DETAILED ACTION
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 6, 2026, has been entered with the request for continued examination dated April 23, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments, filed on April 6, 2026, with respect to objections to claim 24 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claim 24 have been withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any combination of the references being used in the current rejection. Examiner has applied Moulsley ‘901 (US 2011/0081901) to clearly teach the amended limitations in claims 1 and 16.
5. Applicant's arguments regarding rejection of independent claims 10 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. § 103 rejection of claim 10
Regarding claim 10, as amended, applicant argues claim 10 is in condition for allowance, because applied references Merwaday ‘946 (US 2022/0014946, “Merwaday ‘946”), Nasiri ‘216 (US 2020/0007216, “Nasiri ‘216”), and Park ‘205 (US 2020/0007205, “Park ‘205”) do not disclose “receive, by a user equipment (UE), a wireless beam from the network device, the wireless beam being measured using a codebook selected responsive to a region of the UE, the region being determined using a digital twin that models an environment observed by the network device based on a stream of inputs and a position of the UE in the environment, the region being a line of sight (LoS) region or a non-LoS (NLoS) region” (See Remarks, page 9, para 1-3).
Applicant argues that a location of a UE of Park ‘205 is not the same as “region of the UE … the region being a line of sight (LoS) region or a non-LoS (NLoS) region” (See Remarks, page 9, para 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Merwaday ‘946 discloses “receive, by a user equipment (UE), a wireless beam from the network device” (FIG. 15, para 159-163; as seen in FIG. 15, user data is communicated between a UE and a gNB via two-way wireless communication; communication is performed on beams; thus, UE receives beams from the gNB), “the region being determined using a digital twin that models an environment observed by the network device based on a stream of inputs and a position of the UE in the environment” (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; EPS that is part of a network collects a stream of real-time information about the environment from sensors, and provides real-time environmental perception information to DT circuitry; DT is a model that is a real-time virtual environment that includes UE location within the environment, as observed by the EPS; thus, the region of the UE location is determined using the DT model of the environment, where the environment is observed by the EPS network device, based on the stream of information and the position of the UE in the observed environment), and “the region being a line of sight (LoS) region or a non-LoS (NLoS) region” (FIG. 15, para 32 and 159-163; depending on physical obstructions in the region it is located in, the moving UE is in a LoS region or a NLoS region). Further, examiner notes that Nasiri ‘216 discloses “the wireless beam being measured using a codebook” (para 15 and 40; a beam configuration is defined by its beam management codebook; link quality measurements are performed on a set of beams in a current angular arrangement, according to the current beam codebook, to update the codebook to avoid blockage; thus, the beams are measured using the codebook). Furthermore, examiner notes that Park ‘205 discloses “a codebook selected responsive to a region of the UE” (para 429; a codebook is selected based on location of the UE). Thus, a combination of Merwaday ‘946, Nasiri ‘216, and Park ‘205 discloses “receive, by a user equipment (UE), a wireless beam from the network device, the wireless beam being measured using a codebook selected responsive to a region of the UE, the region being determined using a digital twin that models an environment observed by the network device based on a stream of inputs and a position of the UE in the environment, the region being a line of sight (LoS) region or a non-LoS (NLoS) region”.
B. § 103 rejection of claim 25
Regarding claim 25, as amended, applicant argues the claims are allowable by virtue of reciting similar features as those discussed with respect to claim 10. Relevant limitations claimed in claim 10 are discussed above. Applicant does not present arguments regarding additional limitations claimed in claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 7-9, 16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946 (US 2022/0014946, “Merwaday ‘946”), in view of Lopez-Perez ‘344 (US 2019/0335344, “Lopez-Perez ‘344”), and further in view of Moulsley ‘901 (US 2011/0081901, “Moulsley ‘901”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Merwaday ‘946 discloses an apparatus (FIGS. 8-9 and 18; para 172-174; digital twin circuitry processor platform 1800), comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (FIG. 18, para 172-174; processor includes local memory), the at least one processor configured to:
receive a stream of inputs from one or more sensors (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 31 and 113-121; environmental perception service (EPS) collects real-time information about the environment from sensors, and provides real-time environmental perception information to digital twin (DT) circuitry; thus, a stream of real-time information is received from the sensors);
determine a region of at least one user equipment (UE) using a digital twin that models an environment observed by a network device based on the stream of inputs (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; EPS that collects the stream of real-time environmental perception information is part of a network; DT is a model that is a real-time virtual environment that includes UE location within the environment, as observed by the EPS; thus, the region of the UE location is determined using the DT model of the environment, as observed by the EPS network device based on the stream of information from the sensors),
the region being determined based on a position of the at least one UE in the environment (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; UE location is determined using the DT model of the environment; thus, the region of the UE location is determined based on the position of the UE in the environment),
the region being a line of sight (LoS) region or a non-LoS (NLoS) region (FIG. 15, para 32 and 159-163; depending on physical obstructions in the region it is located in, the moving UE is in a LoS region or a NLoS region).
However, Merwaday ‘946 does not specifically disclose select a first codebook responsive to the region being determined as the LoS region or a second codebook responsive to the region being determined as the NLoS region; and determine one or more beams for wireless communication with the at least one UE based on the first codebook or the second codebook.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lopez-Perez ‘344 teaches select a first codebook responsive to the region being determined as the LoS region or a second codebook responsive to the region being determined as the NLoS region; and determine one or more beams for wireless communication with the at least one UE based on the first codebook or the second codebook (FIGS. 1-2, para 6-8, 42, and 52; in a wireless passive optical network (WPON), access points (APs) and customer premises equipment (CPEs) are in communication using wireless beams; the used beam patterns are configured in AP and CPE beamforming codebooks; the beamforming codebooks include a LoS codebook to be used when a LoS path is available, and a backup codebook for a reflected path; the backup, reflected codebook is used for fast adaptation when the LoS path is blocked; thus, a LoS codebook is selected responsive to the wireless transmission region determined as a LoS region, or a backup, reflected codebook is selected responsive to the region determined a non-LoS region, where the selected codebook determines the beam to use for the wireless communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Merwaday ‘946’s apparatus that determines beams based on region, to include Lopez-Perez ‘344’s LoS codebook to be used when a LoS path is available, and a backup codebook for a reflected path when the LoS path is blocked. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce interference in WPON (Lopez-Perez ‘344, para 4-6).
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344 does not specifically disclose the first codebook being distinct from the second codebook.
Moulsley ‘901 teaches the first codebook being distinct from the second codebook (para 4, 78, and 125; a precoding codebook is a precoding matrix of channel coefficients; a codebook used in case of LoS transmission is based on DFT (Discrete Fourier Transform) coefficients; a codebook used in case of non-LoS transmission is a non-DFT codebook; thus, the two codebooks are distinct).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946 and Lopez-Perez ‘344, to include Moulsley ‘901’s two distinct codebooks. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of power reduction that affects achievable transmit data rate (Moulsley ‘901, para 11).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344 and Moulsley ‘901 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Merwaday ‘946 teaches in which the stream of inputs comprise one or more images produced by a camera at the network device (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; EPS collects real-time information about the environment from sensors, including cameras; thus, a stream of collected real-time information includes images captured by cameras).
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344 and Moulsley ‘901 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Merwaday ‘946 teaches in which the at least one processor is further configured to generate, by the network device, a wireless communication signal to communicate with the at least one UE according to one of the one or more beams (FIG. 15, para 159-163; as seen in FIG. 15, user data is communicated between a UE and a gNB via two-way wireless communication; communication is performed on beams; thus, the gNB generates beams to communicate with the UE).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344 and Moulsley ‘901 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Merwaday ‘946 teaches in which the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a beam prediction for the at least one UE to conduct uplink communication with the network device; and transmit the beam prediction to the at least one UE (FIG. 15, para 159-163; as part of the BFR procedure applied to the moving UE, future movement of the UE is predicted based on monitored kinematic parameters of the UE in the communication environment, and candidate beams for BFR are determined; a list of the predicted candidate beams are sent to the UE to use for transmission as part of the BFR procedure).
8. Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946, in view of Lopez-Perez ‘344, further in view of Moulsley ‘901, further in view of Park ‘205 (US 2020/0007205, “Park ‘205”), and further in view of Kumar ‘977 (US 2020/0145977, “Kumar ‘977”).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344 and Moulsley ‘901 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344 and Moulsley ‘901 does not specifically disclose in which the first codebook comprises a discrete Fourier transform codebook.
Park ‘205 teaches in which the first codebook comprises a discrete Fourier transform codebook (para 251-252; DFT codebook).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Lopez-Perez ‘344, and Moulsley ‘901, to include Park ‘205’s DFT codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to propose a method for transmitting or receiving CSI and codebooks for CSI reporting/feedback (Park ‘205, para 4).
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, and Park ‘205 does not specifically disclose the second codebook is learned based on an angular profile associated with the at least one UE.
Kumar ‘977 teaches the second codebook is learned based on an angular profile associated with the at least one UE (para 16-19; network node stores angular information associated with a UE in a codebook, and provides the codebook to the UE; the angular information includes azimuth and elevation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, and Park ‘205, to include Kumar ‘977’s network node that stores angular information associated with a UE in a codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable location of a mobile device using different positioning methods (Kumar ‘977, para 2).
9. Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946, in view of Lopez-Perez ‘344, further in view of Moulsley ‘901, further in view of Park ‘205, further in view of Kumar ‘977, and further in view of Nasiri ‘216 (US 2020/0007216, “Nasiri ‘216”).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, Park ‘205, and Kumar ‘977 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 4 and 19, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, Park ‘205, and Kumar ‘977 does not specifically disclose in which the angular profile is computed based on historic measurement data developed using the first codebook.
Nasiri ‘216 teaches in which the angular profile is computed based on historic measurement data developed using the first codebook (para 15 and 40; a beam configuration is defined by its beam management codebook; link quality measurements are performed on a set of beams in a current angular arrangement, according to the current beam codebook, to update the codebook to avoid blockage; thus, updated angular profile is determined based on the measurements according to the current codebook).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, Park ‘205, and Kumar ‘977, to include Nasiri ‘216’s updated angular profile based on measurements according to the current codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of lower link transmission rates due to not taking into account variations in links that are likely to correlate in time (Nasiri ‘216, para 6).
10. Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946, in view of Lopez-Perez ‘344, further in view of Moulsley ‘901, further in view of Park ‘205, further in view of Kumar ‘977, and further in view of Paltin ‘850 (US 2024/0430850, “Paltin ‘850”).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, Park ‘205, and Kumar ‘977 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 4 and 19, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, Park ‘205, and Kumar ‘977 does not specifically disclose in which the angular profile is computed using the digital twin.
Paltin ‘850 teaches in which the angular profile is computed using the digital twin (para 44 and 56; angle of arrival training datasets are based on a digital twin simulation of an environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Lopez-Perez ‘344, Moulsley ‘901, Park ‘205, and Kumar ‘977, to include Paltin ‘850’s angle of arrival training datasets are based on a digital twin simulation of the environment. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of an impractical solution for real system deployments, where it is attempted to generate a training dataset with virtually all possible violations of clock behaviors among multiple TX-RS points and a UE (Paltin ‘850, para 2).
11. Claims 10, 14-15, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946, in view of Nasiri ‘216, and further in view of Park ‘205.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Merwaday ‘946 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 8, para 113; UE) comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (FIG. 18, para 172-174; processor includes memory), the at least one processor configured to:
initiate wireless communication with a network device (FIG. 15, para 159-163; as part of the BFR procedure applied to the moving UE, future movement of the UE is predicted based on monitored kinematic parameters of the UE in the communication environment, and candidate beams for BFR are determined; gNB sends a list of the predicted candidate beams to the UE to use for transmission as part of the BFR procedure; thus, as part of the BFR procedure, the UE initiates communication with gNB over a predicted candidate beam); and
receive, by a user equipment (UE), a wireless beam from the network device (FIG. 15, para 159-163; as seen in FIG. 15, user data is communicated between a UE and a gNB via two-way wireless communication; communication is performed on beams; thus, UE receives beams from the gNB),
the region being determined using a digital twin that models an environment observed by the network device based on a stream of inputs and a position of the UE in the environment (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; EPS that is part of a network collects a stream of real-time information about the environment from sensors, and provides real-time environmental perception information to DT circuitry; DT is a model that is a real-time virtual environment that includes UE location within the environment, as observed by the EPS; thus, the region of the UE location is determined using the DT model of the environment, where the environment is observed by the EPS network device, based on the stream of information and the position of the UE in the observed environment),
the region being a line of sight (LoS) region or a non-LoS (NLoS) region (FIG. 15, para 32 and 159-163; depending on physical obstructions in the region it is located in, the moving UE is in a LoS region or a NLoS region).
However, Merwaday ‘946 does not specifically disclose the wireless beam being measured using a codebook.
Nasiri ‘216 teaches the wireless beam being measured using a codebook (para 15 and 40; a beam configuration is defined by its beam management codebook; link quality measurements are performed on a set of beams in a current angular arrangement, according to the current beam codebook, to update the codebook to avoid blockage; thus, the beams are measured using the codebook).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Merwaday ‘946’s apparatus that determines a region using a digital twin that models an environment observed by the network device based on a stream of inputs and a position of the UE in the environment, to include Nasiri ‘216’s beams that are measured using the codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of lower link transmission rates due to not taking into account variations in links that are likely to correlate in time (Nasiri ‘216, para 6).
Although Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216 discloses the wireless beam being measured using a codebook, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216 does not specifically disclose a codebook selected responsive to a region of the UE.
Park ‘205 teaches a codebook selected responsive to a region of the UE (para 429; a codebook is selected based on location of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946 and Nasiri ‘216, to include Park ‘205’s codebook that is selected based on UE’s location beams that are measured using the codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to propose a method for transmitting or receiving CSI and codebooks for CSI reporting/feedback (Park ‘205, para 4).
Regarding claim 14, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216 and Park ‘205 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
Further, Merwaday ‘946 teaches in which the stream of inputs comprise one or more images produced by a camera at the network device (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; EPS collects real-time information about the environment from sensors, including cameras; thus, a stream of real-time information includes images captured by cameras).
Regarding claims 15 and 30, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216 and Park ‘205 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 10 and 25, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Merwaday ‘946 teaches in which the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the network device, a set of beams for conducting uplink communication with the network device (FIG. 15, para 159-163; as part of the BFR procedure applied to the moving UE, future movement of the UE is predicted based on monitored kinematic parameters of the UE in the communication environment, and candidate beams for BFR are determined, for the UE reestablish communication to the same cell; gNB sends to the UE a list of the predicted candidate beams to use for transmission as part of the BFR procedure; thus, the UE receives from the gNB the list of predicted candidate beams for conducted uplink communication with the gNB),
the set of beams determined based on the region of the UE (FIG. 15, para 159-163; future movement of the UE is predicted based on monitored kinematic parameters of the UE in the communication environment, and candidate beams for BFR are determined; thus, beams are determined based on the region of movement of the UE).
12. Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946, in view of Nasiri ‘216, further in view of Park ‘205, further in view of Lopez-Perez ‘344.
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216 and Park ‘205 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 10 and 25, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216 and Park ‘205 does not specifically disclose in which the at least one processor is further configured to select a first codebook responsive to the region being determined as the LoS region or to select a second codebook responsive to the region being determined as the NLoS region.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lopez-Perez ‘344 teaches in which the at least one processor is further configured to select a first codebook responsive to the region being determined as the LoS region or to select a second codebook responsive to the region being determined as the NLoS region (FIGS. 1-2, para 6-8, 42, and 52; in a wireless passive optical network (WPON), access points (APs) and customer premises equipment (CPEs) are in communication using wireless beams; the used beam patterns are configured in AP and CPE beamforming codebooks; the beamforming codebooks include a LoS codebook to be used when a LoS path is available, and a backup codebook for a reflected path; the backup, reflected codebook is used for fast adaptation when the LoS path is blocked; thus, a LoS codebook is selected responsive to the wireless transmission region determined as a LoS region, or a backup, reflected codebook is selected responsive to the region determined a non-LoS region, where the selected codebook determines the beam to use for the wireless communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Nasiri ‘216, and Park ‘205, to include Lopez-Perez ‘344’s LoS codebook to be used when a LoS path is available, and a backup codebook for a reflected path when the LoS path is blocked. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce interference in WPON (Lopez-Perez ‘344, para 4-6).
12. Claims 13 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merwaday ‘946, in view of Nasiri ‘216, further in view of Park ‘205, further in view of Lopez-Perez ‘344, and further in view of Kumar ‘977.
Regarding claims 13 and 28, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216, Park ‘205, and Lopez-Perez ‘344 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 12 and 27, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Park ‘205 teaches in which the first codebook comprises a discrete Fourier transform codebook (para 251-252; DFT codebook).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Nasiri ‘216, Park ‘205, and Lopez-Perez ‘344, to further include Park ‘205’s DFT codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to propose a method for transmitting or receiving CSI and codebooks for CSI reporting/feedback (Park ‘205, para 4).
However, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216, Park ‘205, and Lopez-Perez ‘344 does not specifically disclose the second codebook is learned based on an angular profile associated with the at least one UE.
Kumar ‘977 teaches the second codebook is learned based on an angular profile associated with the at least one UE (para 16-19; network node stores angular information associated with a UE in a codebook, and provides the codebook to the UE; the angular information includes azimuth and elevation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Merwaday ‘946, Nasiri ‘216, Park ‘205, and Lopez-Perez ‘344, to include Kumar ‘977’s network node that stores angular information associated with a UE in a codebook. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable location of a mobile device using different positioning methods (Kumar ‘977, para 2).
Regarding claim 29, Merwaday ‘946 in combination with Nasiri ‘216, Park ‘205, Lopez-Perez ‘344, and Kumar ‘977 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 28, as outlined above.
Further, Merwaday ‘946 teaches in which the stream of inputs comprise one or more images produced by a camera at the network device (FIGS. 8 and 9, para 113-121; EPS collects real-time information about the environment from sensors, including cameras; thus, a stream of real-time information includes images captured by cameras).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.0.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights