89DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending
in the application. Claims 5 is amended. No new claims were added and no claims were cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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
he claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner
in which the invention was made.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
• Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
• Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
• Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
• Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
• obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bangolae et al. (US-20230354152-A1), hereinafter “Bangolae” in view of Pateromichelakis et al. (US-20230328580-A1) hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”.
Regarding Claim 1,
Bangolae discloses, ‘A method for communication link selection at a user equipment device (UE), comprising: determining a performance values for a first communication link selected from a plurality of communication links, wherein the two or more performance values are associated with a performance metric’ (Determination/selection of a best path among a two communication links: direct link between the UE and the BS; an indirect link associated with relay UE [0351]; A single a And, condition for multipath switching mechanism for multipath includes a primary path or link RLC entity is one with the best channel condition. A remote UE choose the path/link as best channel condition and use this link until RLF event occur [0149]. A machine learning algorithm is used for performance measurement [0389, 0438]; And, link monitoring and performance monitoring [0134, 0167]. The UE select the best path based on channel conditions and metrics for radio resources and continue to use the path until RLF or reselection/change in channel condition occurs based on RLM [0188]; The BS is allowed to reconfigure to switch the path based on Remote UE measurement report or QoS [0189]. Channel quality measurements and channel estimations and send to BS, disclosure Claim 6.
A RAN is connected to a core network i.e. CN various NFs and NFVs to provide connectivity to the UE and the CN uses network slice [0217]. And, network slice functions select a set of network slice instances to serve the UE [0230]
Regarding two more performance values: disclosure include QoS flow for high reliability and low packet error rate [0107, 0131]. And, identify the threshold hysteresis parameter value e.g., historical value based on measurement configuration [0161].);
Didn’t disclose, ‘two or more performance values’ of the performance metric,
Pateromichelakis in the relevant art discloses, receive QoS flow for the UE and obtain a analytics of the QoS. Performance metrics of the UE. An expected UE mobility pattern and/or expected UE trajectories for each UE in a service area (e.g., based on the accuracy of prediction); an expected channel quality fluctuation in an expected route of the at least one UE [0177]. A tuning of hysteresis threshold and an accuracy prediction [0181].
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Bangolae and to modify with that of Pateromichelakis to come up with the claim invention,
Disclosure of Bangolae includes measurement configuration, metrics and uses specific threshold parameters and link quality threshold to perform the measurement and QoS [0188-0189]. Didn’t include predicted value in the metrics though include AI/ML model predictive analytics and reinforcement learning [0438-0439]. Bangolae motive to keep at least one valid link active [0149]. Includes stacks and layers at L1/L2/L3; QoS flow handling for multiple-links [0131] includes stacks, resources/RBs and channels at L1/L2/L3 in Fig. 14, and 17-20; Reliability achieved at PDCP layers [0127]; uses network slices NFV and NFV/RAN orchestration to manage resources [0248]. Motive also includes routing, load-balancing-configurations and performance-monitoring as part of service infrastructure control-function and configured by RAN to manage computing resources [0258, 0263]. To increase reliability, throughput and reduce latency.
Someone would be motivated to include predictive parameters for QoS/QoP to perform AI/ML to receive more accuracy in measurement using predictive value in QoS/QoE adaptive pattern so that expected result can be acquired [0039, 0041]. The adaptive performance metric pattern can be maintained in RAN controller to increase bandwidth, reduce latency and error rate and increase throughput.
Bangolae discloses, ‘monitoring the two or more performance values for the first communication link for performance degradation’ (Link monitoring/RLM of the links serving/primary cells. Detect RLF [0063-0064]. One link allowed to remain active at any time [0156] );
Bangolae discloses, ‘detecting a performance degradation based on the monitoring of the two or more performance values for the first communication link’ (Detect RLF by RLM of the links [0063-0064]. Includes comparison of performance measurement between the links. Error rate one link is lower than another. And, the QoS and the RLM to specific link compare to threshold hysteresis [0107-0109].);
And, Bangolae discloses, ‘selecting, in response to detection of the performance degradation, a second communication link for performance comparison to the first communication link’ (measure/compare between the links includes RLM/threshold [0134]. Uses the first link/best link and continue to use until RLF occurs. Then switch/choose the second link by cell selection/reselection [0053, 0149]. Deactivation based on channel conditions [0167]);
Bangolae discloses, ‘and triggering link changes based on the performance comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link.’ (The remote UE identify the link satisfy specific threshold and select the best link based on predetermined/configured threshold [0153-0155]. And, channel conditions and measured [0167-0172]. Switch the link based on measurement and QoS [0189]).
Regarding Claim 2,
‘The method of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein the performance values comprise two or more of: an agreed value for the performance metric for the first communication link; a measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link’ (The BS request to the remote UE to provide list of candidate relay UEs and use measurement configuration [0088]. The remote UE connect to serving cell and deactivate multilink and enables the remote UE to receive measurement configuration to perform measurement and necessary threshold to be configured [0161]. The UE select best link based on channel condition and metrics [0188] and reconfigure/switch based on QoS [0189]. The UE performs RLM, uses channel conditions, metrics and configure threshold to select the best path [0347, 0350-0351]. And, RLM and measurement of the links to measure the link hysteresis and compare to threshold [0108]);
Though discloses, the performance values of measured/configured threshold of QoS,
And didn’t disclose, ‘two or more’ performance values ‘or a predicted value for the performance metric for the first communication link.’
Pateromichelakis relevant art discloses, QoS adaptation pattern provides the QoS parameters at AI function to provide predictive analytics QoS flow [0096].
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Bangolae and to modify with that of Pateromichelakis to come up with the claim invention,
Bangolae includes motive for measurement report/QoS to identify best link [0189] based on hysteresis [0153] and performance monitoring [0258].
To include that motive to compare/contrast parameters as configured threshold, hysteresis value and predictive value to derive best performance metrics and analytics in the network/RAN that can increase capability of RIC controller to optimize RAN resources/slices in real-time and in near-real-time that O-RAN QoE/QoS optimization AI-enabled feature, Pateromichelakis [0068-0069] to meet the SLA of O-RAN at reduced latency.
Regarding Claim 3,
‘The method of claim 2’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein the agreed value for the performance metric for the first communication link comprises a quality of service (QoS) value’ (The measurement configuration receive from the BS to provide measurement of candidate relays and perform RLM; measure channel condition the link is lower than threshold and hysteresis [0088, 0134]. The UE select the best path based on channel condition and metrics. And, continue to use until RLF occur. And, the BS reconfigure resources at any time to switch based on Remote UE measurement or QoS [01888-0189]; Disclosure includes to perform measurement and metrics based on a measurement configuration provided by the BS/set by the NW that includes channel conditions, RLM, and threshold [0161, 0167-0168] );
And discloses, ‘wherein the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link’
And didn’t disclose, ‘comprises a quality of experience (QoE) value’;
Pateromichelakis in the relevant art discloses, QoS adaptation extended to QoE to optimize the user and RAN performance; The QoE is calculated at application layer [0039, 0041, 0092]; And, to analytics to AI model to measure channel condition and expected performance metrics [0177].
And further to include, ‘and wherein the predicted value for the performance metric for the first communication link a predicted quality of experience (QoP) value.’ (prediction of channel condition/quality; RRM and RLM measurement and hysteresis threshold [0142, 0177, 0198] and Fig. 2 illustrates predictive QoS adaptation pattern AI enabled to serving RAN node [0076, 0078])
Motivation would be identical to Claim 2 as predicted value is part of QoP that is extended QoS.
Regarding Claim 4,
‘The method of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein the performance values comprise at least a quality of service (QoS) value associated with the performance metric, and wherein the QoS value is configured based on an agreement between the UE and a network entity or configured at an application layer of the UE.’
QoS flow associated with an application; The UE hosted application run applications in application layers [0136, 0240]; The BS configures the radio resources to use best link based on channel condition and metric. And, perform Link switch based on measurement and QoS [0188-0189]. The Remote UE select best path among comparing each path based on predetermined/configured threshold and the threshold is conditional configured parameters between the Remote UE and the BS [0155]. And, channel conditions is evaluated against configured thresholds [0166].
And didn’t disclose, ‘the two or more’ performance values as disclosed above in Claim 1 and motive would be identical to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5,
‘The method of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Pateromichelakis discloses, ‘wherein the performance values comprise at least
Disclosure, QoE to optimize the user/UEs and RAN resources [0041]; QoS adaptation pattern, the QoS extended to QoE and also adaptive QoE [0045]. Analytics of AI model applied to the UE to configuration to improve channel quality/condition uses performance metrics [0177]. Fig. 2 includes the UE connects by a serving RAN communication link,
And didn’t disclose, ‘the two or more’ performance values as disclosed above in Claim 1 and motive would be identical to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6,
‘The method of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Pateromichelakis discloses, ‘wherein the performance values comprises a predicted quality of experience (QoP) value associated with the performance metric, wherein the QoP value is predicted based on at least one of: a historical database associated with the performance metric; historical measurements of the performance metric; UE status; or network status.’
The QoS adaptation pattern to the serving RAN node on QoS historical data analytics applied AI/ML model as illustrated in Fig. 2. This is not limited to QoS adaptation rather extended to QoE [0091-0092]. The QoS flow to the UE and the hysteresis threshold; the network slice. Includes the analytics to AI model based on configuration to include in the performance metrics [0175-0177] and Fig. 4).
And didn’t disclose, ‘the two or more’ performance values of QoS as disclosed above in Claim 1 and motive would be identical to Claim 1. In addition, Bangolae provide motive to increase reliability in QoS flow and perform measurement includes RLM, hysteresis and threshold. Someone would take this motive to improve performance metric by performing predictive measurement by QoS adaptation pattern as distinctly disclosed by Pateromichelakis, disclosure Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7,
‘The method of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein the performance metric comprises at least one of:
average throughput; maximum queuing latency; average queue size; packet loss rate; channel quality; video frame loss rate; video stall statistics; percentage of allocated radio resources in time-frequency; percentage of channel occupancy; bandwidth; or time-frequency resource reservation.’ (The best path is selected based on channel conditions, link quality and metrics for radio resource to measure radio link quality, detect RLF based on RLM and channel quality. The BS is allowed to reconfigure radio resources [0188-0190]. The performance measurement includes packet error rate [0135]; And, traffic statistics and usage reporting [0211, 0229]. Routing and the UE associated with network/NFs to reduce latency and bandwidth [0041, 0236])
Regarding Claim 8,
‘The method of claim 1’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein triggering link changes based on the performance comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link comprises at least one of:
switching to the second communication link via over-the-air signaling with a network’( the remote UE select best link among available links by comparing each path’s link quality to a predetermined/preconfigured threshold [0155]);
And discloses, ‘adding the second communication link as an additional radio access technology via over-the-air signaling with the network’ (Fig. 24 illustrates establishes link between the UE to the Access Node over-the-air connection [0206]);
And discloses, ‘adding the second communication link as an additional channel via over-the-air signaling with the network; adding the second communication link as an additional radio bearer via over-the-air signaling with the network; adding the second communication link as an additional component carrier via over-the-air signaling with the network; or adding the second communication link as a secondary cell group via over-the-air signaling with the network.’ (AN manage/communicate one or more cells, cell groups component carrier air-interface to connect the UE [0208-0209]; The best link selection uses radio resources and switch to alternative link when RLF occurs and the BS reconfigure the radio resources for the UE to switch [0188-0189]. )
Regarding Claim 9,
Bangolae discloses, ‘A user equipment device (UE), comprising: at least one antenna; at least one radio in communication with the at least one antenna and configured to communicate according to at least one radio access technology (RAT); and one or more processors in communication with the at least one radio and configured to cause the UE to:’ (Fig. 24 includes the UE connect to RAN/AN/AP/TRPs [0206-0207] and Fig. 25 includes processor and transceiver)
Identical to Claim 1 disclosed above, ‘determine two or more performance values for a first communication link selected from a plurality of communication links, wherein the two or more performance values are associated with a performance metric;
monitor the two or more performance values for the first communication link for performance degradation;
detect a performance degradation based on the monitoring of the two or more performance values for the first communication link;
select, in response to the detection of the performance degradation, a second communication link for performance comparison to the first communication link; and trigger link changes based on the performance comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link.’
Regarding Claim 10,
‘The UE of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, to detect the performance degradation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: compare an agreed value for the performance metric, a measured value for the performance metric’ and the also historical/hysteresis value,
RLM and to identify the event trigger by performing measurement compare with threshold and hysteresis to determine the link trigger changes [0108]. Evaluation for trigger condition perform RLM based threshold criteria and hysteresis [0134]. Compare each path’s link quality based on predetermined ad configured threshold [0152-0155]. That is part of performance metric, measurement and QoS based on configuration to determine the channel condition then select best link [0188-0189]; And, AI/ML model for predications and performance measure [0438] though didn’t specify the QoE and QoP.
And, didn’t disclose, ‘at least two of’ an agreed value for the performance metric Pateromichelakis discloses and disclosed above in Claim 2,
And further to include, ‘or a predicted value for the performance metric for the first communication link’ (disclosed above in Claim 1 and Claim 2);
Motive would be identical as disclosed above Claim 2.
Bangolae discloses, ‘and determine, based on the comparing, that performance on the first communication link is degrading.’ (Discloses the determination/identification of the channel condition, channel quality includes RLM based on QoS flows high reliability (e.g., low packet error rate requirement); perform CSI/RLM compare to threshold/hysteresis [0107-0109]. To determine best-link based on channel conditions/metrics/RLM as per configuration received by the BS and parameters for measurement and QoS includes threshold values chosen by hysteresis; av [0134, 0168-0170, 0188-0189].)
Regarding Claim 11,
‘The UE of claim 10’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, to determine that performance on the first communication link is degrading, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: determine that the predicted value for the performance metric is less than the measured value for the performance metric, that the measured value for the performance metric is less than the agreed value for the performance metric,’ (Link quality is measured/compare configured threshold [0200]; Link status measurement with threshold and the hysteresis [0108, 0134, 0152-0155]. The UE perform RLM to determine to use existing best link and trigger event based on channel conditions and configured threshold to switch to alternative path uses metrics [0347-0352].)
And didn’t disclose, ‘or that the predicted value for the performance metric is less than the agreed value for the performance metric.’
Pateromichelakis in the relevant art discloses, AI model to an expected QoS adaptation in the predictive analytics [0112-0116], Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Motive would be identical to Claim 2 disclosed above.
Regarding Claim 13,
‘The UE of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, to perform a comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: compare an agreed value for the performance metric for the second communication link to a measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link’ (Fig. 24 illustrates the UE sends measurement report of the serving cells. Perform synchronization based on configuration to identify best link/resources configuration and channel quality measurement [0201, 0212]. The UE connect to the AN/inter-RAT/intra-RAT mobility, the second communication link and perform QoS. Provide suitable configuration to network slices of present RAN to serve the UE. The communication link to provide services at application layer receive suitable configuration to select a set of slice instances. And, perform QoS on UL/DL [0229-0230]);
And discloses, ‘compare the performance metric for the second communication link to the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link.’ (disclosed above)
And didn’t disclose predicted value (Pateromichelakis discloses, Fig. 2 includes QoS pattern in time that can identify the difference of QoS in term interval, the predicted and the real-time actual measured [0036, 0104, 0130]
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Bangolae and to modify with that of Pateromichelakis to come up with the claim invention,
Motive would be to acquire accuracy in prediction and measurement, Pateromichelakis, [0112] to reduce latency and meet the requirement/criteria of the RAN add/modification of network slice/resource in the second communication link to provide suitable configuration, Bangolae [0230].
Regarding Claim 14,
‘The UE of claim 13’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, when the agreed value for the performance metric for the second communication link exceeds the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link’ and hysteresis and/or threshold value ‘for the performance metric for the second communication link exceeds the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to switch to the second communication link’ (Fig. 24 includes the measurement of the serving cell and configuration to identify the best link and alternatively remain/change/switch to second communication link/AN. Configuration of radio resources/slices and measure channel condition and applied QoS [0201, 0212, 0229-0230];
And further to include, ‘the predicted value’ of the AN (Pateromichelakis discloses Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. In addition, AI model inference includes analytics and measurement to perform/switch and provide configuration addition radio resources/slices [0104-0111]. Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 illustrates predictive QoS adaptation pattern real-time/near-time measurement as part O-RAN and RIC capability and provide appropriate priorities and re-map QoS. The UE evaluates/measures the channel condition based on the configured threshold and also RLM [0168-0170].)
Identical to first claim element, ‘and wherein, when the agreed value for the performance metric for the second communication link does not exceed the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link but the predicted value for the performance metric for the second communication link exceeds the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to add the second communication link as an additional component carrier or a secondary cell group.’ (Fig. 24 includes the measurement of the serving cell and configuration to identify the best link and alternatively remain/change/switch to second communication link/AN. Configuration of radio resources/slices and measure channel condition and applied QoS [0201, 0212, 0229-0230]; The ANs of the RAN manage one or more cells, cells group, component carriers 0209].
Regarding Claim 15,
‘The UE of claim 9’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein the performance metric is a first performance metric of a plurality of performance metrics, and wherein, for each of the plurality of performance metrics, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: determine performance values associated with a respective performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics for the first communication link’ (disclosure includes latency, bandwidth, channel conditions and packet delay budget to increase the performance and reliability and best link selection [0041-0042, 0137-0138, 0236, 0059, 0107, 0188-0189, 0303, 0323]; includes thresholds for measurement/RLM [0168-0170]);
And didn’t disclose, ‘two or more’ performance value (disclosed above in claim 1) and motive to identical to claim 1 disclosed above;
Identical to claim 1 disclosed above, ‘monitor the two or more performance values for the first communication link for performance degradation; and select, in response to detecting a performance degradation, another communication link for performance comparison to the first communication link, wherein the selecting results in a set of candidate communication links.’
Regarding Claim 16,
‘The UE of claim 15’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, to trigger link changes based on the performance comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: trigger link changes based on the performance comparison of the set of candidate communication links to the first communication link.’ (alternatively switch to best link uses configuration [0189-0189].)
Regarding Claim 17,
‘The UE of claim 16’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, to trigger link changes based on the performance comparison of the set of candidate communication links to the first communication link, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: derive a best performing communication link from the set of candidate communication links based on the performance comparison’ (identify the best link based on configuration and predetermined/configured threshold and switch to best link/first link [0161, 0166, 0188-0189]);
And discloses, ‘and switch to the best performing communication link via over-the-air signaling with a network or add the best performing communication as an additional component carrier or a secondary cell group via over-the-air signaling with the network.’ (Fig. 24 illustrates additional ANs and slices instances modification to serve the UE [0206-0207, 0229-0230].)
Regarding Claim 18,
Identical to Claim 1 disclosed above, ‘An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor in communication with the memory and configured to: select two or more performance values associated with a performance metric for a first communication link selected from a plurality of communication links; monitor the two or more performance values for the first communication link for performance degradation; detect a performance degradation based on the monitoring of the two or more performance values for the first communication link; select, in response to the detection of the performance degradation, a second communication link for performance comparison to the first communication link; and trigger link changes based on the performance comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link.’ (Fig. 25).
8. Claims 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bangolae et al. in view of Pateromichelakis et al. and further in view of Jin-Yang (US-20220210767-A1) hereinafter “Jin-Yang”.
Regarding Claim 12,
‘The UE of claim 10’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein one or more of the agreed value, measured value’ (disclosed above in Claim 2), and
And didn’t disclose, ‘or predicted value’ (disclosed above in claim 2 Pateromichelakis discloses),
And didn’t disclose, ‘is weighted’
Jin-Yang in the relevant art discloses, the weighted value/score applied to performance metrics variable throughput and latency. And, score included in performance metrics variables channel quality, throughput, latency and SNR [0043, 0064].
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis to modify with that of Yang to come up with the claim invention,
Banglolae motive to increase reliability and the throughput in the best path selection uses channel condition, metrics and QoS flows [0042, 0107, 0188]. Motive provide MoS scores to QoS adaptation pattern [0092]. Someone would be motivated to include the score as part of performance measurement uses metrics to improve the QoS and the QoP that can increase reliability in the performance metrics.
Regarding Claim 19,
‘The apparatus of claim 18’ (disclosed above),
Bangolae discloses, ‘wherein, to select, in response to detecting a performance degradation, the second communication link for performance comparison to the first communication link, the at least one processor is configured to: derive a set of candidate links for performance comparison to the first communication link’ (Perform the link selection and configure UE [0087-0088] and Fig. 6 to Fig. 8. Determine the best link among the links based measurement and metrics includes channel conditions and resources [0188-0189]);
And discloses, based on the channel conditions and measurement metrics select ‘the set of candidate links based on a respective value of the performance metric for each candidate link’ (Disclosed above in Claim 1, [0087-0088, 0188-0189]);
And didn’t disclose ‘sort’ the plurality of the links,
Jin-Yang discloses, Fig. 1 the plurality of links between the UE to access network A1 to A4. Includes specific procedure to provide link score and determined by Link score module Fig. 4 that is associated with a network access from the UE based on throughput, delay SNR, channel conditions to determine the access link best meet criteria [0038, 0042-0043].
Therefore, a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have recognized that the disclosure of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis to modify with that of Yang to come up with the claim invention,
Motive would be identical to Claim 12 disclosed above.
Regarding Claim 20,
‘The apparatus of claim 19’ (disclosed above),
Identical to Claim 2 disclosed above, ‘wherein the respective value of the performance metric for a candidate link comprises at least one of: an agreed value for the performance metric for the candidate link; a measured value for the performance metric for the candidate link; or a predicted value for the performance metric for the candidate link.’
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Arguments:
Applicant is in receipt of the Office Action mailed November 13, 2025. Claim 5 has been amended to correct a minor typographical error. No new matter has been introduced. Reconsideration of the present case is respectfully requested in view of the following remarks.
Section 103 Rejections:
The Office Action rejected claims 1-11 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Bangolae (US 20230354152) in view of Pateromichelakis (US 20230328580).
The Office Action rejected claims 12, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Bangolae in view of Pateromichelakis and further in view of Jin-Yang (US 20220210767).
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection for at least the following reasons.
As the Examiner is certainly aware, to establish a prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 U.S.P.Q. 580 (C.C.P.A. 1974), MPEP 2143.03.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for communication link selection at a user equipment device
(UE), comprising:
determining two or more performance values for a first communication link
selected from a plurality of communication links, wherein the two or more
performance values are associated with a performance metric;
monitoring the two or more performance values for the first communication
link for performance degradation;
detecting a performance degradation based on the monitoring of the two or
more performance values for the first communication link;
selecting, in response to detection of the performance degradation, a second
communication link for performance comparison to the first communication link;
and triggering link changes based on the performance comparison of the second
communication link to the first communication link.
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited combination fails to teach or suggest, or otherwise motivate all of the elements of claim 1. For example, the cited combination fails to teach or suggest at least "determining two or more performance values for a first communication link selected from9
a plurality of communication links, wherein the two or more performance values are associated with a performance metric." The Office Action cites the combination of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis in rejecting claim 1, specifically citing Bangolae at paragraphs [0107], [0131], [0134], [0149], [0161], [0167], [0188], [0189], [0217], [0230], [0351], [0389], and [0438], and further citing Pateromichelakis for predicted QoS profiles and hysteresis thresholds at paragraphs [0177] and [0181].
Bangolae is directed to sidelink relay and multipath enhancements. In the scheme taught in Bangolae, a UE selects between a direct path and an indirect relay path based primarily on channel conditions, relay availability, and radio link monitoring events. For example, Bangolae describes selecting a "best channel condition" path and continuing to use that path until a radio link failure (RLF) occurs or a reselection condition is met (see, e.g., paragraphs [0149] and [0188]). Bangolae further teaches channel quality measurements, relay identification reporting, and link monitoring mechanisms (see, e.g., paragraphs [0134], [0167], [0189], and Fig. 8). However, these teachings relate to single-value channel condition assessments at a given time used for path selection or triggering reselection events, not to determining two or more performance values associated with a single performance metric for a given communication link, as recited in claim 1. Bangolae does not disclose generating multiple values of the same performance metric, nor does Bangolae disclose associating multiple such values with a single link.
The Office Action further relies on Bangolae's discussion of quality-related concepts such as QoS flows for high reliability and low packet error rate (see, e.g., paragraphs [0107] and [0131]) and hysteresis threshold parameters (see, e.g., paragraph [0161]) as allegedly corresponding to "two or more performance values." However, a QoS flow designation or reliability target is not a performance value derived from link evaluation, and a hysteresis threshold is a control parameter used to stabilize reselection behavior rather than a measured or evaluated value of a performance metric. These disclosures therefore do not satisfy the claim requirement of determining two or more performance values associated with a performance metric for a communication link.
Pateromichelakis, in turn, is directed to an AI-based framework for predicting QoS profile adaptations at the RAN level. Pateromichelakis discloses generating an expected or predicted QoS profile for a QoS flow based on analytics models and transmitting that predicted profile to network entities for QoS management (see, e.g., Figs. 2-4; paragraphs [0177] and [0181] describing predicted QoS patterns and hysteresis thresholds). While Pateromichelakis may disclose a predicted QoS-related parameter, it does not disclose determining measured or agreed performance values for a communication link, nor does it disclose associating multiple values of a single performance metric with a particular link. Moreover, Pateromichelakis does not perform UE-side communication link selection or link comparison, and it does not disclose monitoring multiple values of a performance metric to detect performance degradation on a specific link.
Even when Bangolae and Pateromichelakis are combined, the cited references at most teach (i) selecting a path based on a single channel condition assessment (Bangolae) and (ii) predicting a QoS profile at a network analytics layer (Pateromichelakis). The combination does not disclose or suggest the claimed architecture in which two or more performance values for the same performance metric for a first communication link are determined. The Office Action does not identify, and the cited combination does not teach, where multiple values of a single performance metric are determined as required by claim 1. Thus, nothing in the Office Action explains how disparate items such as a QoS flow designation and a hysteresis threshold could reasonably be considered 'two or more performance values' of a single performance metric without impermissibly rewriting the claim language.
Thus, for at least the above reasons, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach or suggest, or otherwise motivate all the features and elements of claim 1, and so claim 1, and those claims respectively dependent therefrom, are patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art, and are thus allowable.
Independent claims 9 and 18 each includes novel elements similar to those of claim 1, and so the above arguments apply with equal force to these claims. Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, claims 9 and 18, and those claims respectively dependent therefrom, are patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art, and are thus allowable.
Applicant also asserts that numerous ones of the dependent claims recite further distinctions over the cited art.
For example, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach all of the elements of claim 2, specifically "wherein the two or more performance values comprise two or more of: an agreed value for the performance metric for the first communication link; a measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link; or a predicted value for the performance metric for the first communication link." The Office Action cites the combination of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis in rejecting claim 2, relying on Bangolae for link monitoring, channel quality
measurements, QoS-related concepts, and hysteresis thresholds, and further relying on Pateromichelakis for predicted QoS profiles and hysteresis thresholds.
Bangolae does not disclose any of the performance value categories recited in claim 2. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bangolae teaches selecting between a direct path and a relay path based on instantaneous channel condition assessments, relay availability, and radio link monitoring events. While Bangolae includes channel quality measurements and monitoring mechanisms (see, e.g., paragraphs [0134], [0167], [0189]), these measurements represent single, instantaneous assessments of a channel condition and do not constitute a "measured performance value" in the sense of claim 2, which requires a performance value associated with a performance metric and usable in conjunction with at least one other performance value. Moreover, Bangolae does not disclose any "agreed performance value," such as a negotiated, configured, or otherwise agreed-upon target performance level for a communication link, nor does Bangolae disclose any "predicted performance value" derived from forecasting or analytics.
The Office Action further points to Bangolae's discussion of QoS flows for high reliability and low packet error rate (see, e.g., paragraphs [0107] and [0131]) and hysteresis threshold parameters (see, e.g., paragraph [0161]). However, a QoS flow designation or reliability objective is not an agreed performance value associated with a specific communication link, nor is it a measured or predicted performance value. Similarly, a hysteresis threshold is a control parameter used to stabilize reselection behavior and avoid oscillations, not a performance value derived from evaluating a performance metric of a communication link. Accordingly, Bangolae does not disclose any of the agreed, measured, or predicted performance values recited in claim 2.
Pateromichelakis, in contrast, is directed to an AI-based framework for predicting QoS profile adaptations at the RAN level. Pateromichelakis discloses generating an expected or predicted QoS profile for a QoS flow based on analytics models and transmitting that predicted profile to network entities for QoS management (see, e.g., Figs. 2-4; paragraphs [0177] and [0181]). While Pateromichelakis may disclose a predicted QoS-related parameter, it does not disclose an agreed performance value or a measured performance value for a communication link. Nor does Pateromichelakis disclose determining multiple performance values associated with a single performance metric for a link, as required by claim 2.
Even when Bangolae and Pateromichelakis are combined, the cited references at most disclose (i) instantaneous channel condition measurements used for path selection or reselection (Bangolae) and (ii) predicted QoS profiles generated at a network analytics layer (Pateromichelakis). The combination does not disclose or suggest determining two or more performance values that comprise any combination of an agreed performance value, a measured performance value, or a predicted performance value for the same communication link, as required by claim 2. The Office Action does not identify, and the cited combination does not teach, where at least two of these categories of performance values are determined for a communication link.
Hence, for at least the reasons above, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise motivate all the features and elements of claim 2, and so claim 2 is patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art based on its own merits, and is thus allowable.
As another example, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach all of the elements of claim 3, specifically "wherein the agreed value for the performance metric for the first communication link comprises a quality of service (QoS) value; wherein the measured value for the performance metric for the first communication link comprises a quality of experience (QoE) value; and wherein the predicted value for the performance metric for the first communication link a predicted quality of experience (QoP) value." The Office Action cites the combination of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis in rejecting claim 3, relying on Bangolae for channel quality measurements, QoS-related concepts, and link monitoring, and further relying on Pateromichelakis for predicted QoS profiles and hysteresis thresholds.
Bangolae does not disclose any mapping between different categories of performance values and the distinct concepts of QoS, QoE, and QoP as recited in claim 3. As discussed with respect to claims 1 and 2, Bangolae is directed to sidelink relay and multipath enhancements in which a UE selects between a direct path and an indirect relay path based on channel conditions, relay availability, and radio link monitoring events. While Bangolae references QoS flows for high reliability and low packet error rate (see, e.g., paragraphs [0107] and [0131]), such QoS flow identifiers or reliability objectives do not constitute an "agreed value" for a performance metric associated with a specific communication link, nor are they used as a reference value against which link performance is evaluated. Moreover, Bangolae does not disclose any notion of quality of experience (QoE), let alone a measured QoE value for a communication link, and does not disclose any predicted quality of experience (QoP) value.
The Office Action further relies on Bangolae's discussion of channel quality measurements, link monitoring, and hysteresis threshold parameters (see, e.g., paragraphs [0134], [0167], [0161], and [0189]). However, instantaneous channel condition measurements do not constitute a measured QoE value, which reflects user-perceived experience rather than radio-level measurements. Likewise, a hysteresis threshold is a control parameter used to stabilize reselection behavior and avoid oscillations, not a predicted quality of experience value derived from forecasting user experience. Accordingly, Bangolae fails to disclose any of the QoS, QoE, or QoP- based performance values recited in claim 3.
Pateromichelakis, in contrast, is directed to an AI-based framework for predicting QoS profile adaptations at the RAN level. Pateromichelakis discloses generating predicted QoS profiles for traffic flows based on analytics models and communicating those predicted profiles to network entities for QoS management (see, e.g., Figs. 2-4; paragraphs [0177] and [0181]). However, Pateromichelakis does not disclose an agreed QoS value used as a reference for evaluating link performance, nor does it disclose a measured QoE value reflecting user experience at a UE. Further, while Pateromichelakis predicts QoS-related behavior, it does not disclose predicting a quality of experience (QoP) value, and it does not associate predicted values with a specific communication link selected from a plurality of links. Pateromichelakis also does not perform UE- side link evaluation or link selection and therefore does not disclose determining QoS, QoE, and QoP values for a communication link as recited in claim 3.
Even when Bangolae and Pateromichelakis are combined, the cited references at most disclose (i) radio-level channel condition assessments and relay path selection (Bangolae) and (ii) predicted QoS profiles generated at a network analytics layer (Pateromichelakis). The combination does not disclose or suggest the claimed framework in which an agreed QoS value, a measured QoE value, and a predicted QoP value are each determined for the same performance metric of a first communication link. The Office Action does not identify, and the cited combination does not teach, any mapping or correspondence between QoS, QoE, and QoP values as distinct performance value categories associated with a single performance metric, as required by claim 3.
Hence, for at least the reasons above, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise motivate all the features and elements of claim 3, and so claim 3 is patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art based on its own merits, and is thus allowable.
As a further example, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach all of the elements of claim 8, specifically "wherein triggering link changes based on the performance comparison of the second communication link to the first communication link comprises at least one of: switching to the second communication link via over-the-air signaling with a network; adding the second communication link as an additional radio access technology via over-the-air signaling with the network; adding the second communication link as an additional channel via over-the-air signaling with the network; adding the second communication link as an additional radio bearer via over- the-air signaling with the network; adding the second communication link as an additional component carrier via over-the-air signaling with the network; or adding the second communication link as a secondary cell group via over-the-air signaling with the network." The Office Action cites the combination of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis in rejecting claim 8, relying on Bangolae for path selection, multipath communication, and relay switching, and further relying on Pateromichelakis for QoS-related predictions.
Bangolae does not disclose triggering link changes of the type recited in claim 8. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bangolae is directed to sidelink relay and multipath enhancements in which a UE selects between a direct path and an indirect relay path based on channel conditions and radio link monitoring events. In Bangolae, a "link change" corresponds to selecting or activating a relay path or reverting to a direct path, typically in response to RLF or channel condition changes (see, e.g., paragraphs [0149], [0188], and [0189]). These operations are performed through relay configuration and path selection mechanisms specific to sidelink forwarding and do not involve switching radio access technologies, adding channels, adding radio bearers, adding component carriers, or configuring secondary cell groups via over-the-air signaling with a network.
Further, while Bangolae discloses multipath communication and forwarding UE selection (see, e.g., paragraphs [0351], [0389], and [0438]), such multipath operation is implemented within a single radio access technology and relies on relay-specific signaling and forwarding behavior. Bangolae does not disclose dynamically adding a second communication link as an additional radio access technology, channel, radio bearer, component carrier, or secondary cell group, nor does it disclose triggering any such additions based on a performance comparison between two communication links. Rather, Bangolae's mechanisms are limited to selecting among available paths within a predefined relay framework.
Pateromichelakis, in turn, does not disclose triggering any link changes at all. Instead, Pateromichelakis is directed to predicting QoS profile adaptations at the RAN level and communicating predicted QoS information to network entities (see, e.g., Figs. 2-4; paragraphs
[0177] and [0181]). Pateromichelakis does not disclose switching communication links, adding communication links, or performing any UE-side reconfiguration of radio access technologies, channels, bearers, component carriers, or secondary cell groups. Nor does Pateromichelakis disclose performing any over-the-air signaling to add or modify communication links based on a comparison of link performance.
Even when Bangolae and Pateromichelakis are combined, the cited references at most teach (i) selecting or activating a relay path within a sidelink multipath framework (Bangolae) and
(ii) predicting QoS profiles at a network analytics layer (Pateromichelakis). The combination does not disclose or suggest triggering link changes that comprise switching to, or adding, a second communication link as an additional radio access technology, channel, radio bearer, component carrier, or secondary cell group via over-the-air signaling with a network, as expressly recited in claim 8. The Office Action does not identify, and the cited combination does not teach, any mechanism for performing these specific types of link changes, nor any motivation for modifying Bangolae's relay-based path selection to arrive at Applicant's claimed multi-dimensional link reconfiguration framework.
Hence, for at least the reasons above, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise motivate all the features and elements of claim 8, and so claim 8 is patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art based on its own merits, and is thus allowable.
As an additional example, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach all of the elements of claim 10, specifically "wherein, to detect the performance degradation, the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to: compare at least two of an agreed value for the performance metric, a measured value for the performance metric, or a predicted value for the performance metric for the first communication link; and determine, based on the comparing, that performance on the first communication link is degrading." The Office Action cites the combination of Bangolae and Pateromichelakis in rejecting claim 10, relying on Bangolae for link monitoring, channel condition measurements, radio link monitoring, and reselection triggers, and further relying on Pateromichelakis for predicted QoS profiles and hysteresis thresholds.
Bangolae does not disclose comparing multiple performance values of a performance metric to detect performance degradation. As discussed with respect to claims 1-3, Bangolae is directed to sidelink relay and multipath enhancements in which a lE selects or switches between a direct path and a relay path based on instantaneous channel condition assessments, relay
availability, or radio link monitoring events such as RLF. While Bangolae discloses channel quality measurements and link monitoring (see, e.g., paragraphs [0134], [0167], and [0189]), such monitoring involves evaluating a single channel condition value at a given time and does not involve comparing multiple values-such as agreed, measured, or predicted values-of a performance metric for the same communication link. Further, Bangolae does not disclose determining that performance is degrading based on a comparison of different categories of performance values; instead, path reselection in Bangolae is triggered by threshold crossings or failure events, not by comparative analysis of multiple performance values.
The Office Action further relies on Bangolae's disclosure of hysteresis threshold parameters (see, e.g., paragraph [0161]) in support of performance degradation detection. However, a hysteresis threshold is a control mechanism used to prevent frequent oscillations in reselection decisions and does not involve comparing two or more performance values associated with a performance metric. A threshold comparison against a single measured value is fundamentally different from the claimed comparison of at least two of an agreed value, a measured value, or a predicted value to determine performance degradation.
Pateromichelakis, in turn, does not disclose detecting performance degradation through value comparison either. Instead, Pateromichelakis is directed to predicting QoS profile adaptations at the RAN level using analytics models and communicating predicted QoS information to network entities (see, e.g., Figs. 2-4; paragraphs [0177] and [0181]). While Pateromichelakis may disclose generating a predicted QoS-related parameter, it does not disclose determining a measured value or an agreed value for a communication link, nor does it disclose comparing multiple performance values to detect degradation. Moreover, Pateromichelakis does not operate at the UE to evaluate communication link performance and does not disclose determining that performance on a specific link is degrading based on any such comparison.
Even when Bangolae and Pateromichelakis are combined, the cited references at most teach (i) monitoring a single channel condition and triggering reselection or relay switching based on threshold events or failures (Bangolae) and (ii) predicting QoS profiles at a network analytics layer (Pateromichelakis). The combination does not disclose or suggest comparing at least two of an agreed value, a measured value, or a predicted value for a performance metric of a first communication link, nor does it disclose determining performance degradation based on such a comparison, as expressly recited in claim 10. The Office Action does not identify, and the cited
combination does not teach, any mechanism by which multiple performance values are compared to infer degradation of a communication link.
Hence, for at least the reasons above, Applicant submits that the cited art fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise motivate all the features and elements of claim 10, and so claim 10 is patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited art based on its own merits, and is thus allowable.
Applicant also asserts that numerous other ones of the dependent claims recite further distinctions over the cited art. However, since the independent claims have been shown to be patentably distinct, a further discussion of the dependent claims is not necessary at this time.
Removal of the Section 103 Rejection of the claims is earnestly requested.
Examiners response:
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks, examiner responses are:
Examiner reviewed the applicant’s arguments/remarks and amended claims provided required disclosures in the office actions from the closest and relevant prior arts that covers the subject matters. Addressed all the claims and applicant’s
argument/remarks disclosed from the presented prior arts “Bangolae”, “Pateromichelakis”, and “Yang”.
Regarding the claim subject matter and the claims, most important part of the claim,
Communication link selection that determined by two or more performance values are associated to a performance metrics.
Disclosure Bangolae discloses the link selection and the best link based on the channel conditions, quality and metrics. Specifically done by RLM [0188]. Receive the configuration for the measurement and QoS [0189]. Disclosure includes few metrics for the link measurement includes RLM, channel quality and condition specifically to the links that includes thresholds [0166-0170].
Bangolae includes the measurement configuration for the UE to perform measurement and includes specific thresholds consistent RLM also QoS [0166-0170, 0189] to determine/identify the best link [0188].
The motive to include performance values associated to metric to select best link from the plurality of the links that is explicitly performed by the Bangolae. The measurement-configuration includes thresholds is a set value alternatively agreed-value. Therefore determine performance value associated to metric and QoS by measurement. And, didn’t disclose two or more performance values. That is defined by two or more values: agreed, measured and a predicted. Regarding two or more values specifically to these values,
-agreed /QoS flow
- measured actual /QoE
- predicted /forecast/inference/hysteresis /QoP
Are disclosed by Pateromichelakis.
Bangolae includes stacks and layers at L1/L2/L3; QoS flow handling for multiple-links [0131] includes stacks, resources/RBs and channels at L1/L2/L3 in Fig. 14, and 17-20; Reliability achieved at PDCP layers [0127]; uses network slices NFV and NFV/RAN orchestration to manage resources [0248]. Motive also includes routing, load-balancing-configurations and performance-monitoring as part of service infrastructure control-function and configured by RAN to manage computing resources [0258, 0263]. Important motive, at least one link must remain active [0149] and to increase reliability, throughput and reduce latency. Also include hysteresis. Someone would take this motive to include distinctly the QoE and the QoP.
Examiner thanks applicant and attorney for their time and effort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., ETSI World Class Standards QoS QoE User Experience Workshop, Sep. 21-22, 2010, "Bridging QoE and QoS for Mobile Broadband Networks", 45 pages, Dr. David Soldani, VP Huawei European Research Centre. Disclosure include: performance metrics variables, combine QoS and QoE, key performance measurement. Includes weight factors in KPI and network optimizations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Syed Ahmed whose telephone number is (703)-756-5308. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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.
/S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466