DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag et al. (US 2023/0319849 A1, hereinafter Farag ) in view of Cao et al. (EP 3973738 B1 , herein after Cao).
Regarding claim 1, Farag discloses a user equipment, comprising (figure 3, processor 370, memory 360) one or more memories storing processor-executable code (figure 3, 360);
one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable code to
cause the user equipment to (figure 3) :
receive an indication of a first sidelink transmission resource set, the first sidelink transmission resource set being associated with at least one first sidelink communication for the user equipment via a first radio access technology (RAT) on a first radio frequency (RF) channel (fig 10 , blocks 1002-1004, figure , wherein the first RAT is the NR sidelink, the first RF channel is the shared carrier and receiving indication is the reserved resources) ; and
communicate sidelink information for the user equipment on a second
sidelink transmission resource set via a second RAT on the first RF channel (figure 10, 1004-1008, figure 12 (1206-1210), figure 6, wherein the second RAT is the LTE sidelink, the same RF channel is the shared LTE/NR carrier), Farag does not disclose second sidelink transmission resource set being based on a selective exclusion or inclusion of at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set. Cao discloses second sidelink transmission resource set being based on a selective exclusion or inclusion of at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set (¶[0104] -¶[0105]), ¶[0122]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the preferred/non-preferred resource determination by applying Cao’s explicit exclusion/inclusion logic to improve resource selection efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Farag discloses wherein: the first RAT comprises a third generation partnership project (3GPP) new radio (NR) technology; and the second RAT comprises a 3GPP long term evolution (LTE) technology. Cao discloses wherein: the first RAT comprises a third generation partnership project (3GPP) new radio (NR) technology; and the second RAT comprises a 3GPP long term evolution (LTE) technology (figure 6, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Farag discloses althe user equipment further comprises an LTE sidelink module and an NR sidelink module (FIGUfigure 10); and
the receipt of the indication of the first sidelink transmission resource set
comprises receipt, at the LTE sidelink module, of an NR transmission resource set from
the NR sidelink module (figure 10, the NR sidelink side receives reserved resources on the NR SL interface, block 1002, those resources are sent to the LTE SL Module (block 10004), figure 22, reserved resources are received on the NR SL interface (block 2202), the reserved resource is sent to the LTE SL Module (block 2204).
Regarding claim 4, Farag discloses wherein: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to receive first resource utilization information (FIGURE 10, block 1002, figure 22, 2202 the reserved reources are received on the NR sidelink interface), the first resource utilization information being associated with at least one
second sidelink communication via the second RAT on the first RF channel (figure 6, same RF carrier LTE and NR SL resources , figure 10, 1002-1004 , figure 12, 1206-1210); and
the second sidelink transmission resource set is based on the first resource utilization (figure 10, (1006-1010), figure 12 1206-1210, the first resource utilization info=NR reserved resources, second resource set =LTE preferred/non preferred resources, based on = conflict determination and resource selection, the LTE sidelink module determines preferred and or non -preferred resources based on the received information).
Regarding claim 5, Farag discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: exclude all resources indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set from the second sidelink transmission resource set. Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: exclude all resources indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set from the second sidelink transmission resource set (¶[[0013]-¶[0015],¶[0104]-¶[0105],¶[0122]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the preferred/non-preferred resource determination by applying Cao’s explicit exclusion/inclusion logic to improve resource selection efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Cao discloses all subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: exclude, from the second sidelink transmission resource set, slots with resources for feedback transmissions indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set. Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: exclude, from the second sidelink transmission resource set, slots with resources for feedback transmissions indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set (¶[[0013]-¶[0015],¶[0104]-¶[0105],¶[0122]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the preferred/non-preferred resource determination by applying Cao’s explicit exclusion/inclusion logic to improve resource selection efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Farag discloses a first and second RAT (abstract,figures 12-13). Farag does not disclose, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: selectively exclude the at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set based on a relative priority between transmissions via the first RAT and transmissions via the second RAT. Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: selectively exclude the at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set based on a relative priority between transmissions via the first RAT and transmissions via the second RAT (¶[0052]-¶[0057],¶[0076],¶[0108]-¶[0112]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the preferred/non-preferred resource determination by applying Cao’s explicit exclusion/inclusion logic to improve resource selection efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Farag discloses all subject matter of the claimed inventio with the exception of wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: exclude, from the second sidelink transmission resource set, the at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set based on the first RAT
being associated with a first priority that is higher than a second priority associated with the second RAT. Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: exclude, from the second sidelink transmission resource set, the at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set based on the first RATbeing associated``` with a first priority that is higher than a second priority associated with the second RAT (¶[0052]-¶[0057], ¶[0108]-¶[0117]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the preferred/non-preferred resource determination by applying Cao’s explicit exclusion/inclusion logic to improve resource selection efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Farag discloses, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: include, in the second sidelink transmission resource set (figure 10,figure 22, figures 12-16). Farag does not disclose the at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set based on the first RAT being associated with a first priority that is lower than a second priority associated with the second RAT. Cao discloses the at least one resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set based on the first RAT being associated with a first priority that is lower than a second priority associated with the second RAT (¶[0013]-¶[0015],¶[0052]-¶[0058],¶[0108]-¶[0112], when the first RAT is associated with a first priority that is lower than is second priority associated with the second RAT , the indicated resource is retained rather than excluded and is therefore included in the second sidelink transmission resource set). Thus,it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the proposed modification of the priority as discloseb by Cao along with the system of Fayag to increase the efficiency of the network.
Regarding claim 10, Farag discloses wherein: the user equipment further comprises a third generation partnership project(3GPP) long term evolution (LTE) sidelink module and a 3GPP new radio (NR) sidelink module; the LTE sidelink module is configured to forward the indication of the first
sidelink transmission resource set to a medium access control layer; and the medium access control layer is configured to update the second sidelink transmission resource set based on the first sidelink transmission resource set (figure 9, figure 10, figure 12).
Regarding claim 11, Ferak discloses wherein the user equipment further
comprises: a third generation partnership project (3GPP) long term evolution (LTE) sidelink
module; a 3GPP new radio (NR) sidelink module; and a bi-directional interface between the LTE sidelink module and the NR sidelink module (figure 10, figure 9, figures 10-16, figures 22-28).
Regarding claim 12, Ferak disclose a method for wireless communication at a user equipment, the method comprising: receiving an indication of a first sidelink transmission resource set, the first sidelink transmission resource set being associated with at least one first sidelink
communication for the user equipment via a first radio access technology (RAT) on a first
radio frequency (RF) channel; and communicating sidelink information for the user equipment on a second sidelink transmission resource set via a second RAT on the first RF channel figure 10, 1004-1008, figure 12 (1206-1210), figure 6, wherein the second RAT is the LTE sidelink, the same RF channel is the shared LTE/NR carrier). Farag does not disclose the second sidelink
transmission resource set being based on selectively excluding or including at least one
resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set. Cao discloses the second sidelink
transmission resource set being based on selectively excluding or including at least one
resource indicated by the first sidelink transmission resource set (¶[0104] -¶[0105]), ¶[0122]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the preferred/non-preferred resource determination by applying Cao’s explicit exclusion/inclusion logic to improve resource selection efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Fayag discloses a user equipment, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable code to (figure 10) cause the user equipment to: schedule a first sidelink communication for the user equipment via a first radio access technology (RAT) on a first radio frequency (RF) channel (abstract, figure 6, figure 10, block 1002, figure 22, block 2202);
receive an indication of a scheduled second sidelink communication for
the user equipment, the second sidelink communication being via a second RAT
on the first RF channel; (figures 12-16 , figure 22, blocks 2202 and 2204; figure 6) and selectively communicate the first sidelink communication or the second sidelink communication (figures 24-28). Fayag does not discloses based on a prioritization and a conflict between the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication. Cao discloses based on a prioritization and a conflict between the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication (¶[0012]-¶[0015],¶[0052]-¶[0058],¶[0076]). Thus,it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to apply expliciity priority based resource selection rule to Farag’s LTE/NR same-carrier sidelink conflict framework in order to determine in a more explicit and predictable manner which sidelink communication should be used ewhen a conflict exts between first RAT and second RAT sidelink communications to improve conflict resolution and resource utilization in dual-RAT sidelink operation.
Regarding claim 14, Zerak discloses wherein the prioritization is associated
with transmissions (abstract, figures 12-16, figures 24-25).
Regarding claim 15, Farag discloses conflict determination and preferred/non-preferred resource outcomes, but Farag does not expressly disclose “cancel the first sidelink communication based on the first sidelink communication being a receive operation and the second sidelink communication being a transmit operation; or cancel the second sidelink communication based on the second sidelink communication being the receive operation and the first sidelink communication being the transmit operation.
Cao discloses cancel the first sidelink communication based on the first sidelink communication being a receive operation and the second sidelink communication being a transmit operation; or cancel the second sidelink communication based on the second sidelink communication being the receive operation and the first sidelink communication being the transmit operation ((¶¶[0027], [0052]–[0055] (priority-driven selection among competing reservations/transmissions includes canceling first or second sidelink communications)). Thus, it would have been obvious to implement Farag’s conflict outcome by canceling one conflicting sidelink communication according to the relative priority and role of the conflicting operations, because that is a predictable way to resolve coexistence conflicts.
Regarding claim 16, Farag discloses PSFCH coexistence handling in the LTE/NR sidelink environment, but Farag does not expressly disclose “transmit a negative
acknowledgement for the second sidelink communication based on the cancellation of the second sidelink communication and a reservation of
resources for the second sidelink communication, the negative acknowledgement being transmitted on a feedback resource indicated by sidelink
control information that reserved the second sidelink communication.”
Cao discloses transmit a negative acknowledgement for the second sidelink communication based on the cancellation of the second sidelink communication and a reservation of resources for the second sidelink communication, the negative acknowledgement being transmitted on a feedback resource indicated by sidelink control information that reserved the second sidelink communication the missing reservation/feedback aspects (¶[0018]; ¶¶[0047]–[0049] ,Cao discloses that the signal indicating the reservation also indicates a reservation type, and discloses feedback-based retransmission reservations)). Thus, it would have been obvious to send the negative acknowledgement on the reserved feedback resource when the scheduled sidelink communication is canceled, because Farag recognizes feedback-channel coexistence and Cao teaches feedback-related reservation signaling.
Regarding claim 17, Farag discloses configuration information exchanged between LTE and NR SL modules and conflict-based handling, but Farag does not expresslywherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: cancel the first sidelink communication based on a first configuration that
specifies that transmissions on the first RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict
between scheduled transmissions on the first RAT and the second RAT; or cancel the second sidelink communication based on a second configuration that
specifies that transmissions on the second RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict
between the scheduled transmissions on the first RAT and the second RAT.
Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are
further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment
to:
cancel the first sidelink communication based on a first configuration that
specifies that transmissions on the first RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict
between scheduled transmissions on the first RAT and the second RAT; or
cancel the second sidelink communication based on a second configuration that
specifies that transmissions on the second RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict
between the scheduled transmissions on the first RAT and the second RAT.
(configured or preconfigured coefficients and reservation-type treatment (¶¶[0027], [0052]–[0055] (configured or preconfigured coefficients and reservation-type treatment)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to define the coexistence policy through explicit first-RAT-drop and second-RAT-drop configurations as a routine
implementation of Farag’s configuration-driven coexistence control using Cao’s priority treatment.
Regarding claim 18, Farag discloses “cancel the first sidelink communication” (¶¶[0178]–[0183] (Farag discloses conflict determination and conflict signaling so the
conflicting resource usage is treated as unavailable/preferred/non-preferred, corresponding to cancellation of the first sidelink communication)).
Farag does not expressly disclose “selectively exclude at least one resource from a first sidelink transmission resource set associated with the first
RAT based on the cancellation of the first sidelink communication.”
Cao discloses selectively exclude at least one resource from a first sidelink transmission resource set associated with the first
RAT based on the cancellation of the first sidelink communication (¶¶[0013]–[0015], [0111]–[0113] (excluding indicated resources from candidate resources based on
reservation information)). Thus,it would have been obvious to exclude at least one first-RAT resource following cancellation because that is the natural candidate-resource
consequence of the cancellation in Farag’s coexistence framework using Cao’s exclusion rule.
Regarding claim 19, Farag discloses slot-based sensing and resource-selection windows, but Farag does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one resource comprises at least one slot that: is associated with a periodic resource allocation; or follows a first slot associated with the first sidelink communication by a quantity of slots specified by at least one configured parameter.
Cao discloses “the at least one resource comprises at least one slot that is associated with a periodic resource allocation; or follows a first slot
associated with the first sidelink communication by a quantity of slots specified by at least one configured parameter” (¶¶[0045], [0048], [0087]–[0090]
(long-term periodic reservations, RSVP, periodicity, and future reserved resources)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use Cao’s periodic/future reservation structure within Farag’s slot-based coexistence framework because both
references organize sidelink resource treatment over future slots and windows.
Regarding claim 20, Farag discloses “cancel the second sidelink communication” (¶¶[0178]–[0183] , Farag discloses conflict determination and conflict/resource signaling
so the conflicting second communication is not taken)).
Farag does not expressly disclose “retransmit the second sidelink communication.”
Cao discloses “retransmit the second sidelink communication” (¶¶[0042]–[0049] (blind retransmission and feedback-based retransmission reservation
types, corresponding to retransmitting the canceled second sidelink communication)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply Cao’s known retransmission techniques after Farag’s coexistence-driven cancellation so that reliability is preserved despite the cancellation.
Regarding claim 21, Farag does not disclose erein the retransmission of the second sidelink communication is: independent of a feedback status associated with the second sidelink communication; based on whether a quantity of retransmissions for the second sidelink communication is greater than or equal to a threshold quantity of retransmissions associated with the second sidelink communication; or based on whether the quantity of retransmissions for the second sidelink communication is greater than or equal to a sum of the threshold quantity of retransmissions associated with the second sidelink communication and a quantity of dropped transmissions associated with the second sidelink communication.
Cao discloses “independent of a feedback status associated with the second sidelink communication” (¶[0042] (blind retransmission is not triggered
by HARQ feedback)).
Cao discloses “based on whether a quantity of retransmissions for the second sidelink communication is greater than or equal to a threshold quantity
of retransmissions associated with the second sidelink communication” (¶[0043] (configured/predefined numbers of retransmissions andcriteria/thresholds for selecting retransmission options)).
Cao discloses “based on whether the quantity of retransmissions for the second sidelink communication is greater than or equal to a sum of the
threshold quantity of retransmissions associated with the second sidelink communication and a quantity of dropped transmissions associated with the
second sidelink communication” (¶¶[0043], [0052]–[0055] (configured retransmission counts and criteria; counting dropped transmissions within the
threshold logic would have been an obvious coexistence-driven adaptation when combined with Farag’s cancellation framework)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use Cao’s retransmission conditions to control retransmission after Farag’s coexistence-driven cancellation, because
both concern reliable sidelink resource reuse after conflict.
Regarding claim 22, Farag does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to retransmit the second sidelink communication:
on a first set of resources that is different from a second set of resources scheduled for the second sidelink communication; or on the same set of resources that were scheduled for the second sidelink communication. Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to retransmit the second sidelink communication: on a first set of resources that is different from a second set of resources scheduled for the second sidelink communication; or on the same set of resources that were scheduled for the second sidelink communication (¶¶[0042]–[0049] (reservation of retransmission resources and different reservation options for retransmissions/future uses)). Thus, it would have been obvious to retransmit on the same or different resources depending on the coexistence outcome because Farag identifies which resources are preferred/non-preferred and Cao teaches retransmission reservations.
Regarding claim 23, Farag does not expressly disclose at least a first retransmission on a first set of resources that were scheduled for the second sidelink communication and at least a second retransmission on a second set of resources that is different from the first set of resources.
Cao discloses herein the retransmission of the second
sidelink communication comprises: at least a first retransmission of the second sidelink communication on a first set of resources that were scheduled for the second sidelink communication; and at least a second retransmission of the second sidelink communication on a second set of resources that is different from the first set of resources(¶¶[0042]–[0049] (multiple retransmissions and reservation signaling for retransmissions/future uses)).
It would have been obvious to use different resource sets over successive retransmissions in view of Farag’s coexistence-driven preference
determinations and Cao’s multiple-retransmission reservation teachings.
Regarding claim 24, Farag does not disclose wherein the prioritization comprises a
RAT prioritization.Cao discloses wherein the prioritization comprises a RAT prioritization (¶¶[0027], [0052]–[0055]). Thus, it would have been obvious to understand and implement the prioritization in Farag’s LTE-versus-NR coexistence system as RAT prioritization.
Regarding claim 25, Farag does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to:cancel the first sidelink communication based on a configuration that specifies that communications on the first RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict between communications on the first RAT and the second RAT, and further based on the first sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication having the same priority.
Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment
to: cancel the first sidelink communication based on a configuration that specifies
that communications on the first RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict between
communications on the first RAT and the second RAT, and further based on the first
sidelink communication and the second sidelink communication having the same priority.
(¶¶[0052]–[0055] (priority comparisons and treatment based on relative priority)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply the configuration-driven drop rule when the competing communications have the same priority as a
straightforward conflict-resolution policy within Farag’s coexistence system using Cao’s priority framework.
Regarding claim 26, Farag does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: cancel the first sidelink communication based on a configuration that specifies that communications on the first RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict between communications on the first RAT and the second RA. Cao discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the user equipment to: cancel the first sidelink communication based on a configuration that specifies that communications on the first RAT are to be dropped when there is a conflict between communications on the first RAT and the second RA
(¶¶[0027], [0052]–[0055]). Thus,it would have been obvious to specify the coexistence policy as a first-RAT-drop rule because that is a routine configuration choice within the
disclosed LTE/NR conflict framework.
Regarding claim 27, Farag discloses cancel the first sidelink communication” (¶¶[0178]–[0183] (Farag discloses conflict determination resulting in a conflicting resource
use being treated as unavailable or non-preferred)) and transmit an indication of at least one resource associated with the first sidelink communication (Fig. 10, step 1010; Fig. 12, step 1210; Fig. 13, step 1308; ¶¶[0168], [0185], [0191] (Farag discloses sending conflict information and preferred/non-preferred resources, corresponding to transmitting an indication of at least one resource associated with the first sidelink communication)).
Regarding claim 28, Farag does not expressly disclose that the at least one resource associated with the first sidelink communication comprises a resource scheduled for a future sidelink communication via the first RAT.Cao discloses “a resource scheduled for a future sidelink communication via the first RAT” (¶¶[0045], [0048] (long-term resource reservation for future transmission of a different TB and reservation of a specific number of future TBs)). Thus, it would have been obvious to have the indicated resource be one scheduled for a future sidelink communication because Cao teaches future reservation of sidelink resources and Farag transmits indications of resources in its coexistence framework.
Regarding claim 29, Farag discloses “the user equipment further comprises a third generation partnership project (3GPP) long term evolution (LTE) sidelink module and a
3GPP new radio (NR) sidelink module” (Fig. 9 (LTE SL module 902 and NR SL module 904)).
the LTE sidelink module to transmit the indication to the NR sidelink module (Fig. 10, step 1008; Fig. 22, step 2208; ¶[0168] , the LTE SL module sending indication to the NR SL module)). Farag discloses the module-to-module indication, but Farag does not expressly disclose the NR sidelink module to exclude the at least one resource from a sidelink transmission resource set for the second RAT.Cao discloses exclusion of indicated resources from a candidate resource set (¶¶[0013]–[0015], [0111]–[0113] (exclusion of indicated resources from a candidate resource set)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to apply Cao’s exclusion rule at the NR module after receipt of the LTE indication in Farag’s coexistence architecture to
improve candidate-resource filtering for the second RAT.
Regarding claim 30, Farag discloses “scheduling a first sidelink communication for the user equipment via a first radio access technology (RAT) on a first radio frequency
(RF) channel” (¶[0162] (resources used for sidelink transmission and periodicity of sidelink transmission)) receiving an indication of a scheduled second sidelink communication for the user equipment, the second sidelink communication being via a second RAT on the first RF channel” (Fig. 10, step 1002; ¶[0168] (receiving reserved resources on the NR SL interface in the LTE/NR coexistence context)).
Farag discloses the conflict context, but Farag does not expressly disclose that the selective communication is “based on a prioritization” between the first and second sidelink communications. Cao discloses explicit priority treatment applicable to competing reservation/transmission contexts (¶¶[0027], [0052]–[0055] (explicit priority treatment)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use Cao’s explicit priority treatment within Farag’s conflict framework to determine which of the first and second sidelink
communications is selectively communicated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00AM-4:30 PM.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412