by the system and terminal); reducing a downlink delay budget of the service from a first downlink delay budget T1D to a second downlink delay budget T2D based on the second downlink transmission bandwidth, such that when a downlink transport block size (TBS) of the service and a downlink transmission modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the service do not change, T2D= T1D*B1D/ B2D (Paragraph 32, 71, 75, The disclosure teaches that transmission duration (TTI/latency) scales with allocated bandwidth and resource elements, such that increasing bandwidth enables shorter transmission time for a given data size, reflecting reduction of delay budget based on increased bandwidth).
Wang et al. does not explicitly teach increasing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change.
However, PANIGRAHI et al. teaches increasing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change (Paragraph 20–24, 39, These passages disclose that the total delay budget is fixed and composed of uplink and downlink delay components such that when downlink delay changes the remaining portion of the total delay budget allocated to uplink is correspondingly adjusted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide increasing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change as taught by PANIGRAHI et al. in the system of Wang et al., so that it would maintain a fixed end-to-end latency constraint by dynamically redistributing delay budget between uplink and downlink components when bandwidth adjustments modify downlink transmission delay, thereby ensuring overall service latency requirements are preserved while optimizing resource allocation efficiency and transmission scheduling.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. teaches increasing a downlink transmit power of the service from a first downlink transmit power to a second downlink transmit power based on the first downlink transmission bandwidth and the second downlink transmission bandwidth (Paragraph 31, 46, 71, The passage teaches transmitting a downlink signal that is amplified prior to transmission (thereby controlling transmit power), describes operation over different downlink bandwidths, and explains that transmission parameters scale with allocated bandwidth/resources).
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al. teaches adjusting an uplink transmission MCS of the service from an MCS 1 to an MCS 2 based on the second uplink delay budget, wherein a modulation order of the MCS 2 is less than a modulation order of the MCS 1, or a code rate of the MCS 2 is less than a code rate of the MCS 1; and indicating the MCS 2 to the terminal device (Paragraph 56, 70, 73–74, These passages teach changing from a first MCS to a second MCS where MCS defines modulation order and code rate, such that the change necessarily adjusts at least one of modulation order or code rate, and signaling the MCS to the receiving terminal via SCI).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. teaches the adjusting the uplink transmission MCS of the service from the MCS 1 to the MCS 2 based on the second uplink delay budget comprises: adjusting the uplink transmission MCS of the service from the MCS 1 to the MCS 2 based on the second uplink delay budget and a first parameter, wherein the first parameter comprises one or more of the following parameters: an uplink transport block size TBS of the service, an uplink transmission bandwidth of the service, or resource overheads of a reference signal (Paragraph 32, 64, 66, 73–74, 83–84, These passages collectively teach changing from a first MCS to a second MCS, where the MCS change affects and is associated with TBS, allocated PRBs/bandwidth, and reference signal overhead parameters, and is performed in view of latency-related transmission considerations).
Regarding claim 5, Wang et al. teaches reducing an uplink transmission bandwidth of the service from a first uplink transmission bandwidth to a second uplink transmission bandwidth based on the second uplink delay budget; adjusting an uplink frequency domain resource of the service based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth; and indicating the adjusted uplink frequency domain resource of the service to the terminal device (Paragraph 22, 64, 68, 78–82, 97, These passages teach reducing a first RB-based transport block size to a smaller second RB allocation via scaling or offset (thereby reducing uplink bandwidth), adjusting the associated frequency-domain PRB resources accordingly, and transmitting SCI carrying the TBS adjustment value to indicate the adjusted frequency-domain resource to the receiving terminal device).
Regarding claim 6, Wang et al. teaches reducing the uplink transmission bandwidth of the service from the first uplink transmission bandwidth to the second uplink transmission bandwidth based on the second uplink delay budget comprises: reducing the uplink transmission bandwidth of the service from the first uplink transmission bandwidth to the second uplink transmission bandwidth based on the second uplink delay budget and a second parameter, wherein the second parameter comprises one or more of the following parameters: an uplink TBS of the service, an uplink transmission MCS of the service, or resource overheads of a reference signal (Paragraph 64, 69–71, 73, 77, 79–84, These passages teach reducing an effective uplink data bandwidth by decreasing TBS via scaling or index reduction based on changed MCS (modulation order/code rate) and reference signal overhead parameters).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. teaches increasing a quantity of uplink retransmissions of the service from a first quantity of uplink retransmissions to a second quantity of uplink retransmissions based on the second uplink delay budget; and indicating the second quantity of uplink retransmissions to the terminal device (Paragraph 73, 76, 87, 97, 100, These passages collectively teach performing a retransmission in response to feedback, modifying transmission parameters for the retransmission (thereby changing the effective retransmission configuration relative to the initial transmission), and explicitly indicating the modified retransmission-related parameter to the receiving terminal via SCI, which corresponds to increasing a retransmission quantity and signaling the updated retransmission quantity to the terminal device).
Regarding claim 8, Wang et al. teaches reducing the downlink delay budget of the service from the first downlink delay budget to the second downlink delay budget based on the second downlink transmission bandwidth comprises: reducing the downlink delay budget of the service from the first downlink delay budget to the second downlink delay budget based on the second downlink transmission bandwidth and a third parameter, wherein the third parameter comprises one or more of the following parameters: a downlink TBS of the service, a downlink transmission MCS of the service, or a resource of the reference signal (Paragraph 20, 32, 64, 71, 73, 77–84, These passages teach dynamically reducing or adjusting a transmission size parameter (TBS) based on bandwidth-related resource allocation (PRBs/REs), MCS, and reference signal resources (DMRS/overhead), where modifying TBS and transmission parameters (including MCS and reference signal resources) directly impacts transmission duration).
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. does not explicitly teach increasing the uplink delay budget of the service from the first uplink delay budget to the second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget comprises: T2U=T1D+T1U-T2D, wherein T2U is the second uplink delay budget, T1u is the first uplink delay budget, T1D is the first downlink delay budget, and T2D is the second downlink delay budget.
However, PANIGRAHI et al. teaches increasing the uplink delay budget of the service from the first uplink delay budget to the second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget comprises: T2U=T1D+T1U-T2D, wherein T2U is the second uplink delay budget, T1u is the first uplink delay budget, T1D is the first downlink delay budget, and T2D is the second downlink delay budget (Paragraph 20, 24, 39, These passages teach adjusting or determining a second uplink delay budget by accounting for the relationship between total delay, uplink delay, and downlink delay such that when the downlink delay changes the remaining uplink delay budget is correspondingly recalculated using the relationship among uplink delay, downlink delay, and total delay, which corresponds to increasing or updating the uplink delay budget from an initial value to a new value derived from the prior uplink delay and downlink delay values as expressed by the claimed formula).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide increasing the uplink delay budget of the service from the first uplink delay budget to the second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget comprises: T2U=T1D+T1U-T2D, wherein T2U is the second uplink delay budget, T1u is the first uplink delay budget, T1D is the first downlink delay budget, and T2D is the second downlink delay budget as taught by PANIGRAHI et al. in the system of Wang et al., so that it would maintain a consistent end-to-end service delay constraint by dynamically recalculating the remaining uplink delay budget when the downlink delay budget is modified due to transmission parameter adjustments.
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory memories including computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising: increasing a downlink transmission bandwidth of a service from a first downlink transmission bandwidth B1D to a second downlink transmission bandwidth B2D, wherein the second downlink transmission bandwidth is less than or equal to a target downlink transmission bandwidth, and the target downlink transmission bandwidth is a smaller value between a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a system and a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a terminal device (Paragraph 64, 67, 77–78, 82, Allocating a greater number of PRBs/RBs (e.g., 10 to 20 RBs) constitutes increasing transmission bandwidth within a predefined supported RB set established by the protocol and system configuration, which operates within bandwidth limits supported by the system and terminal); reducing a downlink delay budget of the service from a first downlink delay budget T1D to a second downlink delay budget T2D based on the second downlink transmission bandwidth, such that when a downlink transport block size (TBS) of the service and a downlink transmission modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the service do not change, T2D= T1D*B1D/B2D (Paragraph 32, 71, 75, The disclosure teaches that transmission duration (TTI/latency) scales with allocated bandwidth and resource elements, such that increasing bandwidth enables shorter transmission time for a given data size, reflecting reduction of delay budget based on increased bandwidth).
Wang et al. does not explicitly teach increasing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget, wherein a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change.
However, PANIGRAHI et al. teaches increasing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget, wherein a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change (Paragraph 20–24, 39, These passages disclose that the total delay budget is fixed and composed of uplink and downlink delay components such that when downlink delay changes the remaining portion of the total delay budget allocated to uplink is correspondingly adjusted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide increasing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget based on the second downlink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change as taught by PANIGRAHI et al. in the system of Wang et al., so that it would maintain a fixed end-to-end latency constraint by dynamically redistributing delay budget between uplink and downlink components when bandwidth adjustments modify downlink transmission delay, thereby ensuring overall service latency requirements are preserved while optimizing resource allocation efficiency and transmission scheduling.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory memories including computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations (Paragraph 59, 104–105, These passages expressly disclose an apparatus including a processor and non-transitory memory storing executable instructions that cause performance of the described wireless communication operations) comprising: increasing an uplink transmission bandwidth of a service from a first uplink transmission bandwidth B1U to a second uplink transmission bandwidth B2U, wherein the second uplink transmission bandwidth is less than or equal to a target uplink transmission bandwidth, and the target uplink transmission bandwidth is a smaller value between a maximum uplink bandwidth supported by a system and a maximum uplink bandwidth supported by a terminal device (Paragraph 64, 67–68, 77–78, 82, 93, These passages disclose increasing allocated RBs (i.e., transmission bandwidth) from a first bandwidth to a larger second bandwidth via scaling or index increase, within predefined supported RB configurations of the wireless system and terminal, bounded by supported bandwidth limits).
Wang et al. does not explicitly teach reducing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget T2U based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth, such that when an uplink transport block size (TBS) of the service and an uplink transmission modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the service do not change, T2U= T1U*B1U/B2U; and increasing a downlink delay budget of the service from a first downlink delay budget to a second downlink delay budget based on the second uplink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change.
However, PANIGRAHI et al. teaches reducing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget T2U based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth, such that when an uplink transport block size (TBS) of the service and an uplink transmission modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the service do not change, T2U= T1U*B1U/B2U (Paragraph 20, 24, 39, 52, These passages disclose dynamically computing and reducing the remaining uplink delay budget based on other delay components and scheduling parameters tied to transmission rate, corresponding to adjusting the uplink delay budget according to available transmission capacity); and increasing a downlink delay budget of the service from a first downlink delay budget to a second downlink delay budget based on the second uplink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change (Paragraph 20, 24, 37, These passages define a fixed end-to-end delay budget composed of uplink delay and downlink delay components, indicating that adjusting one component requires compensating adjustment of the other while maintaining the same total latency budget).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reducing an uplink delay budget of the service from a first uplink delay budget to a second uplink delay budget T2U based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth, such that when an uplink transport block size (TBS) of the service and an uplink transmission modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the service do not change, T2U= T1U*B1U/B2U; and increasing a downlink delay budget of the service from a first downlink delay budget to a second downlink delay budget based on the second uplink delay budget, such that a sum of the uplink delay budget of the service and the downlink delay budget of the service does not change as taught by PANIGRAHI in the system of Wang et al., so that it would improve scheduling and latency management by dynamically allocating delay budgets between uplink and downlink transmissions according to available transmission bandwidth while maintaining a fixed overall service latency requirement.
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. teaches increasing an uplink transmit power of the service from a first uplink transmit power to a second uplink transmit power based on the first uplink transmission bandwidth and the second uplink transmission bandwidth; and indicating the second uplink transmit power to the terminal device (Paragraph 69–70, 73, 76, 97, 100, These passages teach dynamically modifying transmission parameters tied to allocated resource elements (reflecting bandwidth-related changes) to derive a second transmission configuration from a first configuration and transmitting control information that explicitly indicates the updated transmission configuration to the receiving terminal).
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. teaches the operations further comprise: adjusting a downlink MCS of the service from an MCS 1 to an MCS 2 based on the second downlink delay budget, wherein a modulation order of the MCS 2 is less than a modulation order of the MCS 1, or a code rate of the MCS 2 is less than a code rate of the MCS 1; and indicating the MCS 2 to the terminal device (Paragraph 70, 73, 74, 76, 97, These passages teach changing from a first MCS to a second MCS that alters modulation order or target code rate (including reducing either parameter), recalculating transmission parameters based on the updated set, and explicitly signaling the changed MCS to the receiving terminal via SCI).
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. teaches the adjusting the downlink transmission MCS of the service from the MCS 1 to the MCS 2 based on the second downlink delay budget comprises: adjusting the downlink transmission MCS of the service from the MCS 1 to the MCS 2 based on the second downlink delay budget and a first parameter, wherein the first parameter comprises one or more of the following parameters: a downlink (TBS) of the service, a downlink transmission bandwidth of the service, or resource overheads of a reference signal (Paragraph 54, 64, 65, 73, 83, These passages collectively teach adjusting MCS (modulation order and code rate) based on updated transmission parameters including TBS, allocated PRB bandwidth, and reference-signal-related overhead).
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. teaches the operations further comprise: reducing a downlink transmission bandwidth of the service from a first downlink transmission bandwidth to a second downlink transmission bandwidth based on the second downlink delay budget; adjusting a downlink frequency domain resource of the service based on the second downlink transmission bandwidth; and indicating the adjusted downlink frequency domain resource of the service to the terminal device (Paragraph 22, 64, 73, 76, 78, 79, 100, These passages teach reducing transmission bandwidth by decreasing TBS (which corresponds to RB allocation in the frequency domain), adjusting the allocated RB resources accordingly, and transmitting control information indicating the adjusted allocation to the receiving terminal).
Regarding claim 16, Wang et al. teaches the reducing the downlink transmission bandwidth of the service from the first downlink transmission bandwidth to the second downlink transmission bandwidth based on the second downlink delay budget comprises: reducing the downlink transmission bandwidth of the service from the first downlink transmission bandwidth to the second downlink transmission bandwidth based on the second downlink delay budget and a second parameter, wherein the second parameter comprises one or more of the following parameters: a downlink (TBS) of the service, a downlink transmission MCS of the service, or resource overheads of a reference signal (Paragraph 22, 66, 73, 77–84, These passages disclose reducing a transmission size from a first TBS (e.g., 50 RBs) to a second smaller TBS (e.g., 25 RBs) via scaling or index offset based on parameter changes including MCS and reference-signal overhead).
Regarding claim 17, Wang et al. teaches the operations further comprise: increasing a quantity of downlink retransmissions of the service from a first quantity of downlink retransmissions to a second quantity of downlink retransmissions based on the second downlink delay budget (Paragraph 32, 73, 87, These passages collectively teach performing retransmissions in response to feedback and dynamically changing transmission parameters (including format and timing characteristics affecting latency), which supports increasing the number of retransmissions based on an updated delay-related parameter such as a second delay budget).
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al. teaches reducing the uplink delay budget of the service from the first uplink delay budget to the second uplink delay budget based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth comprises: reducing the uplink delay budget of the service from the first uplink delay budget to the second uplink delay budget based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth and a third parameter, wherein the third parameter comprises one or more of the following parameters: an uplink (TBS) of the service, an uplink transmission MCS of the service, or a resource of the reference signal (Paragraph 64, 73, 75, 77, 83-84, These passages teach reducing a transmission-related parameter (TBS) from a first value to a second value based on changed uplink transmission parameters including MCS and reference signal (DMRS) resources).
Regarding claim 19, Wang et al. teaches increasing the downlink delay budget of the service from the first downlink delay budget to the second downlink delay budget based on the second uplink delay budget comprises: T2D=T1U+T1D-T2U, wherein T2D is the second downlink delay budget, T1D is the first downlink delay budget, T1U is the first uplink delay budget, and T2U is the second uplink delay budget (Paragraph 73, 77, 79, 83, 86, These passages collectively teach increasing a first communication budget to a second communication budget based on a changed complementary parameter using a defined mathematical relationship).
Regarding claim 20, Wang et al. teaches operations further comprise: adjusting an uplink frequency domain resource of the service based on the second uplink transmission bandwidth; adjusting an uplink time domain resource of the service based on the second uplink delay budget; adjusting a downlink time domain resource of the service based on the second downlink delay budget; indicating the adjusted uplink frequency domain resource of the service and the adjusted uplink time domain resource of the service to the terminal device; and indicating the adjusted downlink time domain resource of the service to the terminal device (Paragraph 54, 64, 66-67, 73, 76, 86, 97, 119, These passages collectively teach adjusting frequency-domain resources (PRBs/REs corresponding to bandwidth) and time-domain resources (symbols/slot timing) based on changed parameters reflected in a second TBS, and signaling those adjusted frequency and timing resources via SCI and DCI to the receiving device).
Allowable Subject Matter
The applicant could consider adding concepts directed to explicitly adjusting a downlink transmit power based on the change in downlink transmission bandwidth to maintain downlink power spectral density and coverage radius when bandwidth increases. The claim could also incorporate adjusting an uplink transmission modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on the second uplink delay budget, including reducing a modulation order and/or code rate to improve uplink reliability and coverage, and optionally indicating the adjusted MCS to the terminal device. Additional concepts that could be added include adjusting the uplink transmission bandwidth based on the second uplink delay budget to increase uplink power spectral density, adjusting corresponding uplink frequency domain resources, and signaling the adjusted resources to the terminal device. The applicant could further include increasing a quantity of uplink retransmissions based on the second uplink delay budget to enhance uplink reliability. More detailed refinement concepts from the specification that are not in the claim include performing delay budget or MCS adjustments based on additional parameters such as transport block size (TBS), reference signal resource overhead, or existing transmission bandwidth to improve accuracy of parameter adaptation. The claim could also be strengthened by reciting explicit mathematical relationships for recalculating the uplink delay budget (e.g., defining the second uplink delay budget as a function of the first uplink delay budget, first downlink delay budget, and second downlink delay budget), as well as adjusting downlink and uplink time-domain and frequency-domain resources in coordination with the revised delay budgets and bandwidths and indicating those adjusted time-frequency resources to the terminal device. Finally, the applicant could add parallel concepts from the second aspect of the specification, such as symmetrically adjusting uplink bandwidth first and correspondingly adapting downlink delay budget, transmit power, MCS, retransmissions, and resource allocations to explicitly capture the bidirectional coverage-radius optimization framework described in the disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US 20220123855 A1)
Zhang et al. (US 20240121025 A1)
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 ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464