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 Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “OR” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-24, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0161282 (Medvedev, et al) in view of Salzer, et al: "Multiple AntennaTechniques : From Theory to Practice" In: "LTE - the UMTS long term evolution :from theory to practice; [Including release 10 for LTE-advanced]", 22 July 2011.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Medvedev, et al discloses a network entity (figure 3, #310, ¶2, 14, claims 40, 46), comprising one or more memories (#332) storing processor-executable code and one or more processors (#330, 314, 342, 320) coupled with the one or more memories (#332) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity (#310) to obtain a single-user, multi-input multi-output (SU-MIMO) channel between the network entity (#310) and a user equipment (UE) (#350), wherein the SU- MIMO channel corresponds to a plurality of SU-MIMO streams (Abstract, ¶31, 32). Generate a transformed channel from the SU-MIMO channel based at least in part on a selection of the plurality of SU-MIMO streams, the selection based at least in part on a singular value decomposition of the SU- MIMO channel (¶42). Generate an intermediate beamformer based at least in part on the transformed channel (¶42). Generate a per antenna full transmit power beamformer based at least in part on the intermediate beamformer (Abstract, ¶11,13,75, etc. figure 1) and output a beamformed signal to the UE, wherein a respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO stream of the plurality of SU-MIMO streams is based at least in part on the per antenna full transmit power beamformer (¶55, 68, 70, 75, etc.). Medvedev, et al does not disclose that the plurality of SU-MIMO streams are a plurality of SU-MIMO layers. Salzer, et al teaches the use of plurality of SU-MIMO layers as equivalent a plurality of SU-MIMO streams (Sections 11.1.3.1, 11.1.3.3, 11.2.2.2). for the purpose of optimal way of communicating over the MIMO channel involves a channel-dependent precoder, which fulfils the roles of both transmit beamforming and power allocation across the transmitted streams, and a matching receive beamforming structure. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of plurality of SU-MIMO layers as equivalent a plurality of SU-MIMO streams) for the purpose of optimal way of communicating over the MIMO channel involves a channel-dependent precoder, which fulfils the roles of both transmit beamforming and power allocation across the transmitted streams, and a matching receive beamforming structure, as taught by Thomas, et al in the Medvedev, et al’s network entity in order for each stream adopt a distinct code rate and modulation.
PNG
media_image2.png
538
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 11, 20, 29, the beamformed signal outputted at an equal transmit power across the plurality of SU-MIMO streams based at least in part on the per antenna full transmit power beamformer, wherein an amplitude of the respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO streams of the plurality of SU-MIMO streams is the same, note Abstract, ¶6-7, 10-11, 74, 75, etc. in Medvedev, et al.
Regarding claims 3, 12, 21, 30, performing a power normalization of the per antenna full transmit power beamformer on each transmit antenna of a plurality of transmit antennas corresponding to the plurality of SU-MIMO layers, wherein each SU-MIMO layer of the plurality of SU-MIMO layers is assigned the respective beamforming weight based at least in part on the power normalization, note ¶75 in Medvedev, et al and Section 11.1.3.1 in Thomas, et al.
Regarding claims 4, 13, 22, perform the singular value decomposition of the SU-MIMO channel to obtain a subset of a left singular matrix associated with the SU-MIMO channel, wherein the subset of the left singular matrix satisfies a channel quality threshold, note , note ¶35-40, 42 in Medvedev, et al and Section 11.1.3.1 in Thomas, et al.
Regarding claims 5, 14, 23, the transformed channel is based at least in part on a multiplication of the SU-MIMO channel with a Hermitian of the subset of the left singular matrix that satisfies the channel quality threshold, note Section 11.1.3.1 in Thomas, et al.
Regarding claims 6, 15, 24, these claims are options since the set of receive antennas are optional and note paragraph 3 above.
Regarding claims 8, 17, 26, the intermediate beamformer is a matched filter beamformer, and applying the matched filter beamformer to the transformed channel, wherein the respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO layer of the plurality of SU- MIMO layers is based at least in part on applying the matched filter beamformer, note section 11.1.3.2 in Thomas, et al.
Regarding claims 9, 18, 27 the intermediate beamformer is a zero-forcing beamformer or a regularized zero-forcing beamformer, and apply the zero-forcing beamformer or the regularized zero-forcing beamformer to the transformed channel, wherein the respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO layer of the plurality of SU-MIMO layers is based at least in part on applying the zero-forcing beamformer or the regularized zero-forcing beamformer, note section 11.1.3.2 in Thomas, et al.
Regarding claim 10, this is the inherent method version of the above apparatus claim since this claim is stating the same functions of the apparatus and is also rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 19, this is the means plus function version of the apparatus claim and is rejected for the same reasons stated above. The means is the processor, memory, and the program.
Regarding claim 28, this is the inherent product version of the above apparatus claim since this claim is stating the same functions of the apparatus and is also rejected for the same reasons as stated above. . Also the note the processor, memory, and the program as stated above.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 7, 16, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0161282 (Medvedev, et al) in view of Salzer, et al: "Multiple AntennaTechniques : From Theory to Practice" In: "LTE - the UMTS long term evolution :from theory to practice; [Including release 10 for LTE-advanced]", 22 July 2011. as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0274074 (Astely).
Medvedev, et al in view of Salzer, et al discloses all subject matter, except for output the beamformed signal via a plurality of resource blocks, wherein the respective beamforming weights are calculated for each resource block of the plurality of resource blocks. The Examiner takes Official Notice that outputting a beamformed signal via a plurality of resource blocks, wherein the respective beamforming weights are calculated for each resource block of the plurality of resource blocks is at least over a decade old and well known in the art and not invented by Applicant. The Examiner provides Astely as evidence as such. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of output the beamformed signal via a plurality of resource blocks, wherein the respective beamforming weights are calculated for each resource block of the plurality of resource blocks in Medvedev, et al in view of Salzer, et in order to adequate and appropriately sufficient, condensed measure that describes as complete as possible the channels and interference conditions, from which adequate decisions and measures for link adaptation and scheduling can be made.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111 for a full discussion of broadest reasonable interpretation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification—the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. When the specification sets a clear path to the claim language, the scope of the claims is more easily determined and the public notice function of the claims is best served. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its 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. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).See MPEP § 2111.01 for a full discussion of the plain meaning of claim language.
Applicant state that Medvedev, et al does not teach or suggest outputting "a beamformed signal to the UE, wherein a respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO layer of the plurality of SU-MIMO layers is based at least in part on the per antenna full transmit power beamformer." First, 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). Second, Medvedev, et al discloses outputting a beamformed signal to the UE, wherein a respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO layer, which could be a single layer, of the SU-MIMO layer is based at least in part on the per antenna full transmit power beamformer. Medvedev, et al states, “[0055] A number of transmission schemes may be derived based on the full-CSI transmission scheme, with each such transmission scheme being dependent (in part) on how the total transmit power is allocated to the eigenmodes. These transmission schemes include a "water-filling" transmission scheme, a "selective channel inversion" transmission scheme, a "uniform" transmission scheme, a "principal eigenmode beam-forming" (or simply, "beam-forming") transmission scheme, and a "beam-steering" transmission scheme. Fewer, additional, and/or different transmission schemes may also be considered and are within the scope of the invention. For the water-filling transmission scheme, the total transmit power is allocated such that more transmit power is allocated to transmission channels with less noise and less transmit power is allocated to more noisy channels. For the selective channel inversion transmission scheme, the total transmit power is non-uniformly allocated to selected ones of the transmission channels such that they achieve approximately similar post-detection SNRS. For the uniform transmission scheme, the total transmit power is allocated equally among the transmission channels. For the beam-forming transmission scheme, all transmit power is allocated to a single transmission channel having the best performance. And for the beam-steering transmission scheme, the total transmit power is uniformly allocated to all transmit antennas used for transmitting a single data stream, but the data stream is transmitted with the proper phases from these transmit antennas. These transmission schemes rely on full-CSI processing (or a variant thereof) at the transmitter for each transmission channel selected for use. These various full-CSI based transmission schemes are described in further detail below.”
And, “[0068] The beam-forming transmission scheme allocates the total transmit power, P.sub.tot, to a single eigenmode. In order to approach capacity, the total transmit power is allocated to the eigenmode corresponding to the highest eigenvalue, .lambda..sub.max. This then maximizes the SNR given the constraint of using a single eigenmode for data transmission. The effective SNR for the single (best) eigenmode may be expressed as: 8 ~ = P tot max 2 . Eq(14)”
And, “[0070]The spectral efficiency achieved by the beam-forming transmission scheme for the N.sub.S spatial subchannels may be expressed as:
{tilde over (C)}=log.sub.2 (1+{tilde over (.gamma.)}) Eq (15)”
And, “[0075] For the beam-steering transmission scheme, the eigenmode corresponding to the highest eigenvalue, .lambda..sub.max, is initially identified (e.g., at the receiver), and the singular vector corresponding to this eigenmode is determined. This singular vector includes N.sub.T complex values for the complex gains to be used for the N.sub.T transmit antenna. The beam-steering transmission scheme transmits the single data stream from the N.sub.T transmit antennas at full power but with the proper phases, which are the phases of the N.sub.T complex gain values in the singular vector. Thus, only the phases of the N.sub.T elements in the singular vector need to be provided to the transmitter. The data stream is then transmitted from the N.sub.T transmit antennas at normalized (e.g., full) transmit power but with the phases for the principal eigenmode. This then allows the transmissions from the N.sub.T transmit antennas to be constructively (or coherently) combined at the receiver, which can provide improved performance.”
Also, “[0074] The beam-steering transmission scheme is similar to the beam-forming transmission scheme and transmits a single data stream over the MIMO channel. However, since only one data stream is transmitted, it is not necessary to orthogonalize the transmission channels or to restrict the transmission of this data stream on a single transmission channel corresponding to the principal eigenmode. The beam-steering transmission scheme relies on the principal eigenmode, which achieves the best performance, but allocates the total transmit power uniformly to all transmit antennas used for data transmission. In this way, higher transmit power is utilized for the data stream, which may result in improved performance.”
Examiner concludes that these passages disclose outputting "a beamformed signal to the UE, wherein a respective beamforming weight for each SU-MIMO layer of the plurality of SU-MIMO layers is based at least in part on the per antenna full transmit power beamformer."
Applicant states that Medvedev, et al does not teach or suggest the "singular value decomposition" can teach or suggest both "the transformed channel," which is generated "based at least in part on a selection of the plurality of SU-MIMO layers," in which "the selection [is] based at least in part on a singular value decomposition," and "an intermediate beamformer" that is generated "based at least in part on the transformed channel."
Medvedev, et al states, “[0035] When full CSI is available, one technique for eliminating or reducing the interference among the data streams is to "diagonalize" the MIMO channel such that the data streams are effectively transmitted on orthogonal spatial subchannels. One technique for diagonalizing the MIMO channel is to perform singular value decomposition on the channel response matrix, H. which can be expressed as:
H=UDV.sup.H Eq (3)”
And, “[0042] The singular value decomposition decomposes the channel response matrix, H, into two unitary matrices, U and V, and the diagonal matrix, D. Matrix D is descriptive of the eigenmodes of the MIMO channel, which correspond to the spatial subchannels. The unitary matrices, U and V, include "steering" vectors (or left and right eigenvectors, respectively) for the receiver and transmitter, respectively, which may be used to diagonalize the MIMO channel. Specifically, to diagonalize the MIMO channel, a signal vector, s, may be pre-multiplied with the matrix, V, at the transmitter to provide the transmitted vector, x, as follows:
x=Vs Eq (4)
[0043] This vector x is then transmitted over the MIMO channel to the receiver.”
And, “[0046] As shown in equation (4), the pre-multiplication of the signal vector, s, by the matrix V and the pre-multiplication of the received vector, y, by the matrix U.sup.H result in an effective diagonal channel, D, which is the transfer function between the signal vector, s, and the recovered vector, r. As a result, the MIMO channel is decomposed into N.sub.S independent, non-interfering, orthogonal, and parallel channels. These independent channels are also referred to as the spatial subchannels of the MIMO channel. Spatial subchannel i or eigenmode i has a gain that is equal to the eigenvalue, .lambda..sub.i, where i.di-elect cons.I and set I is defined as I={1, . . . , N.sub.s}. Diagonalization of the MIMO channel to obtain Ns orthogonal spatial subchannels can be achieved if the transmitter is provided with an estimate of the channel response matrix, H.”
And, “[0084] To achieve the optimum efficiency of the water-filling transmission scheme, the transmitter needs full knowledge of the MIMO channel, i.e., full CSI. Full CSI may be provided by the channel response matrix, H, and the noise variance, .sigma..sup.2. The channel response matrix, H, may then be evaluated (e.g., using singular value decomposition) to determine the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of the matrix G=H.sup.HH. The total transmit power may then be allocated to the eigenmodes based on the eigenvalues and the noise variance using the water-filling transmission scheme.”
The Examiner concludes that these passages disclose generating a transformed channel from the SU-MIMO channel based at least in part on a selection of a SU-MIMO layer, the selection based at least in part on a singular value decomposition of the SU-MIMO channel, or a set of receive antennas at the UE, or a combination thereof and generating an intermediate beamformer based at least in part on the transformed channel.
Applicants have not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this action. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they now stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights