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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13-18, 20, 23, 25-26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (Patent No: US 2020/0221506 A1), hereinafter, Jeon, in view of HE Feng (Patent No: WO 2010105518 A1), hereinafter, Feng and further in view of Rudolf et al. (Patent No: US 2014/0362832 A1), hereinafter, Rudolf.
Regarding Claim 1, Jeon teaches,
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: -Paragraph [0228] ([0228] recites, “A node (e.g. wireless device, base station, AMF, SMF, UPF, servers, switches, antennas, and/or the like) may comprise one or more processors, and memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors causes the node to perform certain processes and/or functions.”
transmit a communication of a random access channel (RACH) procedure using a RACH occasion, of a plurality of RACH occasions, or a RACH preamble, of a plurality of RACH preambles, -Fig. 12; Paragraph [0295] ([0295] recites, “A UE may perform one or more Msg1 1220 transmissions by transmitting the selected random access preamble. For example, if a UE selects an SS block and is configured with an association between one or more PRACH occasions and one or more SS blocks, the UE may determine an PRACH occasion from one or more PRACH occasions corresponding to a selected SS block. For example, if a UE selects a CSI-RS and is configured with an association between one or more PRACH occasions and one or more CSI-RSs, the UE may determine a PRACH occasion from one or more PRACH occasions corresponding to a selected CSI-RS. A UE may transmit, to a base station, a selected random access preamble via a selected PRACH occasions.”)
Although implicit, Jeon does not explicitly teach,
to indicate a value for a performance indicator associated with the UE,
and receive, in response to the communication of the RACH procedure, an additional communication of the RACH procedure.
However, in an analogous invention, Feng teaches,
to indicate a value for a performance indicator associated with the UE -Page 3, Paragraph 1 (recites, “In the current protocol of LTE, an input parameter of the random access optimization function is used, that is, the base station collects the random access prefix from the UE. Number of received RACH preambles to obtain this performance indicator.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “indicate a value for a performance indicator associated with the UE.” of Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve network optimization capabilities [Page 3, Paragraph 1].
Although implicit, Jeon and Feng combination do not explicitly mention,
and receive, in response to the communication of the RACH procedure, an additional communication of the RACH procedure.
However, in an analogous invention, Rudolf teaches,
and receive, in response to the communication of the RACH procedure, an additional communication of the RACH procedure. -Paragraph [0119] ([0119] recites, “Another type of transmission that may be associated with an individualized HARQ/TTI bundling parameters configuration may include transmission of msg3 using a grant received in a random access response (RAR). For example, the WTRU may apply specific values for one or more of x, k, y, and/or TTI_BUNDLE_SIZE for uplink transmissions of msg3 using a grant received in a RAR (e.g., these values may also apply to the HARQ process for RACH msg3 and/or RACH msg3 transmission).” As explained above, additional information (communication), e.g., TTI BUNDLE SIZE of msg3 might be included in Random Access Response (RAR) message as part of RACH procedure response)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “to indicate a value for a performance indicator associated with the UE, or using a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasion and indicating the value for the performance indicator in the communication; and receive, in response to the communication of the RACH procedure, an additional communication of the RACH procedure.” of Rudolf. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve UL resource utilization and/or to modify physical layer procedures to increase UL coverage. The WTRU may be configured to receive a configuration from an evolved eNB [0012].
Regarding Claim 2, Jeon and Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the performance indicator is an uplink delay status. -Paragraph [0522] ([0522] recites, “a wireless device and/or a base station may perform an LBT before transmitting each message (e.g., Msg1, Msg2, Msg3, Msg4, MsgA, and/or MsgB). Each message may subject to an LBT failure that may cause a random access delay/latency. A large delay/latency during a random access procedure may result in failing to meet a control plane requirement. Increasing transmission opportunities configured over a frequency domain (e.g., over one or more channels, BWPs and/or subbands) may enhance the random access procedure (e.g., improve the random access delay/latency caused by an LBT failure in an unlicensed band).” As stated above performance indicator can be random access delay (uplink delay status) and can be transmitted in Msg 1, 2, 3, 4, A, and/or B as part of RACH procedure)
Regarding Claim 3, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Jeon does not explicitly teach
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the performance indicator is at least one of an energy status, a battery status, or a power consumption.
However, in an analogous invention, Rudolf teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the performance indicator is at least one of an energy status, a battery status, or a power consumption. -Paragraph [0153] ([0153] recites, “..dedicated PUSCH channels may operate in a more effective than manner than traditional UL HARQ under certain coverage conditions, for example especially in coverage-limited scenarios. In fact, for a WTRU in coverage limited scenarios, an eNB may monitor WTRU performance indicators such as reported pathloss, available transmit power, and/or available power headroom and configure a WTRU for use with Dedicated Channels if a coverage limited scenario is detected.” As explained above WTRU (UE) sends performance indicator e.g., transmit power/available power headroom etc. which are energy status over PUSCH to the base station)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “performance indicator is at least one of an energy status, a battery status, or a power consumption.” of Rudolf. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve UL resource utilization and/or to modify physical layer procedures to increase UL coverage. The WTRU may be configured to receive a configuration from an evolved eNB [0012].
Regarding Claim 4, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of RACH occasions have associations with a plurality of values for the performance indicator. -Paragraph [0295][0538] ([0295] recites, “ the UE may determine an PRACH occasion from one or more PRACH occasions corresponding to a selected SS block. For example, if a UE selects a CSI-RS and is configured with an association between one or more PRACH occasions and one or more CSI-RSs, the UE may determine a PRACH occasion from one or more PRACH occasions corresponding to a selected CSI-RS. A UE may transmit, to a base station, a selected random access preamble via a selected PRACH occasions..” [0538] recites, “..For example, the one or more channels may comprise one or more PRACH resources. The congestion level may be determined based on one or more reports (e.g., key performance indicators) comprising a load information (e.g., interference level, throughput, number of drop calls, number of contentions, etc.)” As explained above plurality of the channels corresponding to the PRACH resources report key performance indicators to the base station)
Regarding Claim 5, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of RACH preambles have associations with a plurality of values for the performance indicator. -Paragraph [0295][0538] ([0295] recites, “A UE may transmit, to a base station, a selected random access preamble via a selected PRACH occasions..” [0538] recites, “..For example, the one or more channels may comprise one or more PRACH resources. The congestion level may be determined based on one or more reports (e.g., key performance indicators) comprising a load information (e.g., interference level, throughput, number of drop calls, number of contentions, etc.)” As explained above plurality of the RACH preambles have association with plurality of corresponding key performance indicators)
Regarding Claim 6, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive configuration information indicating a plurality of probabilities of accessing the plurality of RACH occasions. -Paragraph [0292] ([0292] recites, “For a contention based random access procedure, a UE may select a SS block with a RSRP above the RSRP threshold. If random access preambles group B exists, a UE may select one or more random access preambles from a group A or a group B depending on a potential Msg3 1240 size. If a random access preambles group B does not exist, a UE may select the one or more random access preambles from a group A. A UE may select a random access preamble index randomly (e.g. with equal probability or a normal distribution) from one or more random access preambles associated with a selected group. If a base station semi-statically configures a UE with an association between random access preambles and SS blocks, the UE may select a random access preamble index randomly with equal probability from one or more random access preambles associated with a selected SS block and a selected group.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH preamble includes a preamble sequence encoded with information indicating the value for the performance indicator. -Paragraph [0361][0538] ([0361] recites, “ A radio access technology (e.g., LTE and/or NR) may predefine one or more preamble sequence generation configurations, and zeroCorrelationZoneConfig may indicate one of the one or more preamble sequence generation configurations. For example, a wireless device may determine a cyclic shift of preamble sequence based on zeroCorrelationZoneConfig.” [0538] recites, “the one or more channels may comprise one or more PRACH resources. The congestion level may be determined based on one or more reports (e.g., key performance indicators) comprising a load information (e.g., interference level, throughput, number of drop calls, number of contentions, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 11, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communication of the RACH procedure is a physical uplink shared (PUSCH) communication of a message A (msgA) communication of a two-step RACH procedure -Fig. 16; Paragraph [0319] ([0319] recites, “FIG. 16 is an example of a two-step RA procedure that may comprise an uplink (UL) transmission of a two-step Msg1 1620 that may comprise a random access preamble (RAP) transmission 1630 and one or more transport blocks transmission 1640, followed by a downlink (DL) transmission of a two-step Msg2 1650 that may comprise a response, e.g., random access response (RAR), corresponding to the uplink transmission. The response may comprise contention resolution information. For example, the two-step Msg1 1620 may be also referred to as a message A (MsgA). For example, the two-step Msg2 1650 may be also referred to as a message B (MsgB).”
Although implicit, Jeon does not explicitly teach
and wherein the PUSCH communication includes a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) indicating the value for the performance indicator.
However, in an analogous invention, Rudolf teaches,
and wherein the PUSCH communication includes a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) indicating the value for the performance indicator. -Paragraph [0006, 0153] ( [0153] recites, “dedicated PUSCH channels may operate in a more effective than manner than traditional UL HARQ under certain coverage conditions, for example especially in coverage-limited scenarios. In fact, for a WTRU in coverage limited scenarios, an eNB may monitor WTRU performance indicators such as reported pathloss, available transmit power, and/or available power headroom and configure a WTRU for use with Dedicated Channels if a coverage limited scenario is detected. [0006] recites, “Dynamically modifying the one or more HARQ/TTI Bundling parameters during UL operation may be based on receiving one or more of physical layer control signaling, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)” UL operation using PUSCH)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “PUSCH communication includes a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) indicating the value for the performance indicator.” of Rudolf. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve UL resource utilization and/or to modify physical layer procedures to increase UL coverage. The WTRU may be configured to receive a configuration from an evolved eNB [0012].
Claim 13 is essentially same as Claim 1 except for claim 13 is viewed from network side perspective (e.g., network node receives etc.), whereas Claim 1 is viewed from UE side perspective (e.g., UE transmits etc.). The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 which is rejected above. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 2. The only difference is Claim 14 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 2 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 2 which is rejected above. Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 2.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 3. The only difference is Claim 15 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 3 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 3 which is rejected above. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 3.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 4. The only difference is Claim 16 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 4 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 4 which is rejected above. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 4.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 5. The only difference is Claim 17 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 5 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 5 which is rejected above. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 5.
Claim 18 is essentially same as Claim 6 except for claim 18 is viewed from network side perspective (e.g., network node transmits etc.), whereas Claim 6 is viewed from UE side perspective (e.g., UE receives etc.). The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 6 which is rejected above. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 6.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 8. The only difference is Claim 20 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 8 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 8 which is rejected above. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 8.
Claim 23 is essentially the same as Claim 11. The only difference is Claim 23 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 11 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 11 which is rejected above. Claim 23 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 11.
Claim 25 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 which is rejected above. Claim 25 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 26 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 6. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 6 which is rejected above. Claim 26 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claim 28 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 13. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 13 which is rejected above. Claim 28 is rejected under the same rational as claim 13.
Claim 29 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 18. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 18 which is rejected above. Claim 29 is rejected under the same rational as claim 18.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Feng, Rudolf and further in view of KIM et al. (Patent No: US 2023/0379904 A1), hereinafter, KIM.
Regarding Claim 7, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Jeon does not explicitly teach
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH occasion or the RACH preamble is associated with extended reality communication or ultra-reliable low-latency communication.
However, in an analogous invention, KIM teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH occasion or the RACH preamble is associated with extended reality communication or ultra-reliable low-latency communication. -Paragraph [0221, 0228] ([0221] recites, “RO-N: RACH Occasion (RO) for normal UE 4-step RACH and 2-step RACH (if configured).” [0228] recites, “The 5G use case domain over mMTC and eMBB or mMTC and URLLC that are target use cases of the RedCap device is called RedCap use cases for convenience of explanation in the present disclosure.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “RACH occasion or the RACH preamble is associated with extended reality communication or ultra-reliable low-latency communication” of KIM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for efficiently supporting UE with the use cases in terms of device cost, power consumption, form factor, etc. [0226]
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 7. The only difference is Claim 19 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 7 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 7 which is rejected above. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 7.
Claims 9-10, 21-22, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Feng, Rudolf and further in view of YOU et al. (Patent No: US 2022/0159732 A1), hereinafter, YOU.
Regarding Claim 9, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH occasion is associated with a first RACH occasion group or a second RACH occasion group according to whether the value for the performance indicator satisfies a threshold.
However, in an analogous invention, YOU teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH occasion is associated with a first RACH occasion group or a second RACH occasion group according to whether the value for the performance indicator satisfies a threshold. -Paragraph [0087][0120] ([0087] recites, “Since the network device only needs to indicate the shorter second TA, the terminal device can determine the actually used first TA based on the second TA by itself, which saves the bit overhead caused by the network device indicating TA to each terminal device respectively, and each terminal device can flexibly select a suitable TA for random access based on its own location information, which effectively improves the performance of tile random access.”[0120] recites, “Two groups of RACH occasions (RO) can be configured, and the RACH occasions in each group of RACH occasions are of equal length. Since the terminal device cannot obtain an accurate TA duration when the terminal device does not have the positioning capability, the terminal device can use the second RACH occasion to transmit the first message in order not to affect the random access of the terminal device, and the second transmission occasion has a longer duration. The terminal device can obtain an accurate TA when the terminal device has the positioning capability, and therefore can select a shorter first RACH occasion to transmit the first message.” As explained above, depending on the TA accuracy (performance threshold) first or second RACH occasion group might be selected.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “the RACH occasion is associated with a first RACH occasion group or a second RACH occasion group according to whether the value for the performance indicator satisfies a threshold.” of YOU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for each terminal device to flexibly select a suitable TA for random access based on its own location information, which effectively improves the performance of the random access [0008].
Regarding Claim 10, Jeon, Feng and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication of one or more RACH occasion groups that are to be used only if the value for the performance indicator satisfies a threshold.
However, in an analogous invention, YOU teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication of one or more RACH occasion groups that are to be used only if the value for the performance indicator satisfies a threshold. -Paragraph [0120] ([0120] recites, “Two groups of RACH occasions (RO) can be configured, and the RACH occasions in each group of RACH occasions are of equal length. Since the terminal device cannot obtain an accurate TA duration when the terminal device does not have the positioning capability, the terminal device can use the second RACH occasion to transmit the first message in order not to affect the random access of the terminal device, and the second transmission occasion has a longer duration. The terminal device can obtain an accurate TA when the terminal device has the positioning capability, and therefore can select a shorter first RACH occasion to transmit the first message.” As explained above, depending on the TA accuracy (performance threshold) first or second RACH occasion group might be selected.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “receive an indication of one or more RACH occasion groups that are to be used only if the value for the performance indicator satisfies a threshold.” of YOU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for each terminal device to flexibly select a suitable TA for random access based on its own location information, which effectively improves the performance of the random access [0008].
Claim 21 is essentially the same as Claim 9. The only difference is Claim 21 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 9 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 9 which is rejected above. Claim 21 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 9.
Claim 22 is essentially same as Claim 10 except for claim 22 is viewed from network side perspective (e.g., network node transmits etc.), whereas Claim 10 is viewed from UE side perspective (e.g., UE receives etc.). The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 10 which is rejected above. Claim 22 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 10.
Claim 27 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 10. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 10 which is rejected above. Claim 26 is rejected under the same rational as claim 10.
Claim 30 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 22. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 22 which is rejected above. Claim 30 is rejected under the same rational as claim 22.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Feng, Rudolf and further in view of Marian Rudolf et al. (Patent No: US 2023/0062577 A1), hereinafter, Marian.
Regarding Claim 12, Jeon and Rudolf teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Jeon does not explicitly teach,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the additional communication is a random access response (RAR) communication that is in an RAR window dynamically adjusted according to the value for the performance indicator.
However, in an analogous invention, Marian teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the additional communication is a random access response (RAR) communication that is in an RAR window dynamically adjusted according to the value for the performance indicator. -Paragraph [0261] ([0261] recites, “In response to a determination that more than M DL slots are unavailable during the DL-UL configuration period (as determined in step 2220), the UE in step 2230, adjusts the RAR window size using value.sub.RAR.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “Random Access Backoff Indicator” proposed by Jeon to include the concept of “additional communication is a random access response (RAR) communication that is in an RAR window dynamically adjusted according to the value for the performance indicator.” of Marian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for potential for increased spectral efficiency, improved capacity, and reduced latency in wireless networks [0165].
Claim 24 is essentially the same as Claim 12. The only difference is Claim 24 is a dependent claim of independent claim 13, while Claim 12 is a dependent claim of independent claim 1. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 12 which is rejected above. Claim 24 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 12.
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights