DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 03/03/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 20 have been cancelled to date.
New claims 21-22 have been added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 7, 12, and 17, Applicant initially argues that one or both of MolavianJazi and Kim do not teach/suggest the amended claim feature of: “wherein the random access channel occasions are used for sending a random access preamble.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MolavianJazi describes that its UE can transmit a RA preamble in a first message, i.e., RA Msg. 1/A, via a RO that is a configured UL BW resource for preamble transmission (paras. [0066], [0073]-[0075], [0079], [0083], [0091], and [0269]). Moreover, in 5G NR, RACH Occasions (ROs) are described as time and frequency resources allocated for a UE to transmit a RA preamble, i.e., in a Msg.A/Msg.1 of a corresponding RA procedure. Applicant arguing they cannot find this teaching is unpersuasive, as one or ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the above citations of MolavianJazi to fairly teach/suggest the above-contested, claim features.
Applicant then argues that MolavianJazi and Kim do not teach/suggest the amended claim feature of: “wherein the third indication information is identifier information, and the identifier information is included in the higher layer signaling.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. The Examiner agrees.
However, the above-amended claim subject matter warranted a new grounds of rejection under §103, where neither MolavianJazi nor Kim is/are substantively relied upon to teach/suggest this contested claim subject matter. Instead, in the instant Office Action, Matsumura is relied upon to read on the these argued claim features. As such, Applicant is referred to the new rejection of its independent claims, 1, 7, 12, and 17, which have been fairly rejected based upon the prior art combination Matsumura with MolavianJazi and Kim, under §103.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 17, are either determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot based upon the new grounds of rejection provided herewith, including Matsumura.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 11-12. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2021/0058971 A1, MolavianJazi et al. (hereinafter “MolavianJazi”), in view of US PG Pub. 2017/0141833 A1, Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”), in further view of US PG Pub. 2020/0389260 A1, Matsumura et al. (hereinafter “Matsumura”).
With Respect to Claim 1, MolavianJazi teaches:
A method, performed by a first terminal device or a chip in the first terminal device (UE device 116 with processor 340 of Fig. 3 ), comprising:
receiving first information useable to indicate bandwidth resources for a first-type of terminal device (paras. [0071], [0073], [0078] and [0083]; and Fig. 7B —a UE, such a RedCap UE (See paras. [0114] and [0118]), can receive configuration information indicating frequency domain resources, i.e., bandwidth (BW) resources, such as ROs, usable for performing a RA procedure),
wherein the first-type terminal device is reduced capacity (REDCAP) terminal device (paras. [0042]-[0043], [0114], [0118], and [0376]-[0380] —the UE can a be a REDCAP UE, such as a low-complexity UE associated with MTC and/or M2M communications);
receiving a first parameter, wherein the first parameter is a quantity of random access channel occasions useable for frequency division multiplexing in a time unit (para. [0083] and [0150] —a UE can receive, as part of a configuration of ROs in frequency, a parameter, i.e., msg1-FDM, indicating a number ROs K usable for FDM at a time —the equivalent TDM association can be a number of RO repetitions per time slot, at para. [0082] and [0131]),
wherein the random access channel occasions are for receiving a random access preamble (paras. [0073]-[0075], [0079], [0083], and [0269] —a UE can transmit a RA preamble in a first message, i.e., RA Msg. 1, via a RO that is a configured as an UL BW resource for preamble transmission);
determining a first bandwidth resource from the M bandwidth resources based on the first information and the first parameter (para. [0083]; and RO1 of Fig. 7B —a UE can determine a first BW resource of the RO configuration’s BW resources, i.e., usable for sending an RA preamble transmission, to start in a PRB (See para. [0061]) w/offset compared to the lowest PRB in the UL BWP, considering the number of FDMed ROs); and
sending the random access preamble (paras. [0073]-[0075], [0079], [0083], and [0269] —a UE can send a first preamble transmission, i.e., RA Msg.1/A, to the BS).
However, MolavianJazi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first information is useable to indicate M bandwidth resources, where M is a positive integer, and a size of each of the M bandwidth resources is equal to or less than a maximum channel bandwidth of a first terminal device, and the first terminal device is a first-type terminal device.
Kim does teach:
receiving first information, wherein the first information is useable to indicate M bandwidth resources, where M is a positive integer, and a size of each of the M bandwidth resources is equal to or less than a maximum channel bandwidth of a first terminal device, and the first terminal device is a first-type terminal device (paras. [0120], [0360]-[0364], [0372]-[0376], and [0385]; and Figs. 21-23 —information for indicating M subband resource(s), i.e., bandwidth (BW) resources, allocated for a low-cost UE type can be received via configuration information, i.e., SIB, where the subband resource(s) are less than the maximum transmission channel bandwidth, i.e., a wideband BW, as depicted in Figs. 22-23);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi’s random access configuration, i.e., SIB, with subband BW resource restriction taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly require the BW resources associated with a RACH to be within, i.e., less than or equal to, a maximum channel BW, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0120], [0360]-[0364], [0372]-[0376], and [0385]; and Figs. 21-23 —the Examiner notes that restraining channel BW resource allocation to a Max channel BW is a standard process that is simply not detailed in MolavianJazi).
However, MolavianJazi in view of Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving third indication information, wherein the third indication information is identifier information, and the identifier information is included in a higher layer signaling, the third indication information is for determining a bandwidth resource to send physical uplink control (PUCCH) for feeding back a contention resolution message.
Matsumura does teach:
receiving indication information that is an identifier information, included in a higher layer signaling, which is for determining a bandwidth resource to send a PUCCH for feeding back a contention resolution message (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156] —prior to RRC connection and during an RA procedure, a BS can send a UE higher layer signaling, i.e., system information (SI), SIB, RMSI, etc. with “identifier information,” i.e., a bit value, in part to indicate an UL BW resource for sending HARQ feedback via the PUCCH corresponding to contention resolution success status —in one example, a higher layer RMSI may be transmitted to a UE, having an identifier bit representing an index value associated with a BW resource for contention-based HARQ signaling —the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure, at paras. [00286] and [00301], also describes that its identifier information can be included in higher layer signaling, such as SI, of a RAR or “Msg. 4 DCI,” in association with an UL resource grant and that its identifier information may be a single-bit value).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi in view of Kim’s random access configuration, i.e., higher layer SIB, to also include identifier information for indicating resources for signaling contention resolution HARQ feedback, as taught by Matsumura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a UE with low-overhead SI signaling, i.e., bit information, with which to identify contention resolution success/ACK HARQ feedback, as recognized by Matsumura (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156]).
With respect to claim 3, MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a bit status of the third indication information is useable to indicate the bandwidth resource useable to send a message 3 in the random access process or the physical uplink control channel useable for feeding back the contention resolution message (MolavianJazi: paras. [0204]-[0206] and [0269]-[0272]; and Tables 3 and 6 a reserved bit indicator of a DCI format can be used to determine BWP resources usable to send UL a Msg.3 —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on the merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 6, MolavianJazi in view of Kim teach the method of claim 1.
However, MolavianJazi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the identifier information comprises 1 bit.
Matsumura does teach:
wherein its identifier information can comprise 1 bit (paras. [0066]-[0069], [0074], [0086], [0089], [0095]-[0098], [0102], [0165], and [0275]; and Figs. 6A and 7B —the identifier information of a system information (SI) may comprise a single-bit value in some embodiments).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi’s random access configuration, i.e., higher layer SIB, to also include single-bit identifier information for indicating resources for signaling contention resolution HARQ feedback, as taught by Matsumura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a UE with low-overhead SI signaling, i.e., single-bit information, with which to identify contention resolution success/ACK HARQ feedback, as recognized by Matsumura (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156]).
With respect to claim 7, MolavianJazi teaches:
A method, comprising:
sending first information useable to indicate bandwidth resources for a first-type of terminal device (paras. [0071], [0073], [0078] and [0083]; and Fig. 7B —a UE, such a RedCap UE (See paras. [0114] and [0118]), can receive configuration information, sent from a BS, indicating frequency domain resources, i.e., bandwidth (BW) resources, such as ROs, usable for performing a RA procedure),
wherein the first-type terminal device is reduced capacity (REDCAP) terminal device (paras. [0042]-[0043], [0114], [0118], and [0376]-[0380] —the UE can a be a REDCAP UE, such as a low-complexity UE associated with MTC and/or M2M communications);
sending a first parameter, wherein the first parameter is a quantity of random access channel occasions useable for frequency division multiplexing in a time unit (para. [0083] and [0150] —a UE can receive, as part of a configuration of ROs in frequency sent from a BS, a parameter, i.e., msg1-FDM, indicating a number ROs K usable for FDM at a time —the equivalent TDM association can be a number of RO repetitions per time slot, at para. [0082] and [0131]),
wherein the random access channel occasions are for receiving a random access preamble (paras. [0073]-[0075], [0079], [0083], and [0269] —a UE can transmit a RA preamble in a first message, i.e., RA Msg. 1, via a RO that is a configured as an UL BW resource for preamble transmission); and
receiving the random access preamble on the first bandwidth resource (paras. [0073]-[0075], [0079], [0083], and [0269] —a BS can receive a first preamble transmission, i.e., RA Msg.1/A, from a UE via the RO corresponding a provisioned UL BW resource for UE-preamble transmission),
wherein the first bandwidth resource is determined by the first terminal device from the M bandwidth resources based on the first information and the first parameter (para. [0083]; and RO1 of Fig. 7B —a UE can determine a first BW resource of the RO configuration’s BW resources, i.e., usable for sending an RA preamble transmission, to start in a PRB (See para. [0061]) w/offset compared to the lowest PRB in the UL BWP, considering the number of FDMed ROs).
MolavianJazi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first information is useable to indicate M bandwidth resources, where M is a positive integer, and a size of each of the M bandwidth resources is equal to or less than a maximum channel bandwidth of a first terminal device, and the first terminal device is a first-type terminal device.
Kim does teach:
receiving first information, wherein the first information is useable to indicate M bandwidth resources, where M is a positive integer, and a size of each of the M bandwidth resources is equal to or less than a maximum channel bandwidth of a first terminal device, and the first terminal device is a first-type terminal device (paras. [0120], [0360]-[0364], [0372]-[0376], and [0385]; and Figs. 21-23 —information for indicating M subband resource(s), i.e., bandwidth (BW) resources, allocated for a low-cost UE type can be received via configuration information, i.e., SIB, where the subband resource(s) are less than the maximum transmission channel bandwidth, i.e., a wideband BW, as depicted in Figs. 22-23);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi’s random access configuration, i.e., SIB, with subband BW resource restriction taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly require the BW resources associated with a RACH to be within, i.e., less than or equal to, a maximum channel BW, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0120], [0360]-[0364], [0372]-[0376], and [0385]; and Figs. 21-23 —the Examiner notes that restraining channel BW resource allocation to a Max channel BW is a standard process that is simply not detailed in MolavianJazi).
However, MolavianJazi in view of Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving third indication information, wherein the third indication information is identifier information, and the identifier information is included in a higher layer signaling, the third indication information is for determining a bandwidth resource to send physical uplink control (PUCCH) for feeding back a contention resolution message.
Matsumura does teach:
receiving indication information that is an identifier information, included in a higher layer signaling, which is for determining a bandwidth resource to send a PUCCH for feeding back a contention resolution message (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156] —prior to RRC connection and during an RA procedure, a BS can send a UE higher layer signaling, i.e., system information (SI), SIB, RMSI, etc. with “identifier information,” i.e., a bit value, in part to indicate an UL BW resource for sending HARQ feedback via the PUCCH corresponding to contention resolution success status —in one example, a higher layer RMSI may be transmitted to a UE, having an identifier bit representing an index value associated with a BW resource for contention-based HARQ signaling —the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure, at paras. [00286] and [00301], also describes that its identifier information can be included in higher layer signaling, such as SI, of a RAR or “Msg. 4 DCI,” in association with an UL resource grant and that its identifier information may be a single-bit value).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi in view of Kim’s random access configuration, i.e., higher layer SIB, to also include identifier information for indicating resources for signaling contention resolution HARQ feedback, as taught by Matsumura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a UE with low-overhead SI signaling, i.e., bit information, with which to identify contention resolution success/ACK HARQ feedback, as recognized by Matsumura (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156]).
With respect to claim 3, MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a bit status of the third indication information is useable to indicate the bandwidth resource useable to send a message 3 in the random access process or the physical uplink control channel useable for feeding back the contention resolution message (MolavianJazi: paras. [0204]-[0206] and [0269]-[0272]; and Tables 3 and 6 a reserved bit indicator of a DCI format can be used to determine BWP resources usable to send UL a Msg.3 —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on the merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3, except claim 9 is written from the perspective of a BS, as opposed to a UE. As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103, based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6, except claim 11 is written from the perspective of a BS, as opposed to a UE. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103, based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 12 is directed to a an apparatus with memory and one or more processors (paras. [0052]-[0060]; and UE 116 with memory 360 and processor 340 of Fig. 3). As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §103 based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103, based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103, based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 7, except claim 17 is directed to a an apparatus with memory and one or more processors (MolavianJazi: paras. [0044]-[0051]; and BS 102 with memory 230 and processors 215/220/225 of Fig. 2). As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3, except claim 19 is written from the perspective of a BS, as opposed to a UE. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103, based on MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura, for the same reasons described above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 21, MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura teach the method according to claim 1.
However, MolavianJazi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the contention resolution message is Msg. 4, the bandwidth resource to send to the PUCCH for feeding back the contention resolution message and the first bandwidth resource for sending the random access preamble are within an initial uplink bandwidth part (initial UL BWP), wherein the initial UL BWP is indicated by SIB 1.
Matsumura does teach:
wherein a contention resolution message is Msg. 4, the bandwidth resource to send to the PUCCH for feeding back the contention resolution message and the first bandwidth resource for sending the random access preamble are within an initial uplink bandwidth part (initial UL BWP), wherein the initial UL BWP is indicated by SIB 1 (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0063]-[0065], [0067], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0150] —the BW resource of the PUCCH for feeding back the contention resolution Msg.4 HARQ feedback can be the same as that used for the initial UL BWP PUCCH resource used for signaling a preamble in the Msg. 1, which can be configurated by RMSI (a.k.a., SIB1) —the Examiner notes that RMSI is an equivalent to SIB1).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi in view of Kim’s random access configuration, i.e., higher layer SIB, to also include identifier information for indicating resources for signaling contention resolution HARQ feedback, as taught by Matsumura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a UE with low-overhead SI signaling, i.e., bit information, with which to identify contention resolution success/ACK HARQ feedback, as recognized by Matsumura (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156]).
With respect to claim 22, MolavianJazi in view of Kim and Matsumura teach the method according to claim 3.
However, MolavianJazi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the bandwidth resource to send the random access preamble is different from the bandwidth resource to send the PUCCH for feeding back the contention resolution message.
Matsumura does teach:
wherein the bandwidth resource to send the random access preamble is different from the bandwidth resource to send the PUCCH for feeding back the contention resolution message (paras. [0151]-[0152] —the BW resource of the PUCCH used for sending contention resolution feedback, i.e., HARQ ACK/CR success signaling, may be transmitted using an UL BWP resource of a current active BWP, as opposed to a BWP resource used for initial-access, i.e., a BW resource used for transmitting a Msg.1 preamble).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MolavianJazi in view of Kim’s random access configuration, i.e., higher layer SIB, to also include identifier information for indicating resources for signaling contention resolution HARQ feedback, as taught by Matsumura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a UE with low-overhead SI signaling, i.e., bit information, with which to identify contention resolution success/ACK HARQ feedback, as recognized by Matsumura (paras. [0054]-[0056], [0061]-[0063], [0067]-[0069], [0073]-[0074], [0086], and [0155]-[0156]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights