DETAILED ACTION
This office action response the amendment application on 03/16/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues, at pages 12–13 of the Remarks, that XU et al. (“Xu”), Báder et al. (“Báder”), and Awoniyi-Oteri et al. fail to teach or suggest the limitation reciting:
“select, based on the traffic class and the link condition, a set of preferred radio frequency (RF) parameters from a table; wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters, and wherein the preferred RF parameters are related to at least one of: a downlink (DL) bandwidth; an uplink (UL) bandwidth; a number of DL MIMO layers; a number of UL MIMO layers; a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) cycle; or a CDRX inactivity timer,”
as set forth in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that claim terms are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). Accordingly, the claims are not limited to the exact embodiments or terminology expressly disclosed in the Applicant’s Specification, but instead encompass equivalent structures, operations, and parameter-selection techniques reasonably falling within the claimed scope.
With respect to the claimed “traffic class,” Xu expressly teaches determining statistical characteristics associated with received and transmitted traffic and classifying the traffic into categories based on those characteristics. Specifically, Xu discloses determining statistical factors characterizing a data traffic session based on received packets ([0026], [0147], Fig. 4, step 403), and subsequently classifying the session into one of multiple session priority types based on analysis of those factors and classification variables over inter-arrival times ([0026]–[0027], [0147], Fig. 4, step 407). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Xu’s session priority types correspond to the claimed “traffic class,” because the reference categorizes traffic according to communication behavior and quality-related characteristics.
Applicant further argues that the cited references fail to disclose determining a “link condition” and selecting preferred RF parameters based upon both the traffic class and link condition. However, Báder expressly teaches evaluating radio network conditions and traffic load parameters using categorized value ranges representative of varying network conditions. For example, Báder discloses determining radio network and traffic load parameters ranked according to parameter ranges representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values ([0086], Fig. 6). Such parameter quality ranges reasonably correspond to the claimed “link condition” because they characterize the operational quality and performance state of the radio link.
Additionally, Báder teaches selecting and ranking radio network parameters according to their influence on Quality of Experience (“QoE”), selecting subsets of significant parameters, and classifying network conditions using grouped parameter ranges ([0076]–[0077], [0092]). The reference specifically discloses selecting parameters such as RSRP, RSRQ, active UE load, downlink throughput, and uplink throughput ([0041]–[0045]). Báder further discloses grouping cells based on combinations of parameter states such as “[RSRP: good, RSRQ: bad, Load: medium]” to optimize QoS policy decisions ([0076]). Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, selecting subsets of network parameters based upon categorized traffic and radio conditions constitutes selecting preferred RF parameters based on traffic class and link condition as recited in the claims.
The Examiner further notes that the Applicant’s own Specification at paragraph [0055] explains that RF parameters are selected to maximize power savings while ensuring QoS requirements associated with the current traffic type are satisfied, including latency and throughput requirements. Báder similarly teaches selecting radio network and traffic load parameters according to QoE impact and operational conditions. Therefore, the cited references collectively teach the same general decision-making framework recited in the claims, namely adapting radio-related parameters according to traffic characteristics and prevailing network conditions.
Moreover, the claimed RF parameters are not limited to a singular parameter type. The claims broadly recite parameters related to at least one of DL bandwidth, UL bandwidth, DL MIMO layers, UL MIMO layers, CDRX cycle, or CDRX inactivity timer. Báder expressly teaches network parameters associated with downlink throughput, uplink throughput, load conditions, and radio signal quality ([0041]–[0045]). Such parameters directly relate to bandwidth utilization, radio resource allocation, and transmission characteristics. Under BRI, these disclosures reasonably correspond to the claimed preferred RF parameters because the claims do not require any particular proprietary table structure or exact parameter nomenclature.
Further, the combination of Xu and Báder would have suggested transmitting corresponding UE assistance or optimization information to the network to facilitate adaptive network operation and QoS optimization. Awoniyi-Oteri further supports adaptive communication optimization and network-assisted parameter coordination between user equipment and the wireless network. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that communicating selected preferred RF-related operating conditions or preferences to the network would predictably improve traffic handling efficiency, power consumption management, and QoS optimization.
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Xu, Báder, and Awoniyi-Oteri because each reference is directed to adaptive wireless communication optimization using traffic characterization, network condition analysis, and parameter management. Combining known techniques for traffic classification with known radio-condition-based parameter selection merely represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).
Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually, rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references relied upon in the rejection. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Xu provides traffic classification functionality, Báder provides link-condition determination and RF/network parameter selection based on network quality conditions, and Awoniyi-Oteri supports adaptive UE/network coordination. Collectively, the references teach or at least render obvious the disputed limitations.
Therefore, the combination of Xu, Báder, and Awoniyi-Oteri teaches or suggests the claimed limitations as presently recited, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12, 15-16, 18, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190207858 A1), (“D1”, hereinafter), in view of Báder et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240064554), (“D2”, hereinafter), and further in view of Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200204291 A1), (“D3”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 1, D1 discloses a user equipment (UE) ([see, [0021], data traffic session may consist of between a remote client terminal and a network node or server node, over a communications network]) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive and transmit traffic, over a time step, via a wireless network ([see, [0026, 0147], and Fig. 1, 4, wherein a pattern of data bursts received by the client terminal or web browser for an example web browsing session, In step 401, a plurality of data packets of a data traffic session are received]); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver ([see, Fig. 5, a processor and communication interface]),
the processor configured to:
determine a plurality of statistical (analysis) features for the traffic received and transmitted over the time step (interval) ([see, [0026, 0147], and Fig. 4, In step 403, a plurality of statistical factors that characterize the data traffic session based on the received data packets of the data traffic session are determined]);
classify the traffic received and transmitted over the time step into a traffic class based on the statistical features and a traffic classification operation ([see, [0026-0027, 0147], and Fig. 1B-C, 4, In step 407, the data traffic session is classified as being one of a plurality of session priority types based on the analysis of the determined statistical factors for the data traffic session in relation to the plurality of classification variables over inter-arrival times]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: determine a link condition; and
select, based on the traffic class and the link condition, a set of preferred radio frequency (RF) parameters from a table; wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters.
However, D2 discloses determine a link condition ([see, [0086], and Fig. 6, determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values]); and select, based on the traffic class and the link condition, a set of preferred radio frequency (RF) parameters from a table ([see, [0077-0081, 0086, 0092], and Fig. 6, selected parameters from determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values]); and
wherein the preferred RF parameters are related to at least one of:
a downlink (DL) bandwidth ([see, [0045], network parameters are including Downlink throughput per cell, load DL in a cell]);
an uplink (UL) bandwidth;
a number of DL MIMO layers;
a number of UL MIMO layers;
a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) cycle; and
a CDRX inactivity timer.
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide optimizes the QoS policy for at least high priority traffic classes by adjusting the 5QI rules results improves QoS by applying more stringent 5QIs to underperforming classified cell groups (D2, [0038]]).
The combination of D1 and D2 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters.
However, D3 discloses wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters ([see, [0026, 0044, 0064], and Fig. 2,9, wherein a UE, transmits assistance information (referred to herein as UE assistance information (UAI)), the second device, such as a base station, receiving the UAI, send UAI to one or more base stations 102 serving the UE 104 to assist in setting communication parameters for the UE 104, the UAI may include power saving preferences of the UE 104, such as a number of antennas supported by the UE 104, one or more discontinuous receive (DRX) parameters]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide et a parameter modification timer results improves timing receiving an assistance response signal that the assistance information (UAI) which allows a period of time for receiving an assistance response signal (D3, [0007]).
As per Claim 19, is the non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 19 is anticipated by CRM being performed by the apparatus above and therefore is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
As per Claims 9, 18, D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D2 further discloses wherein the table corresponds with one of a cell-center case (corresponds to a device is close to the cell tower, the signal is strong and interference is low) or a cell edge case (corresponds to a device is at the outer limits of the cell, the signal degrades, and it experiences high interference from neighboring cells).
However, D6 discloses wherein the table corresponds with one of a cell-center case (corresponds to a device is close to the cell tower, the signal is strong and interference is low) or a cell edge case (corresponds to a device is at the outer limits of the cell, the signal degrades, and it experiences high interference from neighboring cells) ([see, [0012, 0041-0046], a dense urban region includes many cells with poor radio conditions, coverage holes, high cell density and high cell load leading to interference. In addition, downlink parameters table is discloses characterizing the interference]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide optimizes the QoS policy for at least high priority traffic classes by adjusting the 5QI rules results improves QoS by applying more stringent 5QIs to underperforming classified cell groups (D2, [0038]]).
As per Claim 10, D1 discloses a method of operating a user equipment (UE) ([see, [0021], data traffic session may consist of between a remote client terminal and a network node or server node, over a communications network]), the method comprising:
receiving and transmitting traffic, over a time step, via a wireless network ([see, [0026, 0147], and Fig. 1, 4, wherein a pattern of data bursts received by the client terminal or web browser for an example web browsing session, In step 401, a plurality of data packets of a data traffic session are received]);
determining a plurality of statistical features for the traffic received and transmitted over the time step ([see, [0026, 0147], and Fig. 4, In step 403, a plurality of statistical factors that characterize the data traffic session based on the received data packets of the data traffic session are determined]);
classifying the traffic received over the time step into a traffic class based on the statistical features and a traffic classification operation ([see, [0026-0027, 0147], and Fig. 1B-C, 4, In step 407, the data traffic session is classified as being one of a plurality of session priority types based on the analysis of the determined statistical factors for the data traffic session in relation to the plurality of classification variables over inter-arrival times]).
D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: determining a link condition; selecting, based on the traffic class and the link condition, a set of preferred radio frequency (RF) parameters from a table; and transmitting UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters.
However, D2 discloses determining a link condition ([see, [0086], and Fig. 6, determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values]); and selecting, based on the traffic class and the link condition, a set of preferred radio frequency (RF) parameters from a table ([see, [0077-0081, 0086, 0092], and Fig. 6, selected parameters from determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values]); and
wherein the preferred RF parameters are related to at least one of:
a downlink (DL) bandwidth ([see, [0045], network parameters are including Downlink throughput per cell, load DL in a cell]);
an uplink (UL) bandwidth;
a number of DL MIMO layers;
a number of UL MIMO layers;
a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) cycle; and
a CDRX inactivity timer.
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide optimizes the QoS policy for at least high priority traffic classes by adjusting the 5QI rules results improves QoS by applying more stringent 5QIs to underperforming classified cell groups (D2, [0038]]).
The combination of D1 and D2 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: transmitting UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters.
However, D3 discloses transmitting UE assistance information (UAI) to the wireless network corresponding with the selected set of preferred RF parameters ([see, [0026, 0044, 0064], and Fig. 2,9, wherein a UE, transmits assistance information (referred to herein as UE assistance information (UAI)), the second device, such as a base station, receiving the UAI, send UAI to one or more base stations 102 serving the UE 104 to assist in setting communication parameters for the UE 104, the UAI may include power saving preferences of the UE 104, such as a number of antennas supported by the UE 104, one or more discontinuous receive (DRX) parameters]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide et a parameter modification timer results improves timing receiving an assistance response signal that the assistance information (UAI) which allows a period of time for receiving an assistance response signal (D3, [0007]).
As per Claims 2, 11, 20, D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D2 further discloses wherein:
the transceiver is further configured to receive, from the wireless network, in response to the UAI, a radio resource control (RRC)-reconfiguration to reconfigure the UE according to the selected set of preferred RF parameters; and the processor is further configured to reconfigure the UE according to the RRC- reconfiguration ([see, [0041], [0077-0081, 0086, 0092], and Fig. 6, Network data, including radio network and traffic load parameters, are collected from RRC measurements data based on selected parameters from determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide optimizes the QoS policy for at least high priority traffic classes by adjusting the 5QI rules results improves QoS by applying more stringent 5QIs to underperforming classified cell groups (D2, [0038]]).
As per Claims 3, 12, D1 further discloses wherein the traffic classification operation is performed based on a 5G specific traffic classifier that classifies the traffic based on throughput and latency ([see, [0024, 0030, 0035], data traffic classification approaches according to a terrestrial wireless network (e.g., a 3G, 4G or 5G cellular network), and characterized by factors such as its throughput rate and session duration, and minimize the incurred latency]).
As per Claims 6, 15, D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D2 further discloses wherein the link condition is determined based on a channel quality indicator (CQI) and a rank indicator (RI) ([see, [0041], [0075-0076, 0086, 0092], and Fig. 6, determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values, and channel is characterized by [RSRP]]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide optimizes the QoS policy for at least high priority traffic classes by adjusting the 5QI rules results improves QoS by applying more stringent 5QIs to underperforming classified cell groups (D2, [0038]]).
As per Claims 7, 16, D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D2 further discloses wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive at least one signal quality metric ([see, [0008], QoS metrics relate to the network, e.g., packet error rate, packet latency or delay, etc]); and
the processor is further configured to determine the CQI and the RI based on the at least one signal quality metric ([see, [0041], [0075-0076, 0086, 0092], and Fig. 6, determine radio network and traffic load parameters are ranked based on parameter value ranges are used, representing “good,” “fair,” and “bad” values, and channel is characterized by [RSRP]]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide optimizes the QoS policy for at least high priority traffic classes by adjusting the 5QI rules results improves QoS by applying more stringent 5QIs to underperforming classified cell groups (D2, [0038]]).
Claims 4-5, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, in view of D3, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220377664), (“D4”, hereinafter).
As per Claims 4, 13, D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein:
the traffic classifier is a machine learning (ML) model that has been trained with an offline training operation based on the plurality of statistical features; and
the plurality of statistical features includes:
maximum uplink (UL) packet inter-arrival time;
average UL packet inter-arrival time;
UL packet count;
downlink (DL) packet count;
maximum UL packet size;
minimum UL packet size;
average UL packet size;
maximum DL packet size;
minimum DL packet size; and
average DL packet size.
However, D4 discloses the traffic classifier is a machine learning (ML) model that has been trained with an offline training operation based on the plurality of statistical features ([see, 0072, and Fig. 9, discloses a machine learning-based category detection system configured as input Traffic information, Packet timing information, and other session information as plurality of statistical features]); and
the plurality of statistical features ([see, [0087-0093], the network service detector 906 uses a set of ten network statistics features to help classify the categories]) includes: maximum uplink (UL) packet inter-arrival time (Uplink maximum inter-arrival time); average UL packet inter-arrival time (Uplink average inter-arrival time); UL packet count; downlink (DL) packet count (Uplink & downlink packet counts); maximum UL packet size; maximum DL packet size (Uplink & downlink maximum packet size); minimum UL packet size; minimum DL packet size (Uplink & downlink minimum packet size); average UL packet size; and average DL packet size (Uplink & downlink average packet size), ([see, [0087-0093], set of ten network statistics features, such as Uplink maximum inter-arrival time, Uplink average inter-arrival time, Uplink & downlink packet counts, Uplink & downlink minimum packet size, Uplink & downlink maximum packet size, and Uplink & downlink average packet size]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide component classifiers results improve the quality of the outputs from the corresponding classifier ([D4, [0119])
As per Claims 5, 14, D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, and D4 further discloses wherein the ML model is an XGBoost model ([see, [0115, train the XGB model]), and the XGBoost model is trained over a plurality of time steps and a moving window over the plurality of time steps ([see, [0115-0117], wherein the XGB model, data index in training the XGB model input features to the XGB are arranged, ten network statistics features can be used, which makes the FIFO array a size of 10×6=60. With each new observation every 500 ms]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide component classifiers results improve the quality of the outputs from the corresponding classifier ([D4, [0119]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, in view of D3, and further in view of Fröberg Olsson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230231605 A1), (“D5”, hereinafter).
As per Claims 8, 17, D1 doesn’t appear explicitly disclose: wherein: the table is pre-computed based on an average power consumption and a 98th percentile latency of each combination of a plurality of available RF parameter combinations according to an associated channel quality indicator (CQI) and an associated rank indicator (RI); and the preferred RF parameters are selected to minimize an average power consumption of the UE.
However, D5 discloses the table is pre-computed based on an average power consumption and a 98th percentile latency of each combination of a plurality of available RF parameter combinations according to an associated channel quality indicator (CQI) ([see, [0048-0049, 0055], quality measure may include one or more of a channel quality indicator, CQI, a CQI table, symbol information, a Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise Ratio, SINR, and a spectral efficiency, SE, and statistical measure may include a percentile of distribution]), and an associated rank indicator (RI) ([see, [0060], with each reported RI]); and the preferred RF parameters are selected to minimize an average power consumption of the UE ([see, [0051-0054, 0214], CQI statistical metric may include an average of the CQI values, a maximum of the CQI values, a median of the CQI values, a measure of variation of the CQI values, such as a standard deviation or variance of the CQI values and/or a CQI variation index that represents variation of the CQI values of the CSI report the UE]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D5. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reporting of statistical information results improve prediction efficiency that obtain better estimates for the CSI reporting ([D5, [0123]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU D BELETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm, Alt. Friday, and EDT.
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, JEONG, MOO R. can be reached on (571) 272-9617. 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.
/BERHANU D BELETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/WUTCHUNG CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights