DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 01/14/2026 and Information Disclosure Statements filed on 04/24/2024, and 07/02/2024.
Claims 1-30 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed see Remarks, Pages 8-11, filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blankenship fails to teach (I) obtaining a configuration “prior to activation” of a dedicated PUCCH resource configuration, and (II) a “configuration indicating a number of repetitions”. Applicant contends that Blankenship describes a scenario where the UE “does not yet have access to UE-specific RRC parameters” during initial access, and therefore Blankenship cannot teach “obtaining a configuration prior to activation”. Examiner respectfully disagree with applicant argument conflates the problem identified by Blankenship with solution provided by Blankenship. ¶[0040] identifies the problem: “at the initial access stage the UE is not yet configured with the UE-specific RRC parameter Number of PUCCH repetitions.” Blankenship then solves this problem by providing an alternative configuration mechanism that occurs prior to the dedicated RRC configuration. ¶[0039], [0048], [0064, [0066] disclose that UE obtains configuration. Applicant argues that Blankenship does not disclose a “configuration indicating a number of repetitions” because Blankenship uses “Blind decoding”, “implicit derivation”, and “mapping tables” rather than an explicit configuration field that directly states the number of repetitions. Examiner respectful disagree with applicant arguments under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation(BRI), the claim term “configuration indicating a number of repetitions” does not required an explicit field that directly states “number of repetitions =X.” Rather, a “configuration” that provides parameters, thresholds, or rules that indicates (i.e., point to, suggest, or allow determination of) the number of repetitions falls within the scope of the claim ¶[0039], [0064], [0051], [0062], [0064], [0070]-[0079]. The SIB explicitly configures the UE with parameters (CE level, maximum repetition values, mapping rules) that indicates the number of repetitions. The fact that the UE uses these configured parameters to determine the exact number does not change the fact that the configuration indicates the number.
Based on above reasons the rejection for independent claim 1 the rejection under 35. U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 10-14, 21-23, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blankenship et al. (US20190045552A1)
With regarding claim 1 Blankenship disclose an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory(See ¶[0140]; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to(See FIG. 5, ¶[0140], [0249]. UE with control circuitry (processor) coupled to memory: obtain a configuration indicating a number of repetitions for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission in a plurality of slots prior to activation of a dedicated PUCCH resource configuration with a plurality of repetitions based on a radio resource control (RRC) message (See FIG. 2, and ¶[0036]-[0044], [0062], [0064], [0092], [0114]-[0116], [0002] and Table 3: disclosed the UE obtains a repetition count via a pre-RRC configuration (e.g. SIB-provided mapping), used for PUCCH across multiple subframes (slots). And see ¶[0037]-[0041] disclosed the repetition occurs before the UE receives the dedicated RRC-configured PUCCH resource.[0039] Starting offsets of the PUCCH resource(s) indicated by MTC SIB (System Information Block) is configured separately per PUCCH repetition level. The starting offsets of the PUCCH resource is cell specific and PUCCH repetition level specific.[0064] Use, as a reference point, the max number of repetitions of the MPDCCHs which schedules RAR/Msg4, R.sub.MPDCCH, RAR,max. RAR and Msg4 are two consecutive DL messages in RACH procedure, and their MPDCCH use the same R.sub.MPDCCH, RAR,max. R.sub.MPDCCH, RAR,max is provided to the UE via the “mPDCCH-NumRepetition-RA” field carried in SIB of RRC signaling. The “mPDCCH-NumRepetition-RA” field is Cell specific and PRACH CE level specific.
[0036] Rel-13 LTE supports PUCCH transmission with repetitions across multiple subframes.
[0114] In the time domain, LTE downlink transmissions are organized into radio frames of 10 ms, each radio frame consisting of ten equally-sized subframes of length T.sub.subframe=1 ms. Each subframe is divided into two slots, each of which may comprise a number of symbols, e.g. 7 (each symbol having a symbol time length).), wherein the PUCCH transmission includes a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) feedback message in response to receiving a message on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) in a random access procedure (See ¶[0040], [0109], [0067], [0025]; Disclosed MSg4 is a PDSCH in RACH, and the UE sends HARQ-ACK on PUCCH in response) and transmit the PUCCH transmission on a PUCCH according to the number of repetitions (See ¶[0037]-[0040], [0016], [0006], [0042] Claim 2, UE send the PUCCH with the indicated repetition).
With regarding claim 2 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the message is one of: a contention resolution message in a 4-step Random-Access Channel (RACH) procedure; a message before the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration with the plurality of repetitions based on the RRC message (See ¶[0040], [0109], Table 1, disclosed the UE needs to send PUCCH in response to RACH Msg4, and Msg4 is contention resolution message, and Msg4 HARQ-ACK is before RRC configured PUCCH). or a Message B (MsgB) in a 2-step RACH procedure;
With regarding Claim 3 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive the RRC message to activate the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration with the plurality of repetitions (See ¶[0040], [0043], disclose pre-RRC PUCCH HARQ-ACK in response to Msg4. In the standard 4-step RACH, the RRC setup for dedicated PUCCH is delivered with or after Msg4; thus the UE necessarily receives the RRC message that activates the dedicated PUCH configuration.).
With regarding Claim 4 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration is based on system information signaling (See ¶[0062]-[0064], [0037] Table 3, disclosed system information (SIB) is used to convey parameters that determine PUCCH repetition count specifically for RACH-related procedures before RRC connection. SIB provides cell -specific parameters that are used to determine the PUCCH repetition count for Msg4 HARQ-ACK).
With regarding Claim 5 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the number of repetitions is indicated based on a parameter in one or more cell-level parameters for the PUCCH (See ¶[0063]-[0064], [0037] disclosed the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated based on cell-level parameter(e.g. mPDCCH-NumRepetition-RA) broadcast in system information.
With regarding Claim 6 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit the PUCCH transmission according to frequency hopping, wherein the frequency hopping is enabled or disabled based on the system information signaling (See ¶[0032]-[0037] disclosed frequency hopping for PUCCH repetitions in coverage-enhanced scenarios, controlled via higher-layer(system) signaling. Frequency hopping for pre-RRC PUCCH repetitions is enabled/disabled based on system information (MTC SIB).
With regarding Claim 7 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the number of repetitions is indicated based on a table describing PUCCH resource sets before receiving the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration (See ¶[0063]-[0064], [0037], Table 3; discloses configured maximum number of repetitions of a Downlink channel of PUCCH repetitions for PUCCH in response to Msg4. .
With regarding Claim 10 Blankenship disclose an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory (See ¶[0140]); and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to(See ¶[0140]): transmit a message on a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) in a random access procedure; transmit a configuration indicating a number of repetitions for a scheduled Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission in a plurality of slots prior to activation of a dedicated PUCCH resource configuration with a plurality of repetitions based on a radio resource control (RRC) message(See ¶[0037]-[0041], [0044], [0062] and Table 3: disclosed the UE obtains a repetition count via a pre-RRC configuration (e.g. SIB-provided mapping), used for PUCCH across multiple subframes (slots). And See ¶[0037]-[0041] disclosed the repetition occurs before the UE receives the dedicated RRC-configured PUCCH resource.), wherein the scheduled PUCCH transmission includes a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) feedback message indicating a reception status of the message (See ¶[0040], [0109], [0067]; Disclosed MSg4 is a PDSCH in RACH, and the UE sends HARQ-ACK on PUCCH in response); and obtain a repetition for the scheduled PUCCH transmission on a PUCCH (See ¶[0037]-[0040], Claim 2, UE send the PUCCH with the indicated repetition).
With regarding Claim 11, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 2, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 12, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 3, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 13, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 4, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 14, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 6, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 21 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive an indication for support of the number of repetitions for a reference PUCCH format for the message based on at least one of: a code point in a message 3 PUSCH; a spare value of a message type in the message 3 PUSCH; a field in a medium access control (MAC) subheader; an apparatus identification; an establishment cause in the RRC message; or a spare bit available in an RRC connection message(See ¶[0108]-[0109] discloses identifies Msg3(RRC connection request on UL SCH) and Msg4 (connection resolution on PDSCH) in the RA procedure). With regarding Claim 22, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 22 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 23, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 23 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 2, and is rejected under the same reasoning. With regarding Claim 27, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 27 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 4, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 30, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 30 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 18-19, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship et al. (US 20190045552 A1) in view of Kundu et al (US 20210029731 A1). With regarding Claim 8 Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: Blankenship may not explicitly disclose signal an indication for support of a new table describing PUCCH resource sets before activating the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration. However, in analogous art, Kundu disclose signal an indication for support of a new table describing PUCCH resource sets before activating the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration. (See ¶ [0026]-[0029], [0148] discloses a new table enabling for PUCCH resource set configuration using PUCCH format 0/1.) or a PUCCH repetition capability based on at least one of: a particular physical random access channel (PRACH) format; a subset of PRACH sequences; a subset of RACH occasions; a message 3 PUSCH repetition number greater than a predefined value; the message 3 PUSCH repetition number which links a PUCCH repetition number to the number of repetitions; a DMRS port for the message 3 other than port 0; a PUSCH scrambling ID for a message 3 PUSCH; or a new DMRS sequence. With regarding Claim 18, Blankenship the apparatus of claim 10, Blankenship may not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration further comprises a DMRS bundling configuration having a same DMRS bundling configuration for a message 3 DMRS Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission or a message A DMRS PUSCH transmission. However, in analogous art, Kundu disclose wherein the configuration further comprises a DMRS bundling configuration having a same DMRS bundling configuration for a message 3 DMRS Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission or a message A DMRS PUSCH transmission (See ¶ [0170]-[0173] discloses the cyclic shift applied on UCI sequences and where sub offset is pre-configured or provided by higher layer signaling via MSI, RMSI, or CSI.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kundu to modify Blankenship teachings. Blankenship teaches PUCCH repetition count for Msg4 HARQ-ACK before RRC connection is established. ¶ [0048] And PUSCH carrying RACH Msg3 that I s number of PUCCH repetitions.Kundu teaches DMRS sequence mapping. This combination ensure configuration having a same DMRS bundling configuration for Msg3 DMRS PUSCH transmission.
With regarding Claim 19, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 8, and is rejected under the same reasoning. With regarding Claim 28, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 28 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 19, and is rejected under the same reasoning. With regarding Claim 29, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 29 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 18, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship et al. (US 20190045552 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20230345465 A1).
With regarding Claim 9, Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Blankenship may not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration is a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) and the number of repetitions based on the PRI. However, in analogous art, Fakoorian disclose wherein the configuration is a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) and the number of repetitions based on the PRI. (See ¶[0112]-[0114], [0130], FIG.10). Disclose that DCI message indicating a specific PUCCH resource to use may be transmitted to the wireless device and may include PUCCH resource indicator PRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fakoorian to modify Blankenship teachings. Blankenship teaches PUCCH repetition count for Msg4 HARQ-ACK before RRC connection is established. Fakoorian disclose the number of repetitions is determined based on the PRI. This combination ensure the number of PUCCH repetitions to be selected in a systematic and robust way before an RRC connection has been fully established.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship et al. (US 20190045552 A1) in view of Chatterjee et al (US 20220408431 A1).
With regarding Claim 15, Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 13, Blankenship may not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit the configuration indicating the number of repetitions for a second PUCCH transmission in the plurality of slots prior to processing the RRC message, wherein the second PUCCH transmission includes a second HARQ feedback message in response to receiving the RRC message on a second PDSCH; and receive the second PUCCH transmission on the PUCCH according to the number of repetitions. However, in analogous art, Chatterjee disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit the configuration indicating the number of repetitions for a second PUCCH transmission in the plurality of slots prior to processing the RRC message (See FIG.3 ¶[0016],[0019], [0022]-[0025]. Discloses transmitting a configuration for PUCCH repetitions prior to RRC message processing.) wherein the second PUCCH transmission includes a second HARQ feedback message in response to receiving the RRC message on a second PDSCH (See ¶[0017]-[0019] discloses the PUCCH carries HARQ for RRC message on PDSCH, Msg4 often contains RRC connection setup.); and receive the second PUCCH transmission on the PUCCH according to the number of repetitions (See ¶[0020]. Discloses receiving the PUCCH according to that number of repetitions using this defined mapping.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee to modify Blankenship teachings.Blankenship teaches ¶[0040]-[0042], [0071]-[0076], [0063]. Teaches that PUCCH repetition configuration for Msg4 response is provided before RRC connection is complete, via SIB or derived from PRACH CE level. And Chatterjee teaches the eNB transmitting configuration via SIB or DCI for PUCCH repetitions before or during RRC setup and receiving PUCCH based on that configuration. This combination ensure reliable HARQ feedback during RA procedure without waiting for RRC setup.
Claim(s) 16-17, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship et al. (US 20190045552 A1) in view of Wang et al (US 20220232639A1).
With regarding Claim 16, Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 10, Blankenship may not explicitly disclose wherein the number of repetitions is indicated based on a channel state information (CSI) request bit in a random access response (RAR) grant.
However, in analogous art, Wang disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the number of repetitions is indicated based on a channel state information (CSI) request bit in a random access response (RAR) grant (See ¶[0080]-[0084]. Discloses RAR CSI based indication of a repetition number). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang to modify Blankenship teachings.
Blankenship teaches the pre-RRC PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK and mappings via system information number of PUCCH repetitions in the pre-RRC phase to enable robust HARQ-ACK during random access with minimal signaling. Wang teaches the CSI request field in the RAR grant as the basis for RA repetition signaling and when set, indicating the repetition number within the RAR. This combination ensure the RAR CSI bit as the one bit carrier for the pre-RRC PUCCH repetition number in the RA phase to minimize overhead and provide robust HARQ-ACK.
With regarding Claim 17, Blankenship and Wang disclose the apparatus of claim 16, Blankenship disclose wherein the number of repetitions is the repetitions to be used by the scheduled PUCCH transmission before activating the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration(See ¶[0054]-[0064]. Discloses that the number of repetitions indicated via the CSI request in RAR grant is used for PUCCH transmissions before the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration is activated) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang to modify Blankenship teachings.
Blankenship teaches that CSI request bit in the RAR grant indicates a PUCCH repetition value, and that this repetition number is used by the UE for HARQ-ACK feedback before a valid RRC configuration with a dedicated PUCCH repetition number is received. This combination ensure the number of repetitions is the repetitions to be used by the scheduled PUCCH transmission before activating the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration.
With regarding Claim 24, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 24 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 16, and is rejected under the same reasoning. With regarding Claim 25, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 25 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 16, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 26, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 26 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 17, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship and Kundu et al. as applied to claims 10/19 above, and further in view of Fakoorian et al (US 20230345465 A1).
With regarding Claim 20, Blankenship disclose the apparatus of claim 19, Blankenship may not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration is a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) and the new table describing PUCCH resource sets before the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration based on the indication, wherein the configuration uses the new table describing PUCCH resource sets before activating the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration. However, in analogous art, Fakoorian disclose wherein the configuration is a downlink control information (DCI) that indicates a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) and the new table describing PUCCH resource sets before the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration based on the indication, wherein the configuration uses the new table describing PUCCH resource sets before activating the dedicated PUCCH resource configuration (See ¶[0112]-[0116].discloses that PUCCH resource sets with repetition parameters are preconfigured and DCI via PRI select one.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fakoorian to modify Blankenship and Kundu teachings. Blankenship teaching pre-RRC PUCCH configuration based on mapping, Kundu teaching new table with PUCCH configurations and Fakoorian teaching the PUCCH resource set with repetition parameters are preconfigured and DCI via PRI selection. This combination of the NR framework DCI and PRI and PUCCH resource sets with repetition fields ensure PUCCH resource sets are configured via RRC or system information and may be used in scenarios prior to or without dedicated PUCCH configuration. The new table is thus functionally disclosed as a PUCCH resource set containing repetition parameters.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAKRISHNA VALLAMDASU whose telephone number is (571)272-5249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Smith, Marcus R. can be reached on (571) 270-1096. 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.
SHIVAKRISHNA . VALLAMDASU
Examiner
Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights