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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to amendments/remarks filed on 10/21/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been amended. There are no new/ cancelled claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Specification
The amendment to abstract was received on 10/21/2025. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective specification objections made in the non-final Office Action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Objections
In the non-final office Action mailed on 07/28/2025, claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 20 were objected due to minor informalities. In the response filed on 10/21/2025, applicant amends the respective claims to obviate the objections. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim rejections made in the non-final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
In the non-final office Action mailed on 07/28/2025, claims 3, 10 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In the response filed on 10/21/2025, applicant amends the claims to obviate the rejections. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim rejections made in the non-final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
In the non-final office Action mailed on 07/28/2025, claims 3, 10 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with written description requirement. In the response filed on 10/21/2025, applicant amends the claims to obviate the rejections. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim rejections made in the non-final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-16 of REMARKS, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1,8 and 15 (and therefore also their respective dependent claims) under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hernandez et al. (US 20030210658 A1) and Kross et al. (US 20130155855 A1).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (hereinafter, Hernandez, US 20030210658 A1) in view of Kross et al. (hereinafter, Kross, US 20130155855 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hernandez discloses a wireless device (see Fig.1:100 and Fig.2:100 in view of [0021]; the device 100 is configured as a wireless mobile device) comprising:
a processor (see Fig.1:102 in view of [0017]; the computing device 100 includes at least a processing unit 102) configured to:
determine whether a volume of data traffic (see [0029]; the amount of unprocessed traffic data that is expected to accumulate in the system), which the wireless device (see Fig.1:100 and Fig.2:100) sends to and receives (see [0023] in view of Fig.2:205; A system queue 205 is used to store communication packets from a user 210 that are to waiting to be sent out by the transmitter 122. The system queue is also used to store packets received by the receiver 126) from a cellular network (see Fig.2:230; also see [0022]; wireless device 100 may be connected wirelessly to an infrastructure network 230 through an access point 231 thereof), is below a threshold (see [0004]; amount of accumulated traffic data in the queue is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold);
if the determined volume of data traffic is below the threshold (see [0004]; amount of accumulated traffic data in the queue is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold), determine whether the cellular network (see Fig.1:230) to which the wireless device is wirelessly connected is congested (see [0028] that teaches accumulated traffic data corresponds to "traffic congestion"; also see [0029]-[0031]; congestion is the amount of packets that cannot be serviced prior to a timeout, or packets that are lost because the available buffer size is exceeded; Under transient network conditions data traffic is delayed at certain points when packets arrive at a higher rate than they are being serviced by the network; examiner articulates that amount of accumulated traffic data in the queue is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold indicates that the cellular network to which the wireless device is wirelessly connected is not congested); and
when it is determined that the cellular network (see Fig.1:230) is not congested (see [0028] that teaches accumulated traffic data corresponds to "traffic congestion"; also see [0029]-[0031]; congestion is the amount of packets that cannot be serviced prior to a timeout, or packets that are lost because the available buffer size is exceeded; Under transient network conditions data traffic is delayed at certain points when packets arrive at a higher rate than they are being serviced by the network; examiner articulates that amount of accumulated traffic data in the queue is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold indicates that the cellular network to which the wireless device is wirelessly connected is not congested), decrease power consumed at the wireless device (see [0027]; when the amount of the queued traffic data is small, the network interface module 201 may be allowed to "doze" or be turned-off to save power) to process network traffic (see [0027; when the amount of the queued traffic data is large, the network interface module should operate in the high-power state to process the queued traffic data).
Although, and as set forth above, Hernandez discloses if the determined volume of data traffic is below the threshold, determine whether the cellular network to which the wireless device is wirelessly connected is congested (see [0004]; also see [0029]-[0031]), Hernandez does not explicitly disclose that such determination is based on one or more congestion indicator messages from the cellular network.
However, in an analogous art, Kross discloses if the determined volume of data traffic is below the threshold (see [0079]; determining the current load in the network or the part of the network and comparing the determined load with the load threshold; also see [0036]; In a wireless system it is necessary that the air interface load is kept constrained under predefined thresholds to avoid system instability, congestion and QoS degradation; also see [0037]; The thresholds identify the maximum amount of resources which could be committed without generating congestion; also see [0064]; When load increases close to the load threshold indicating that congestion is approaching; examiner articulates that “When load increases close to the load threshold” indicates that the load is still below the load threshold and congestion hasn’t happened yet as the “congestion is approaching”), determine, based on one or more congestion indicator messages from the cellular network (see [0044]; terminals supporting a congestion indication scheme; also see [0033]-[0034] in view of Fig.1 that shows the sender and receiver have negotiated the use of ECN; as shown in the figure, the packets will have an ECN field, which consists of two bits and is also referred to as CE (congestion experience) codepoint; Fig.1 also shows IP packet marked with various codes (‘01’, ‘10’ and/or ‘11’) as congestion indicator messages), whether the cellular network to which the wireless device is wirelessly connected is congested (see [0064]; When load increases close to the load threshold indicating that congestion is approaching; also see [0038]; where the load has exceeded the pre-defined threshold(s) and some active congestion handling mechanism may be required to resolve the congestion; examiner articulates that “When load increases close to the load threshold” indicates that the load is still below the load threshold and congestion hasn’t happened yet as the “congestion is approaching”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kross with Hernandez so that if the determined volume of data traffic is below the threshold, the wireless device can determine, based on one or more congestion indicator messages from the cellular network, whether the cellular network to which the wireless device is wirelessly connected is congested.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the efficiency of the system in terms of improved capacity, and resource utilization could be enhanced without compromising QoS and dropping objectives (Kross: [0069]).
As for Claim(s) 8 and 15, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions executed by a processor in a device (in Hernandez, see [0016]-[0018]) form to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the wireless device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 8 and 15.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (hereinafter, Hernandez, US 20030210658 A1) in view of Kross et al. (hereinafter, Kross, US 20130155855 A1) in view of Lipman et al. (hereinafter, Lipman, US 20140101332 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hernandez (modified by Kross) discloses the wireless device of claim 1, as set forth above. Although, and as set forth above, Kross further discloses Internet Protocol (IP) header received from the endpoint, includes an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) (see [0044]; and [0033]-[0034] in view of Fig.1), Hernandez (modified by Kross) does not explicitly disclose wherein when determining whether the cellular network is congested, the processor is configured to at least one of: determine a round-trip time to an endpoint in the cellular network; determine whether an Internet Protocol (IP) header of a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) packet, received from the endpoint, includes an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN); or determine whether Short Messages included in a Downlink Control Information (DCI) comprise a congestion notification.
However, in an analogous art, Lipman teaches wherein when determining whether the cellular network is congested, the processor is configured to at least one of:
determine a round-trip time to an endpoint in the cellular network (see [0019] and [0033]; The source computing device 102 may monitor the network congestion (i.e., the data transfer congestion of the access point 108) periodically, at random intervals, or substantially constantly. To do so, the source computing device 102 determines the round-trip-time value for an internet control message protocol (ICMP) packet transmitted to the sink computing device(s) 112 and measures the elapsed time until receiving a response from the sink computing device(s) 112 in response to the control message protocol (ICMP) packet);
determine whether an Internet Protocol (IP) header of a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) packet, received from the endpoint, includes an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN); or
determine whether Short Messages included in a Downlink Control Information (DCI) comprise a congestion notification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lipman with Hernandez and Kross so that when determining whether the cellular network is congested, the processor is configured to at least one of: determine a round-trip time to an endpoint in the cellular network; determine whether an Internet Protocol (IP) header of a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) packet, received from the endpoint, includes an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN); or determine whether Short Messages included in a Downlink Control Information (DCI) comprise a congestion notification.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to monitor the data traffic congestion of the access point, and the network (Lipman: [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Hernandez (modified by Kross and Lipman) discloses the wireless device of claim 2, as set forth above. Lipman further teaches wherein when determining the round-trip time, the processor is configured to:
send an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo request to the endpoint in the cellular network (see [0019] and [0033]; The source computing device 102 may monitor the network congestion (i.e., the data transfer congestion of the access point 108) periodically, at random intervals, or substantially constantly. To do so, the source computing device 102 determines the round-trip-time value for an internet control message protocol (ICMP) packet transmitted to the sink computing device(s) 112 and measures the elapsed time until receiving a response from the sink computing device(s) 112 in response to the control message protocol (ICMP) packet); and
receive an ICMP echo reply from the endpoint (see [0019] and [0033]; The source computing device 102 may monitor the network congestion (i.e., the data transfer congestion of the access point 108) periodically, at random intervals, or substantially constantly. To do so, the source computing device 102 determines the round-trip-time value for an internet control message protocol (ICMP) packet transmitted to the sink computing device(s) 112 and measures the elapsed time until receiving a response from the sink computing device(s) 112 in response to the control message protocol (ICMP) packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lipman with Hernandez and Kross so that when determining the round-trip time, the processor is configured to: send an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo request to the endpoint in the cellular network; and receive an ICMP echo reply from the endpoint.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to monitor the data traffic congestion of the access point, and the network (Lipman: [0019]).
As for Claims 9-10 and 16-17, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-3 respectively. Therefore, claims 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-3 respectively.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (hereinafter, Hernandez, US 20030210658 A1) in view of Kross et al. (hereinafter, Kross, US 20130155855 A1) in view of Lipman et al. (hereinafter, Lipman, US 20140101332 A1) in view of Pelletier et al. (hereinafter, Pelletier, US 20130242730 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hernandez (modified by Kross and Lipman) discloses the wireless device of claim 2, as set forth above. Hernandez (modified by Kross and Lipman) does not explicitly disclose wherein when determining whether the Short Messages comprise a congestion notification, the processor is configured to: determine whether a last bit of the Short Messages indicates a network congestion; or determine whether other bits of the Short Messages indicate a network congestion.
However, in an analogous art, Pelletier discloses wherein when determining whether the Short Messages comprise a congestion notification, the processor is configured to:
determine whether a last bit of the Short Messages indicates a network congestion; or
determine whether other bits of the Short Messages indicate a network congestion (see [0088]; The WTRU may determine whether or not it may act on control signaling in a given subframe by monitoring the PDCCH for specific data control information (DCI) messages (DCI formats) scrambled using a known radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) in specific locations; also see [0172]; the wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) may determine a congestion state of a serving cell as a function of the preamble transmissions; The WTRU may monitor PDCCH for downlink control signaling scrambled with RA-RNTI according to the transmitted preamble for a RAR reception; also see [0175] and [0180]; For example, the RAR may… explicitly indicate the congestion state; the WTRU may decode the PDCCH to determine scheduling information for a RAR, where successful reception of a Random Access Response (RAR) message with the BI field set may indicate a congested state; also see [0183]; the WTRU may start monitoring the PDCCH in a number of subframes (e.g., every subframe) “Short Messages”. The WTRU may monitor for DCI types 0 scrambled with a specific subframe with its RNTI for the uplink grant and another specific RNTI, for example, EDDA-RNTI. If the WTRU can decode the grant with EDDA-RNTI, it may indicate to the WTRU that the network may be congested).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelletier with Hernandez, Kross and Lipman so that when determining whether the Short Messages comprise a congestion notification, the processor is configured to: determine whether a last bit of the Short Messages indicates a network congestion; or determine whether other bits of the Short Messages indicate a network congestion.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the WTRU may perform one or more actions for responding to congestion (Pelletier: [0173], [0183]).
As for Claims 11 and 18, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Hernandez (modified by Kross and Lipman) discloses the wireless device of claim 2, as set forth above. Hernandez (modified by Kross and Lipman) does not explicitly disclose wherein when the wireless device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) CONNECTED state and when determining whether the Short Messages comprise a congestion notification, the processor is configured to: detect the Downlink Control Information (DCI) in a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH).
However, in an analogous art, Pelletier discloses wherein when the wireless device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) CONNECTED state (see [0073]; A WTRU may be configured to receive an indication regarding additional PRACH resources. For example, a WTRU may receive one or more of a configuration may be WTRU-specific- e.g., for WTRUs in RRC_CONNECTED mode; also see [0082]; [0082] In the RRC_CONNECTED state, the WTRU may transmit or receive on unicast channels and may monitor the paging channel) and when determining whether the Short Messages comprise a congestion notification, the processor is configured to:
detect the Downlink Control Information (DCI) in a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) (see [0088]; The WTRU may determine whether or not it may act on control signaling in a given subframe by monitoring the PDCCH for specific data control information (DCI) messages (DCI formats) scrambled using a known radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) in specific locations; also see [0172]; the wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) may determine a congestion state of a serving cell as a function of the preamble transmissions; The WTRU may monitor PDCCH for downlink control signaling scrambled with RA-RNTI according to the transmitted preamble for a RAR reception; also see [0175] and [0180]; For example, the RAR may… explicitly indicate the congestion state; the WTRU may decode the PDCCH to determine scheduling information for a RAR, where successful reception of a Random Access Response (RAR) message with the BI field set may indicate a congested state; also see [0183]; the WTRU may start monitoring the PDCCH in a number of subframes (e.g., every subframe) “Short Messages”. The WTRU may monitor for DCI types 0 scrambled with a specific subframe with its RNTI for the uplink grant and another specific RNTI, for example, EDDA-RNTI. If the WTRU can decode the grant with EDDA-RNTI, it may indicate to the WTRU that the network may be congested).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pelletier with Hernandez, Kross and Lipman so that when the wireless device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) CONNECTED state and when determining whether the Short Messages comprise a congestion notification, the processor is configured to: detect the Downlink Control Information (DCI) in a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the WTRU may perform one or more actions for responding to congestion (Pelletier: [0173], [0183]).
As for Claims 13 and 20, the claims depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (hereinafter, Hernandez, US 20030210658 A1) in view of Kross et al. (hereinafter, Kross, US 20130155855 A1) in view of DANGE et al. (hereinafter, DANGE, US 20240196326 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hernandez (modified by Kross) discloses the wireless device of claim 1, as set forth above, including decreasing the power consumed at the wireless device (see Hernandez [0027]). Hernandez (modified by Kross) does not explicitly disclose wherein when decreasing the power consumed at the wireless device, the processor is configured to: reduce processing capabilities for processing Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) layers.
DANGE disclose wherein when decreasing the power consumed at the wireless device, the processor is configured to: reduce processing capabilities for processing Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) layers (see [0041] in view of [0040] that discloses 256QAM & 4×4 MIMO; the UE computes an optimized scaling factor needed as per that situation and can decide to use a different scaling factor (optimized scaling factor) to report lower maximum throughput required from the network which will in turn reduce resources allocation by the network to the UE. As per optimized scaling factor, the network allocates limited resources and modulation & MIMO used during data activity would be lower (e.g., 64 QAM or lower and/or 2×2 or No MIMO) which is good enough to sustain ongoing services; also see [0043] and Fig.7 that show allocating MIMO with less layers in a crunch situation such as when UE's battery is low).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of DANGE with Hernandez and Kross so that when decreasing the power consumed at the wireless device, the processor is configured to: reduce processing capabilities for processing Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) layers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable power saving as it would result in lower power consumption for the UE based on situations the UE is in, such as disaster or emergency situations or when UE's battery is low (DANGE: see [0041]).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (hereinafter, Hernandez, US 20030210658 A1) in view of Kross et al. (hereinafter, Kross, US 20130155855 A1) in view of Lipman et al. (hereinafter, Lipman, US 20140101332 A1) in view of DANGE et al. (hereinafter, DANGE, US 20240196326 A1).
Claims 12 and 19 depend on claims 9 and 16 respectively, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 respectively are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (hereinafter, Hernandez, US 20030210658 A1) in view of Kross et al. (hereinafter, Kross, US 20130155855 A1) in view of Sahin et al. (hereinafter, Sahin, US 20240388989 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hernandez (modified by Kross) discloses the wireless device of claim 1, as set forth above. Hernandez (modified by Kross) does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: establish a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) session between the wireless device and an endpoint in the cellular network.
Sahin discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: establish a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) session between the wireless device and an endpoint in the cellular network (see [0034]; UE1A 106 requests L4S traffic flow (e.g., an L4S application packet flow) from a client application of the UE; a new PDU session is established to support the requested L4S flow from the application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sahin with Hernandez and Kross so that the processor is further configured to: establish a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) session between the wireless device and an endpoint in the cellular network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to communicate congestion feedback information between the devices (Sahin: see [0056]-[0057]).
As for Claim 14, the claim depends on claim 8, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CONNOR (US 20030156542 A1) discloses congestion flow control method in e.g. ethernet, involves sending congestion indication frame to link partner.
Dahlman et al. (US 6912228 B1) teaches power control in a radio data communication system adapted using transmission load.
AL-HARES et al. (WO 2025064237 A1) discloses that determining that a wireless device should switch to the ambient low-power mode may be based on detecting network congestion.
HYDE et al. (WO 2023069534 A1) uses AI-based models for network energy savings.
Bidare (US 20130258857 A1) discloses helps in preventing congestion with a system that helps reduce power consumption at transmitting and receiving tower.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453