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
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM; Cheol Soon et al. US PGPUB 20210307070 A1 in view of Islam; Toufiqul et al. US PGPUB 20210168783 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Kim teaches A user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive configuration information indicating a configured grant of uplink resources associated with a plurality of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmissions including a plurality of PUSCH repetitions; ([0096]DCI (in case of a type 2 configured grant and a dynamic grant) or RRC signaling (in case of a type 1 configured grant) may indicate a combination of a reference time resource that one PUSCH instance has and the number of repetitions, so that time resources for the PUSCH repetition type B may be determined.)
transmit the plurality of PUSCH repetitions and the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages according to the selective multiplexing. ([0453] In case of n=1, according to (Method F.2-1), a PUSCH in which the HARQ codebook 1 is multiplexed may be transmitted, and the HARQ codebook 2 may not be transmitted. Alternatively, the base station performs scheduling so that such allocation does not occur, and the terminal may assume that such allocation does not occur.
[0454] In case of n=2, according to (Method F.2-1), the HARQ codebook i∈{1,2} may be transmitted as being multiplexed in PUSCHs, respectively. This is represented by the case (b).)
Kim does not teach
selectively multiplex one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages with a corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions,
wherein the selective multiplexing is according to a priority of each respective uplink control information message; and
However, Islam teaches
selectively multiplex one or more PUSCH occasion skipping ([0118] In one example, if UL_CI is transmitted in a GC DCI, then UE only cancels the PUSCH or PUSCH repetitions overlapping with the indicated region and may still transmit the remaining PUSCH repetitions.) uplink control information messages with a corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, ([0119] In one example, if a UE would multiplex UCI onto a PUSCH in a slot and UE receives UL_CI which indicates cancelation of PUSCH, UE may still transmit UCI in the original PUCCH resource if the PUCCH resource does not overlap with the indicated time/frequency region to be avoided)
wherein the selective multiplexing is according to a priority of each respective uplink control information message; ([0080] In one example, in case of the configured grant UL transmission (where the duration of each transmission opportunity is known), some certain threshold may be defined, such that if a transmission duration is longer than the threshold, the UE needs to monitor for PI/CI/re-scheduling. Accordingly, if a transmission occupies a relatively long duration, the UE may rather need to cancel that transmission and start a higher priority transmission.)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 2. Kim and Islam teaches The UE of claim 1, Kim does not teach wherein the priority of each respective PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is associated with a respective slot of the corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions.
However, Islam teaches priority of each respective PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is associated with a respective slot of the corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions. ([0071] In one example, if search space set s is used in an on-demand basis, it may be identified as a higher priority search space set (irrespective of the search space set index), and if needed, one or more other search space sets can be dropped in a given slot. )
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 3. Kim and Islam teach The UE of claim 2, and Kim teaches wherein a first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages is associated with a highest priority of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, ([0515] The priority of the UCI type may be HARQ-ACK, SR, and CSI in an order of higher priorities. The CSI may be further classified according to a priority of a CSI report.) and the priority of each subsequent PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is lower than the priority of a respective preceding PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. ([0516] As an example, when it is necessary to determine whether an eMBB SR is to be multiplexed after a URLLC SR and a URLLC HARQ-ACK are multiplexed, the eMBB SR does not need to be transmitted, so that the eMBB SR may be dropped.)
Regarding claim 4. Kim and Islan teach The UE of claim 1, Kim teaches wherein, to selectively multiplex the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
drop one or more additional PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages from a corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions in accordance with one or more additional uplink control messages associated with the one or more PUSCH repetitions having a higher priority than the one or more additional PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. ([0516] As an example, when it is necessary to determine whether an eMBB SR is to be multiplexed after a URLLC SR and a URLLC HARQ-ACK are multiplexed, the eMBB SR does not need to be transmitted, so that the eMBB SR may be dropped.)
Regarding claim 5. Kim and Islam teaches The UE of claim 1, and Kim teaches wherein, to selectively multiplex the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
drop one or more additional PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages from a corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions associated with a time gap ([0594] The consecutive uplink transmissions refer to uplink transmissions in which a gap not larger than 16 us is allowed. Uplink transmissions with an interval greater than 16 us are regarded as different transmissions, and they are not expressed as consecutive uplink transmissions.) following a first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages. ([0516] As an example, when it is necessary to determine whether an eMBB SR is to be multiplexed after a URLLC SR and a URLLC HARQ-ACK are multiplexed, the eMBB SR does not need to be transmitted, so that the eMBB SR may be dropped.)
Regarding claim 6. Kim and Islam teach The UE of claim 5, but Kim does not teach wherein, to selectively multiplex the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
selectively multiplex at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages following the first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message in accordance with an expiration of the time gap.
However, Islam teaches
selectively multiplex at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages following the first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message in accordance with an expiration of the time gap. ([0020] Parameter T3 can be higher-layer configured, or can be implicitly obtained based on the time gap between the end of the UL grant and the end of the scheduled PUSCH or duration of PUSCH scheduled.)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 7. Kim and Islam teaches The UE of claim 1, but Kim does not teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: update a content of a portion of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages in accordance with a change in a transmit occasion skipping estimate.
However, Islam teaches update a content of a portion of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages in accordance with a change in a transmit occasion skipping estimate. ([0051] UE may drop the ongoing transmission and instead follow the updated grant for the same HARQ process. This approach basically ‘shifts’ the PUSCH resource allocation, e.g, to a later time, or alternatively updates the UL grant with a new resource allocation. The updated grant can also be referred to as revised or rescheduling grant.)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 8. Kim and Islam teaches The UE of claim 7, and Kim teaches wherein the content of the portion of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages is updated in accordance with two or more PUSCH repetitions of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions respectively colliding with different uplink control information messages, ([0430] When UCI and a PUSCH are repeatedly transmitted, the UCI and PUSCH may repeatedly overlap. In this case, the UCI may be multiplexed in a PUSCH instance. The UCI may be multiplexed in all of PUSCH instances, or may be multiplexed only in a specific PUSCH instance.) and wherein each of the different uplink control information messages has a higher priority than the two or more PUSCH repetitions. ([0424] UCIs of the same UCI type may have the same or different priorities, and the priorities may be indicated by RRC signaling or DCI. For example, a HARQ codebook for PDSCH for supporting eMBB traffic or URLLC traffic may be transmitted on a PUCCH. For example, one PUCCH may include a HARQ codebook for PDSCH for eMBB traffic, and another PUCCH may include a HARQ codebook for PDSCH for URLLC traffic. In addition, when a PUSCH includes a TB, a priority of the TB may be the same as or different from a priority of UCI.)
Regarding claim 9. Kim and Islan teach The UE of claim 1, and Kim teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: maintain a content of at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages constant ([0432] When the terminal is indicated to repeatedly transmit a HARQ codebook, the HARQ codebook may be repeatedly multiplexed in PUSCH instances. FIG. 41 shows this case. For example, the terminal may be indicated to transmit a HARQ codebook 1 m times (m≥3), and may be indicated to transmit a PUSCH k times (k≥2). Here, PUCCHs including the HARQ codebook 1 (i.e., HARQ1) may overlap with PUSCHs. Therefore, according to (Method F.1-2), the terminal may transmit the PUSCH in which the HARQ codebook 1 is multiplexed twice.) during a time gap following a first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages. (Fig. 41, (a) time gap being e ≥ 0)
Regarding claim 10.Kim and Islam teach The UE of claim 9, and Kim teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: update a content of at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages in accordance with an expiration of the time gap and a change in a transmit occasion skipping estimate. (Fig. 41 (a) and (b) [0432] In this case, a PUCCH instance that does not overlap with a PUSCH instance may be additionally transmitted (i.e., case (a)). Alternatively, a PUCCH instance that does not overlap a PUSCH instance may no longer be transmitted (i.e., case (b)).)
Regarding claim 11. Kim and Islam The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a radio resource control message indicating whether the UE is permitted to update a content of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages.
Islam teaches receive a radio resource control message indicating whether the UE is permitted to update a content of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages. ([0017] In one example, UE is configured by RRC signaling to monitor for UL transmission cancellation indication (UL_CI). In particular, a higher layer parameter UL_CI=ON or OFF can be used to activate monitoring of UL preemption or cancellation indication after UE receives the grant (e.g., successful decoding of the DCI).)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 12. Kim teaches A network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (Fig. 2, Processor 210, Memory 220 etc) to cause the network entity to:
transmit configuration information indicating a configured grant for a user equipment (UE) to transmit a plurality of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmissions including a plurality of PUSCH repetitions; ([0096]DCI (in case of a type 2 configured grant and a dynamic grant) or RRC signaling (in case of a type 1 configured grant) may indicate a combination of a reference time resource that one PUSCH instance has and the number of repetitions, so that time resources for the PUSCH repetition type B may be determined.) and
receive the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, ([0453] In case of n=1, according to (Method F.2-1), a PUSCH in which the HARQ codebook 1 is multiplexed may be transmitted, and the HARQ codebook 2 may not be transmitted. Alternatively, the base station performs scheduling so that such allocation does not occur, and the terminal may assume that such allocation does not occur.
[0454] In case of n=2, according to (Method F.2-1), the HARQ codebook i∈{1,2} may be transmitted as being multiplexed in PUSCHs, respectively. This is represented by the case (b).)
Kim does not teach wherein one or more of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions is multiplexed with one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages according to a priority of each respective one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message.
However, Islam teaches
wherein one or more of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions is multiplexed with one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages according to a priority of each respective one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. ([0080] In one example, in case of the configured grant UL transmission (where the duration of each transmission opportunity is known), some certain threshold may be defined, such that if a transmission duration is longer than the threshold, the UE needs to monitor for PI/CI/re-scheduling. Accordingly, if a transmission occupies a relatively long duration, the UE may rather need to cancel that transmission and start a higher priority transmission.)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 13. Kim and Islam teach The network entity of claim 12, Kim does not teach wherein the priority of each respective PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is associated with a respective slot of a corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions.
However, Islam teaches priority of each respective PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is associated with a respective slot of the corresponding one or more PUSCH repetitions. ([0071] In one example, if search space set s is used in an on-demand basis, it may be identified as a higher priority search space set (irrespective of the search space set index), and if needed, one or more other search space sets can be dropped in a given slot. )
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 14. Kim and Islan teach The network entity of claim 13, and Kim teaches wherein a first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages is associated with a highest priority of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, ([0515] The priority of the UCI type may be HARQ-ACK, SR, and CSI in an order of higher priorities. The CSI may be further classified according to a priority of a CSI report.)and the
priority of each subsequent PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is lower than the priority of a respective preceding PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. ([0516] As an example, when it is necessary to determine whether an eMBB SR is to be multiplexed after a URLLC SR and a URLLC HARQ-ACK are multiplexed, the eMBB SR does not need to be transmitted, so that the eMBB SR may be dropped.)
Regarding claim 15. Kim and Islam teach The network entity of claim 12, Kim teaches wherein, to receive the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
receive one or more additional uplink control messages associated with the one or more PUSCH repetitions in accordance with the one or more additional uplink control messages having a higher priority than a portion of one or more additional PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. ([0516] As an example, when it is necessary to determine whether an eMBB SR is to be multiplexed after a URLLC SR and a URLLC HARQ-ACK are multiplexed, the eMBB SR does not need to be transmitted, so that the eMBB SR may be dropped.)
Regarding claim 16. Kim and Islam teaches The network entity of claim 12, Kim teaches wherein, to receive the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
receive at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages in accordance with an expiration of a time gap following a first PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. (Fig. 41 (a) and (b) [0432] In this case, a PUCCH instance that does not overlap with a PUSCH instance may be additionally transmitted (i.e., case (a)). Alternatively, a PUCCH instance that does not overlap a PUSCH instance may no longer be transmitted (i.e., case (b)).)
Regarding claim 17. Kim and Islam teach The network entity of claim 12, Kim teaches wherein, to receive the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
receive an at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, , ([0453] In case of n=1, according to (Method F.2-1), a PUSCH in which the HARQ codebook 1 is multiplexed may be transmitted, and the HARQ codebook 2 may not be transmitted. Alternatively, the base station performs scheduling so that such allocation does not occur, and the terminal may assume that such allocation does not occur.
[0454] In case of n=2, according to (Method F.2-1), the HARQ codebook i∈{1,2} may be transmitted as being multiplexed in PUSCHs, respectively. This is represented by the case (b).)
Kim does not teach wherein a portion of the at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is updated in accordance with a change in an transmit occasion skipping estimate.
Islam teaches
receive an at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information messages, wherein a portion of the at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message is updated in accordance with a change in an transmit occasion skipping estimate. ([0051] UE may drop the ongoing transmission and instead follow the updated grant for the same HARQ process. This approach basically ‘shifts’ the PUSCH resource allocation, e.g, to a later time, or alternatively updates the UL grant with a new resource allocation. The updated grant can also be referred to as revised or rescheduling grant.)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 18. Kim and Islam teach The network entity of claim 17, Kim teaches wherein, to receive the at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: receive the at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message in accordance with two or more PUSCH repetitions of the plurality of PUSCH repetitions respectively colliding with different uplink control information messages, wherein each of the different uplink control information messages has a higher priority than the two or more PUSCH repetitions. ([0424] UCIs of the same UCI type may have the same or different priorities, and the priorities may be indicated by RRC signaling or DCI. For example, a HARQ codebook for PDSCH for supporting eMBB traffic or URLLC traffic may be transmitted on a PUCCH. For example, one PUCCH may include a HARQ codebook for PDSCH for eMBB traffic, and another PUCCH may include a HARQ codebook for PDSCH for URLLC traffic. In addition, when a PUSCH includes a TB, a priority of the TB may be the same as or different from a priority of UCI.)
Regarding claim 19. The network entity of claim 17, wherein, Kim teaches to receive the at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message, the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: receive the at least one PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message in accordance with an expiration of a time gap. . (Fig. 41 (a) and (b) [0432] In this case, a PUCCH instance that does not overlap with a PUSCH instance may be additionally transmitted (i.e., case (a)). Alternatively, a PUCCH instance that does not overlap a PUSCH instance may no longer be transmitted (i.e., case (b)).)
Regarding claim 20. Kim and Islam teach The network entity of claim 12, Kim does not teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit a radio resource control message indicating whether the UE is permitted to update a content of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message.
Islam teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: transmit a radio resource control message indicating whether the UE is permitted to update a content of the one or more PUSCH occasion skipping uplink control information message. ([0017] In one example, UE is configured by RRC signaling to monitor for UL transmission cancellation indication (UL_CI). In particular, a higher layer parameter UL_CI=ON or OFF can be used to activate monitoring of UL preemption or cancellation indication after UE receives the grant (e.g., successful decoding of the DCI).)
in order to control UL interference at the gNB and consequently affecting one or more overlapping transmission. ([0123])
Kim and Islam are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Kim with the technique of prioritize UCI over PUSCH repetition in order to control UL interference at the gNB.
Regarding claim 21-29 . Kim and Islam teach A method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising the steps recited in claim 1-9. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 30.Kim and Islam teach A method for wireless communications by a network entity, comprising steps performed in claim 12. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468