DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 4 May 2026.
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
Claims 1-20 were pending in the Non-Final Rejection of 2 February 2026.
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 18-20 have been amended by amendments filed on 4 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
In view of the amendments to claims 4, 9, 14, and 18-20, the objection to claims 9 and 18-20 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 4, 14, and 19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 7-8 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Lee et al. (US 2023/0083274, hereinafter Lee) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0337517, hereinafter Li), because Li’s supposed teaching of merely overlapping bandwidth parts (BWPs) for Uplink (UL) and Sidelink (SL) was erroneously equated to an indication that UL resources are available as shared resources for SL communication, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited. Further, they do not show how the claims, as they are currently written, avoid such references.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, the element at issue is “an allocation indication indicating one or more uplink (UL) resource are available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving.” Specifically, the term at issue is “resource”. The term “resource” does not appear to be specially defined by the original disclosure. In the context of wireless communication, specifically in the context of multiplexed communication, a resource encompasses a bandwidth part as disclosed in the cited portion of Li, as indicated in the Non-Final Rejection, wherein Li discloses a “shared resource” that appears to encompass shared frequencies used simultaneously as disclosed in Li as cited in the Non-Final Rejection. Li, at Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 154-156, discloses a UE receiving configuration information from a BS indicating shared transmit radio frequencies between an indicated UL Bandwidth Part (BWP) and indicated SL BWP, not that the BWPs merely overlap, as characterized by Applicant — the term “shared transmit radio frequency” is explicitly used in Li as used simultaneously. Thus, the frequencies are not disclosed as merely overlapping with no connection in time. They are explicitly indicated as UL resources available as shared resources for SL transceiving. Lee, at ¶ 154 is reproduced with emphasis added below:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As provided in the reproduction of ¶ 154 above, a terminal (UE) is disclosed as using transmission resource pool #A including a shared transmit radio frequency between a UL BWP and SL BWP. The broadest reasonable interpretation of UL resources and SL resources appear to encompass shared transmit radio frequencies, especially those used simultaneously as disclosed. Applicant has not provided any arguments for why a shared transmit radio frequency is not within the scope of the claimed UL resources indicated as available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving, as claimed.
Therefore, no error is apparent in the mapping of Lee in view of Li to the subject matter at issue.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks that, in substance, in the rejection of the independent claims as obvious in view of, primarily, Lee and, secondarily, Li, Li does not disclose resources as first indicated as UL resources and then indicated as available as shared resources for SL transceiving, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an order in which resources are, first, indicated as UL resources and, second, indicated as available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, the claims do not include any language dictating a particular order of operations. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompass at least the disclosed subject matter of Li wherein, a transmission pool for a UE for sending SL data, wherein the UE may simultaneously send UL data and SL data on a shared transmit radio frequency (i.e., shared resources defined in time (e.g., simultaneously) and frequency). Li ¶ 154.
Even if the claims required resources to, first, be indicated as UL resources and then, second, be indicated as available for use for SL transceiving, the prior at of record would still disclose subject matter within the scope of such claims as cited in the Non-Final Rejection. Lee, at Fig. 12 and ¶¶ 472-474, discloses a UE receiving one or more configured grants, wherein a configured grant is a UL configured grant or an SL configured grant. For Applicant’s convenience, Fig. 12 is provided with emphasis added below.
PNG
media_image2.png
678
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As provided in Fig. 12 above, and as described in Lee at ¶¶ 472, 474, 477-478, and 483-484, a TX UE receives configured grants for SL and UL, and then the TX UE receives a configured grant activation indication explicitly indicating UL configured grant index 1, causing TX UE to set the priority of the UL configured grant and SL configured grant according to the configured grant activation indication, such as prioritizing the SL configured grant over a UL configured grant confirmation. Thus, a configured grant activation indication, which causes TX UE to prioritize SL transmission over UL configured grant confirmation in the event of a resource collision, effectively indicates that resources shared between the UL configured grant and the SL configured grant are available for SL transmission. This means that resources are disclosed in Lee as indicated as UL resources in a UL configured grant, and then the UL resources are subsequently indicated as available as shared resources by indicating that UL configured grant confirmation should be deprioritized over SL transmission. Since the term “share” is not used in the cited portion of Lee, Li is cited as evidence that resources being indicated as available as shared resources would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date.
Therefore, the prior art of record not only discloses subject matter within the scope of the claims as they are currently written, they further disclose subject matter within the scope of the argued-for limitations that are not actually claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, as provided above, Lee is cited as the primary reference, effectively disclosing the claimed invention, and Li is cited to show that any apparent gap between the terms actually used in the claims and Lee would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application. One would have found it obvious to apply the terms used in Li to describe the effect of Lee’s disclosure, modifying Lee to teach the claimed invention, because, by indicating shared resources, the network can reduce a time of radio frequency switching during transmit radio frequency sharing between the SL BWP and UL BWP (Li ¶ 154), wherein, by providing a configuration where SL and UL share resources, the network can help alleviate issues related to limited terminal capability wherein a transmit radio frequency may be separately set for UL and SL when the UL carrier and SL carrier are the same carrier (Li ¶ 3).
The rest of Applicant’s arguments on pp. 9-10 of Applicant Remarks appear to rely on the persuasiveness of their previous arguments. Thus, they are likewise unpersuasive.
Therefore, the prior art rejection of 2 February 2026 is maintained below for the claims as they are currently written.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0083274, previously cited, hereinafter Lee) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0337517, previously cited, hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network comprising:
establishing, by the UE, a sidelink (SL) connection with an SL peer UE in the wireless network (Fig. 12 and ¶ 468-469 disclose a TX UE and RX UE (an SL peer UE in the wireless network) establishing a PC5-S unicast link (a type of SL connection) and an associated PC5-RRC connection (another type of SL connection) between each other);
receiving, by the UE, an allocation indication (Fig. 12 and 471-472 disclose the TX UE receiving one or more configured grants from a network) indicating one or more uplink (UL) resources (¶ 474 disclose that a configured grant can be a SL configured grant or a UL configured grant), wherein the allocation indication originates from a gNB of the wireless network (Fig. 12 illustrates the one or more configured grants as received from a base station; and ¶ 82 discloses that a base station (BS) may also be referred to as a gNB); and
performing SL data transceiving with the SL peer UE using the one or more UL resources indicated in the allocation indication (¶¶ 477-478 disclose the TX UE determining a priority of each configured grant as indicated by the network/BS/gNB; ¶ 483-484 disclose the TX UE receiving a PDCCH de/activating one of the configured grants and determining how to prioritize transmissions based on the de/activation in the event of a transmission colliding with a configured grant confirmation to be transmitted by the TX UE to the network/BS/gNB; ¶¶ 496-497, 501, and 518 disclose the TX UE transmitting SL communications to the RX UE according to the relative priority between the SL transmission(s) and UL configured grant configurations).
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more UL resources are available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving.
However, in analogous art, Li discloses wherein one or more UL resource are indicated as available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving (Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 154-156 disclose a base station sending configuration information A to terminal 1 for configuring a SL bandwidth part (BWP) including transmission resource pool #A included in a frequency range of a currently active UL BWP and a frequency range of the SL BWP, wherein the UL BWP and the SL BWP are on a shared transit radio frequency).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li to modify Lee in order to configure resources that may be used for SL and UL transceiving. One would have been motivated to do this, because providing a configuring where SL and UL share resources may help alleviate issues related to (Li ¶ 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the allocation indication is transmitted by the gNB through downlink control information (DCI), MAC control element (CE) or radio resource control (RRC) message (¶ 471 discloses the TX UE receiving the grant from the network in DCI included in PDCCH).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 1.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the UE receives the allocation indication through the Uu connection by unicast, multicast or broadcast.
However, in analogous art, Li discloses wherein the UE receives the allocation indication through the Uu connection (¶ 151 discloses that there are multiple ways in which the resource pool used for SL transmission may be configured in an SL BWP) by unicast (¶ 153 discloses the use of dedicated RRC signaling configuration), multicast or broadcast (¶ 152 disclose the use of broadcast configuration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li to modify Lee in order to configure resources that may be used for SL and UL transceiving by transmitting the configuration via broadcast or unicast, in the form of dedicated RRC signaling. One would have been motivated to do this, because providing a configuring where SL and UL share resources may help alleviate issues (Li ¶ 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the shared SL resources are indicated by resource block (RB) ID or by SL grants (¶¶ 472 and 474 discloses the UE receiving configured grants from the network including a SL configured grant).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 1.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein conditions for using the shared SL resources are included in the allocation indication or are indicated in a separate RRC configuration.
However, in analogous art, Li discloses wherein conditions for using the shared SL resources are included in the allocation indication or are indicated in a separate RRC configuration (¶¶ 151-153 disclose SL transmission as configured in an SL BWP via dedicated RRC signaling carrying a terminal-level parameter; and Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 184-186 disclose the BS indicating that a UE is to send UL data on a currently activated UL BWP in RRC information to implement simultaneous sending of SL data and UL data on the shared transmit radio frequency between the SL BWP and UL BWP in order to satisfy a simultaneous sending requirement of the UE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li to modify Lee in order to configure the conditions for using shared resources in a separate RRC configuration. One would have been motivated to do this, because providing a configuring where SL and UL share resources may help alleviate (Li ¶ 3), by reducing the amount of time required for switching between the UL BWP and SL BWP (Li ¶ 186).
Regarding Claims 12-13 and 15-16, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 12-13 and 15-16 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 1-2 and 5-6, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a transceiver that transmits and receives radio frequency (RF) signal in a wide area wireless network (Fig. 12 and ¶¶ 25, 467-469 disclose a method implemented by a TX UE; Figs. 1-6 and ¶¶ 42, 52-53, 65, 69, 78-80, 85, 93, and 100-101 disclose a UE as including connected processor, memory and transceiver configured to communicate with a base station and another UE in a 3GPP LTE system and a NR system);
a sidelink (SL) controller that establishes an SL connection with an SL peer UE in the wireless network (Fig. 12 and ¶ 468-469 disclose a TX UE and RX UE (an SL peer UE in the wireless network) establishing a PC5-S unicast link (a type of SL connection) and an associated PC5-RRC connection (another type of SL connection) between each other);
a resource module that receives an allocation indication (Fig. 12 and 471-472 disclose the TX UE receiving one or more configured grants from a network) indicating one or more uplink (UL) resources (¶ 474 disclose that a configured grant can be a SL configured grant or a UL configured grant), wherein the allocation indication originates from a gNB of the wireless network (Fig. 12 illustrates the one or more configured grants as received from a base station; and ¶ 82 discloses that a base station (BS) may also be referred to as a gNB); and
a transceiving controller that performs SL data transceiving with the SL peer UE using the one or more UL resources indicated in the allocation indication (¶¶ 477-478 disclose the TX UE determining a priority of each configured grant as indicated by the network/BS/gNB; ¶ 483-484 disclose the TX UE receiving a PDCCH de/activating one of the configured grants and determining how to prioritize transmissions based on the de/activation in the event of a transmission colliding with a configured grant confirmation to be transmitted by the TX UE to the network/BS/gNB; ¶¶ 496-497, 501, and 518 disclose the TX UE transmitting SL communications to the RX UE according to the relative priority between the SL transmission(s) and UL configured grant configurations).
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the UL resources are indicated as available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving.
However, in analogous art, Li discloses wherein UL resources are indicated as available as shared SL resources for SL transceiving (Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 154-156 disclose a base station sending configuration information A to terminal 1 for configuring a SL bandwidth part (BWP) including transmission resource pool #A included in a frequency range of a currently active UL BWP and a frequency range of the SL BWP, wherein the UL BWP and the SL BWP are on a shared transit radio frequency).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li to modify Lee in order to configure resources that may be used for SL and UL transceiving. One would have been motivated to do this, because providing a configuring where SL and UL share resources may help alleviate issues related to (Li ¶ 3).
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 18 and 20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claims 2 and 5, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 4, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Li as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2013/0010722, previously cited, hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 3.
Lee-Li may not explicitly disclose wherein the UE receives the allocation indication through multicast or broadcast, and wherein a new radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) is used for the shared SL resources.
However, in analogous art, Suzuki discloses wherein a UE receives an allocation indication through multicast or broadcast, and wherein a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) is used for shared SL resources (¶ 58 discloses a base station including an Contention Based (CB)-RNTI in DCI broadcasted by the base station and received by mobile stations; Fig. 4 and ¶ 76-77 disclose a base station determining and including a CB-RNTI in PDCCH transmitted to mobile stations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Suzuki to modify Lee-Li in order to provide an RNTI in broadcasted DCI. One would have been motivated to do this, because providing the RNTI in (Suzuki ¶).
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 14 and 19 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 4, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0144781, previously cited, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 1.
Lee discloses wherein the UE receives the allocation indication from the gNB through a Uu link with the gNB (¶¶ 154 and 157 disclose the UE as inside a Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN, a 5G network) is provided various SL configuration information via a Uu carrier).
Lee-Li may not explicitly disclose wherein the UE is a relay UE.
However, in analogous art, Xu discloses wherein the UE is a relay UE (Figs. 7B, 15 and 16 and ¶¶ 131 and 133 disclose configuring a relay link and a signal flow for configuring and using further relay links, wherein the relay UE relays between the network and a remote UE or a helping remote UE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Xu to modify Lee-Li in order to embody the TX UE of Lee-Li as a relay UE. One would have been motivated to do this, because such an embodiment may help to improve system performance in latency or throughput for emerging and important applications (Xu ¶ 41).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Li-Xu as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0338319, previously cited, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 7.
Lee-Li may not explicitly disclose wherein the UE forwards the allocation indication to the SL peer UE through the SL connection.
However, in analogous art, Kim discloses wherein a UE forwards an allocation indication to an SL peer UE through an SL connection (Fig. 25 and ¶¶ 553-558 disclose a transmission (TX) UE receiving RRC signaling indicating a scheduling assignment (SA) subframe (SF) location from a base station (eNB), receiving a scheduling grant (SG) an instruction to activate the SA SF from the eNB, and the TX UE transmitting the SA to a reception (RX) UE through the activated SA SF).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kim to modify Lee-Li in order to forward configured grants received from the gNB to . One would have been motivated to do this, because forwarding such information may help make direct communication between
Regarding Claim 9, Lee-Li disclose the method of claim 7.
Lee-Li may not explicitly disclose wherein the UE sends indication for the shared resource to the SL peer UE based on the allocation indication.
Kim discloses wherein the UE sends indication for a shared resource to a SL peer UE based on an allocation indication (Fig. 25 and ¶¶ 553-558 disclose a transmission (TX) UE receiving RRC signaling indicating a scheduling assignment (SA) subframe (SF) location from a base station (eNB), receiving a scheduling grant (SG) an instruction to activate the SA SF from the eNB, and the TX UE transmitting the SA to a reception (RX) UE through the activated SA SF).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kim to modify Lee-Li in order to forward configured grants received from the gNB to . One would have been motivated to do this, because forwarding such information may help make direct communication between
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the ordered combination of all of the features of at least dependent claims 10 and 11. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to disclose the UE and SL peer UL exchanging a corresponding allocation indication or corresponding conditions for corresponding shared SL resources in ordered combination with all the other features of at least any one of the independent claims.
The prior art cited above was found to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, neither Lee, Li, Suzuki, Xu, Kim, nor other prior art listed below as pertinent appear to disclose the claimed UE receiving either an corresponding allocation indication or corresponding conditions for corresponding shared SL resources from the claimed SL peer UE, as required by claim 10’s “wherein the UE and the SL peer UE exchanges” that information. The prior art cited above does not appear to explicitly disclose a SL peer UE connected to a second BS, let alone receive a second set of UL resources from such a BS, and let alone have the second set be available as SL shared resources to use for providing either a corresponding allocation indication or corresponding conditions for corresponding shared SL resources. Prior art listed below as pertinent might disclose
Thus, dependent claims 10-11 are objected as including allowable subject matter over the prior art of record, and would be allowed if rewritten in independent form.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (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.
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights