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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 was filed with the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs 1, requires descriptive legends, see MPEP 608.02.V(o) “Legends” (R-Patent Rules: 1.84 “Standards for drawings”(o) Legends: Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-16 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. Each of claims 1-10 fall within category of process; Each of claim 11-16 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863));
Regarding Claims 1
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of generating of sequences.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
A method of a first communication node, comprising:
generating a first sequence that is a maximal length sequence having a length of 2n-1 for a positive integer n;
generating a second sequence having a relationship of a preferred pair with the first sequence;
generating a third sequence having a relationship of a preferred pair with the first sequence and the second sequence; and
generating a binary sequence group using the first to third sequences.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “generating a first sequence [..] maximal length sequence [..]; [..] a second sequence having a relationship [..] preferred pair with [..]; generating a third sequence [..]; generating a third sequence [..] using the first to third sequences (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, Only additional element is “a first communication node”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with generic computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, only one “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that is, i.e. “node for communication system”, generic communication device, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-7
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-6 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For Examples, claim 2-7: limitations represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea).
Regarding Claims 8-16
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea of generating of sequences.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
8. A method of a second communication node, comprising:
receiving, from a first communication node, a signal consisting of modulation symbols;
generated by modulating a binary sequence group associated with a physical cell identity of the first communication node; and
obtaining the physical cell identity of the first communication node from the signal by using binary sequence groups associated with physical cell identities,
wherein the binary sequence groups associated with the physical cell identities are generated based on a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) operation on first, second and third sequences for the respective physical cell identities.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “generated by modulating a binary sequence group associated with a physical cell identity of the first communication node; wherein the binary sequence groups associated with the physical cell identities are generated based on a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) operation on first, second and third sequences for the respective physical cell identities. ” (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 8 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ receiving, from a first communication node, a signal consisting of modulation symbols” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, 2nd additional first element is “obtaining the physical cell identity of the first communication node from the signal by using binary sequence groups associated with physical cell identities,” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, third element is “a first communication node, second communication node”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with generic computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims 8 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that is, i.e. “first/second communication node”, generic communication devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 9-16
Dependent claims 9-16 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 8 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 9-16 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For Examples, claim 9-16: limitations represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase "preferred pair" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear that what’s the preferred pair is. The claims or the associated claim limitations do not define the term “preferred pair” makes the claim vague and indefinite. Therefore the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 13, with similar limitations as the independent claim 1. Therefore claims 8 and 13 are also rejected under the same ground of rejection.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-12 and 14-16 are dependent on the independent claims 1,8 and 13. Hence claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
However, on a further investigation, the examiner, revealed in the instant specification, in Detailed Description of the Embodiments, page 11, describes that “maximum length sequences (abbreviated as m-sequences) form a preferred pair”. If the applicant amend the claim based on above which may overcome said rejections as stated above.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0294910 A1), hereinafter, “Kim” in view of Yang et al (US 2020/0351061 A1), hereinafter, “Yang”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses: A method of a first communication node (Kim: fig 8, Serving eNB (Pcell) equivalent to “first communication node”), comprising: generating a first sequence that is a maximal length sequence having a length of 2n-1 for a positive integer n (Kim: fig 17-18, step S1810, para [0298], where, the BS may Generate First Sequence of Length M with maximal length based on relationship for length of 2.sup.n-1 (2n -1), para [0239]);
generating a second sequence having a relationship of a preferred pair with the first sequence (Kim: fig 17-18, step S1820, para [0298], where, the BS may Generate Second Sequence of Length M with preferred pair with first sequence, para [0320]);
generating a third sequence having a relationship of a preferred pair with the first sequence and the second sequence (Kim: fig 17-18, step S1830, para [0300], where, “The BS may generate a third sequence by using the first and second sequences. The third sequence may be referred to as an SSS sequence or a sub-sequence (S1830)”); and Kim does not explicitly teach: generating a binary sequence group using the first to third sequences.
Yang teaches: generating a binary sequence group using the first to third sequences (Yang: fig 7-8, para [0100], where, binary sequence groups are generated using BPSK modulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “generating a binary sequence group using the first to third sequences” as taught by Yang into Kim in order to facilitate communication between BS and UE (Yang: par [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing apparatus, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a memory and a processor. However, Kim discloses the memory and the processor (Kim: fig 21, para [0405]).
Regarding claim 3, 12 and 15, Kim modified by Yang disclose: wherein when 2n is an odd number, k is a positive integer that has 1 as a greatest common divisor with n (Kim: fig 16, para [0261], where, “if the BS transmits PSSs in an odd number of OFDM symbols, the PSSs may be transmitted by transmitting one sequence in a sequence pair once more”), and when a value of a 4-modulo operation on 2n-1 is 2, k is a positive integer that has 2 as a greatest common divisor with n (Kim: para [0178]-[0179], where, “In [Equation 3], k is determined according to the type of an SI message. For example, k=(SFN/2) modulo 4 for an SIB1 message. Here, SFN represents a system frame number. For each piece of system information, k=i modulo 4 and i=0, 1, . . . , nsw-1 where i represents the number of a subframe within an SI window n.sub.s.sup.w”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim modified by Yang disclose: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: mapping first modulation symbols generated by modulating the binary sequence group to N subcarriers (Kim: para [0012], where, “the N-SSS may be transmitted on all subcarriers included in the N OFDM symbols”), wherein N is a positive integer (Kim: para [0012], where, N is a positive integer); and transmitting a first signal consisting of the mapped first modulation symbols (Kim: para [0008], where, “transmit, on a PUCCH, a DMRS corresponding to the shifted DMRS sequence with pi/2 BPSK modulation”).
Regarding claim 6, Kim modified by Yang disclose: wherein the first to third sequences are generated based on generator polynomials having a maximum degree (n+1) and a first identity for the first communication node, where N is a positive integer having a value of (2n-1) (Kim: para [0238]-[0239], where, “variables a(i) and b(i) may be the elements of two complementary sequences with elements 1 and −1 of length 2.sup.n\, where i=0, 1, . . . , 2.sup.n−1”).
Regarding claim 7, Kim modified by Yang disclose: wherein the generating of the binary sequence group using the first to third sequences (fig 18, para [0256], where, “it is preferred that the number of OFDM symbols carrying PSSs is an even number. If it is assumed that Golay complementary sequences are binary sequences, the possible lengths of the sequences may be 2.sup.a, 10.sup.b, 26.sup.c, and/or 2.sup.a*10.sup.b*26.sup.c (a, b and c are 0 or larger integers)”) comprises: generating first to third cyclic shift indices based on an identity of the first communication node (Kim: para [0013], where, generate cyclic shifting);
applying the first cyclic shift index to the first sequence (Kim: fig 18, para [0306], where, “The BS may represent information about a cell ID by a combination of cyclic shift values (CS1 and CS2) for the generated two first sequences”);
applying the second cyclic shift index to the second sequence (Kim: fig 18, para [0306], where, “The BS may represent information about a cell ID by a combination of cyclic shift values (CS1 and CS2) for the generated two first sequences”);
applying the third cyclic shift index to the third sequence (Kim: fig 18, para [0301] and [0306], where, “The BS may represent information about a cell ID by a combination of cyclic shift values (CS1 and CS2) for the generated two first sequences”);
performing a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) operation on a sum of the first to third sequences to which the first to third cyclic shift indices are applied (Yang: para [0100], where, “the group of cyclic shift indexes is associated with a plurality of DMRS sequences and the plurality of DMRS sequences are based at least in part on respective pi/2 BPSK modulated computer-generated binary sequences”); and obtaining the binary sequence group corresponding to a result of the BPSK operation (Yang: para [0043], where, “wherein a cyclic gap between cyclic shift indexes included in the group of cyclic shift indexes is at least 2 and is not 6 (e.g., using controller/processor 280, memory 282, and/or the like), means for transmitting, on a PUCCH, a DMRS corresponding to the shifted DMRS sequence with pi/2 BPSK modulation”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kim modified by Yang disclose: A method of a second communication node (Yang: fig 8, UE1 equivalent to “second communication node”, para [0168]), comprising: receiving, from a first communication node, a signal consisting of modulation symbols generated by modulating a binary sequence group associated with a physical cell identity of the first communication node (Yang: fig 8, steps 810-820, UE1 equivalent to “second communication node”, para [0103], where, “receiving an indication of a plurality of groups of cyclic shift indexes, wherein each group of cyclic shift indexes, of the plurality of groups of cyclic shift indexes, is associated with one or more DMRS sequences (block 810). For example, the UE (e.g., using demodulator 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, controller/processor 280, memory 282, and/or the like) may receive an indication of a plurality of groups of cyclic shift indexes, as described above, for example, with reference to FIGS. 5, 6A, and/or 6B. In some aspects, each group of cyclic shift indexes, of the plurality of groups of cyclic shift indexes, is associated with one or more DMRS sequences.”); and obtaining the physical cell identity of the first communication node from the signal by using binary sequence groups associated with physical cell identities (Yang: para [0048], where, “the PSS may be used by UEs to determine symbol timing, and the SSS may be used by UEs to determine a physical cell identifier, associated with the base station, and frame timing”), wherein the binary sequence groups associated with the physical cell identities are generated based on a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) operation on first, second and third sequences (Yang: fig 7, para [0096], where, “in some aspects, process 700 may include transmitting, on a PUCCH, a DMRS corresponding to the shifted DMRS sequence with pi/2 BPSK modulation (block 720). For example, the UE (e.g., using modulator 254, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, controller/processor 280, memory 282, and/or the like) may transmit, on a PUCCH, a DMRS corresponding to the shifted DMRS sequence with pi/2 BPSK modulation”) for the respective physical cell identities (Yang: para [0048], where, “the PSS may be used by UEs to determine symbol timing, and the SSS may be used by UEs to determine a physical cell identifier, associated with the base station, and frame timing”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim modified by Yang disclose: The method according to claim 8, wherein the signal includes a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (Kim: Fig 17, para [0292], where, “in some aspects, process 700 may include transmitting, on a PUCCH, a DMRS corresponding to the shifted DMRS sequence with pi/2 BPSK modulation (block 720). For example, the UE (e.g., using modulator 254, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, controller/processor 280, memory 282, and/or the like) may transmit, on a PUCCH, a DMRS corresponding to the shifted DMRS sequence with pi/2 BPSK modulation”), and the obtaining of the physical cell identity of the first communication node comprises: obtaining the SSS from the signal; identifying a physical identity from the obtained SSS (Kim: Fig 17, para [0338], where, “The BS may generate an SSS sequence in the form of [g1(n)*s1(n)g2(n)*s1(n)]. Because the scrambling sequence s.sub.k(n) is PCI-based, a receiver (i.e., a UE) needs 504*2 correlation operations to acquire a PCI and subframe position information”); detecting the modulation symbols from the signal (Kim: fig 20, para [0189], where, “Specifically, a CRS sequence is mapped to complex-valued modulation symbols used as reference symbols for antenna port p in slot ns”); calculating a correlation value between the modulation symbols and each of binary sequence groups associated with the identified physical identity (Kim: para [0284], where, “the UE detects a peak value by correlation to receive a PSS signal, and the cover sequence may facilitate detection of the peak value”); identifying a physical cell identity of a binary sequence group with a maximum correlation value (Kim: fig 18, para [0299], where, “The UE may derive a physical cell ID (PCI) and subframe position information from information included in the received first and second sequences”); and obtaining the identified physical cell identity as the physical cell identity of the first communication node (Kim: fig 18, para [0314], where, “The BS may represent information about a physical cell ID by a combination of cyclic shift values (CS1 and CS2) for the generated two sequences”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim modified by Yang disclose: The first communication node (Kim: fig 8, Serving eNB (Pcell) equivalent to “first communication node”), according to claim 13, wherein the processor further causes the first communication to perform (Kim: fig 21, processor 2120 and memory 2180, para [0460], where, “an eNB which transmits an N-SSS in a wireless access system supporting NB-IoT may include a transmitter and a processor”): mapping first modulation symbols generated by modulating the binary sequence group to N subcarriers (Yang: fig 3A-B, processor 2120 and memory 2180, para [0460], where, “Each resource element may cover one subcarrier in one symbol period (e.g., in time) and may be used to send one modulation symbol, which may be a real or complex value. In some aspects, one or more UEs may transmit control information, data, reference signals, and/or the like in one or more resource blocks of a slot”), wherein N is a positive integer; and transmitting a first signal consisting of the mapped first modulation symbols (Yang: para [0075], where, “The BS may transmit an indication of the group of cyclic shift indexes to a UE (e.g., in a signaling communication), and the UE may select a cyclic shift index, from the group of cyclic shift indexes, for shifting a DMRS sequence to generate a DMRS that may be transmitted to the BS with pi/2 BPSK modulation”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0294910 A1), hereinafter, “Kim” in view of Yang et al (US 2020/0351061 A1), hereinafter, “Yang” further, in view of Cleveland et al (US 2003/0123576 A1), hereinafter, “Cleveland”.
Regarding claim 4, neither Kim nor Yang teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein d is defined as 2k+1 or 22k+2k+1.
Cleveland teaches: wherein d is defined as 2k+1 or 22k+2k+1 (Cleveland: para [0088], where, “the binary data pairs may be represented as [Bit (2k), Bit (2k+1)] for k=0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , K, where K may be, for example, 15, 31, 63”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “wherein d is defined as 2k+1 or 22k+2k+1” as taught by Cleveland into Kim in order to detect a match to one of the M Walsh codes (Cleveland: para [0060]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461