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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on 8/14/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-23 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 11-133 has been canceled.
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 15, 20-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 recites “A computer program comprising instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the following: …,” and, when taken as a whole, is directed solely to a computer program as a product without any structural recitations. Under MPEP 2106.03(I), products that do not have a physical or tangible form such as information (data per se) or a computer program per se (software per se) when claimed as a product without structural limitations do not fall within any of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Accordingly, independent claim 15, as presently drafted, is directed to a computer program per se and therefore encompasses non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 20-23 depend from claim 15 and do not add limitations that would place the invention within a statutory category. Therefore, claims 20–23 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for performing” in claims 1, 9, 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim limitation “means for performing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-10, 14-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20240098538 (hereinafter referred to as Koskinen) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210105649 (hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Consider claim 1, Koskinen discloses an apparatus comprising means for performing:
receiving mobile communication network data for a user device (see at least ¶ [0087], “…the UE 110 and NW node 310 align radio resource measurement relaxation state in order that the UE 110 and the network understand at least which measurement gap occasions are considered valid for radio resource management measurements…, …the UE 110 receives and/or transmits data according to scheduling and uses measurement gaps…”);
providing the received mobile communication network data to a model for generating a measurement gap setting based on the received data (see at least ¶ [0087], “…schedules and makes data transmissions/receptions accordingly … based at least on the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation state. …the UE 110 receives and/or transmits data according to scheduling and uses measurement gaps (if any) for RRM measurements according to the alignment with network in block 320…” and see at least ¶ [0088], “…reports results of the radio resource measurements to the NW node 310. The NW node 310 receives reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the UE 110 according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation stat…”); and
returning the generated measurement gap setting (see at least ¶ [0088], “…reports results of the radio resource measurements to the NW node 310. The NW node 310 receives reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the UE 110 according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation stat…, … The NW node 310, in block 360, may perform one or more actions based on the received reporting…”).
Koskinen disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Koskinen does not particularly disclose wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lee, which teaches wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells (see Lee, at least ¶ [0072], “…An AI technology may be applied to the wireless devices 100a to 100f and the wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the AI server…” and see at least ¶ [0437], “…UE may perform serving cell measurements and/or neighbor cell measurements. Based on the measurement results on the frequencies included in the measurement configuration, the UE may perform cell selection and/or reselection…” and see at least ¶ [0450], “…the UE may perform relaxed measurement on a serving frequency and/or at least one of neighbor frequencies…” and see at least ¶ [0460], “…the UE may inform that the UE has been performing the relaxed measurement on the serving frequency and/or at least one of the neighbor frequencies…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Koskinen disclosed invention, and have wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells, as taught by Lee, thereby, to provide the technique that aim to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity, as discussed by Lee, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claim 14, Koskinen discloses a method comprising:
receiving mobile communication network data for a user device (see at least ¶ [0087], “…the UE 110 and NW node 310 align radio resource measurement relaxation state in order that the UE 110 and the network understand at least which measurement gap occasions are considered valid for radio resource management measurements…, …the UE 110 receives and/or transmits data according to scheduling and uses measurement gaps…”);
providing the received mobile communication network data to a model for generating a measurement gap setting based on the received data (see at least ¶ [0087], “…schedules and makes data transmissions/receptions accordingly … based at least on the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation state. …the UE 110 receives and/or transmits data according to scheduling and uses measurement gaps (if any) for RRM measurements according to the alignment with network in block 320…” and see at least ¶ [0088], “…reports results of the radio resource measurements to the NW node 310. The NW node 310 receives reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the UE 110 according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation stat…”); and
returning the generated measurement gap setting (see at least ¶ [0088], “…reports results of the radio resource measurements to the NW node 310. The NW node 310 receives reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the UE 110 according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation stat…, … The NW node 310, in block 360, may perform one or more actions based on the received reporting…”).
Koskinen disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Koskinen does not particularly disclose wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lee, which teaches wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells (see Lee, at least ¶ [0072], “…An AI technology may be applied to the wireless devices 100a to 100f and the wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the AI server…” and see at least ¶ [0437], “…UE may perform serving cell measurements and/or neighbor cell measurements. Based on the measurement results on the frequencies included in the measurement configuration, the UE may perform cell selection and/or reselection…” and see at least ¶ [0450], “…the UE may perform relaxed measurement on a serving frequency and/or at least one of neighbor frequencies…” and see at least ¶ [0460], “…the UE may inform that the UE has been performing the relaxed measurement on the serving frequency and/or at least one of the neighbor frequencies…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Koskinen disclosed invention, and have wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells, as taught by Lee, thereby, to provide the technique that aim to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity, as discussed by Lee, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claim 15, Koskinen discloses a computer program (see at least ¶ [0283], “…combinations of hardware circuits and software, … (i) a combination of analog and/or digital hardware circuit(s) with software/firmware and (ii) any portions of hardware processor(s) with software…”) comprising instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the following:
receiving mobile communication network data for a user device (see at least ¶ [0087], “…the UE 110 and NW node 310 align radio resource measurement relaxation state in order that the UE 110 and the network understand at least which measurement gap occasions are considered valid for radio resource management measurements…, …the UE 110 receives and/or transmits data according to scheduling and uses measurement gaps…”);
providing the received mobile communication network data to a model for generating a measurement gap setting based on the received data (see at least ¶ [0087], “…schedules and makes data transmissions/receptions accordingly … based at least on the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation state. …the UE 110 receives and/or transmits data according to scheduling and uses measurement gaps (if any) for RRM measurements according to the alignment with network in block 320…” and see at least ¶ [0088], “…reports results of the radio resource measurements to the NW node 310. The NW node 310 receives reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the UE 110 according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation stat…”); and
returning the generated measurement gap setting (see at least ¶ [0088], “…reports results of the radio resource measurements to the NW node 310. The NW node 310 receives reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the UE 110 according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation stat…, … The NW node 310, in block 360, may perform one or more actions based on the received reporting…”).
Koskinen disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Koskinen does not particularly disclose wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lee, which teaches wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells (see Lee, at least ¶ [0072], “…An AI technology may be applied to the wireless devices 100a to 100f and the wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the AI server…” and see at least ¶ [0437], “…UE may perform serving cell measurements and/or neighbor cell measurements. Based on the measurement results on the frequencies included in the measurement configuration, the UE may perform cell selection and/or reselection…” and see at least ¶ [0450], “…the UE may perform relaxed measurement on a serving frequency and/or at least one of neighbor frequencies…” and see at least ¶ [0460], “…the UE may inform that the UE has been performing the relaxed measurement on the serving frequency and/or at least one of the neighbor frequencies…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Koskinen disclosed invention, and have wherein the measurement gap setting defines measurement gap parameters for use in scheduling radio measurements of neighboring cells, as taught by Lee, thereby, to provide the technique that aim to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity, as discussed by Lee, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claims 2, 16, 20 (depends on at least claims 1, 14, 15), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claims 1, 14, 15 as applied to claim rejection 1, 14, 15 above and further discloses:
Koskinen teaches wherein the measurement gap parameters define one or more of intra-frequency, inter-frequency and inter-radio access technology measurements (see at least ¶ [0122], “…the UE reports or is configured to report information on its intra/inter-frequency/inter-RAT …” and see at least ¶ [0145], “…the relaxation is applied to intra-frequency measurements so that the measurement gaps assigned for intra-frequency measurements may be adapted…”).
Consider claims 3, 17, 21 (depends on at least claims 1, 14, 15), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claims 1, 14, 15 as applied to claim rejection 1, 14, 15 above and further discloses:
Koskinen teaches wherein the measurement gap setting comprises a measurement gap repetition rate defining a periodicity of measurements (see at least ¶ [0170], “…a user equipment-specific gap which applies to all frequencies, a gap offset, a gap length, a gap repetition period, or a gap timing advance…”).
Consider claims 4, 18, 22 (depends on at least claims 1, 14, 15), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claims 1, 14, 15 as applied to claim rejection 1, 14, 15 above and further discloses:
Koskinen teaches wherein the measurement gap setting comprises a measurement gap length (see at least ¶ [0170], “…a user equipment-specific gap which applies to all frequencies, a gap offset, a gap length, a gap repetition period, or a gap timing advance…”).
Consider claims 5, 19, 23 (depends on at least claims 1, 14, 15), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claims 1, 14, 15 as applied to claim rejection 1, 14, 15 above and further discloses:
Koskinen teaches wherein the measurement gap setting comprises one of a predefined plurality of measurement gap patterns (see at least ¶ [0096], “…the information received from the UE 110 for configuring a suitable measurement gap pattern configuration for the UE…”).
Consider claim 6 (depends on at least claim 1), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Koskinen teaches wherein the mobile communication network data comprises one or more of: current location data for the user device; serving cell Reference Signal Received Power; user device bandwidth; radio resource management relaxation state; and a current mobility state of the user device (see at least ¶ [0087], “…the UE 110 and NW node 310 align radio resource measurement relaxation state in order that the UE 110 and the network understand at least which measurement gap occasions are considered valid for radio resource management measurements…”).
Consider claim 7 (depends on at least claim 1), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Koskinen teaches wherein the current location data for the user device indicates whether the device is at a cell centre, at cell edge or in-between the cell centre and cell edge (see at least ¶ [0059], “…the UE relaxing RRM measurements of neighbor cells when the UE meets the criteria determining the UE is in low mobility and/or is not at a cell edge…” and see at least ¶ [0145], “…UE considers to be in cell center (centre) conditions based on defined criterion(s)…”).
Consider claim 8 (depends on at least claim 1), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Koskinen disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Koskinen does not particularly disclose wherein the model is a machine learning model. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lee, which teaches wherein the model is a machine learning model (see Lee, at least ¶ [0072], “…An AI technology may be applied to the wireless devices 100a to 100f and the wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the AI server…” and see at least ¶ [0437], “…UE may perform serving cell measurements and/or neighbor cell measurements. Based on the measurement results on the frequencies included in the measurement configuration, the UE may perform cell selection and/or reselection…” and see at least ¶ [0450], “…the UE may perform relaxed measurement on a serving frequency and/or at least one of neighbor frequencies…” and see at least ¶ [0460], “…the UE may inform that the UE has been performing the relaxed measurement on the serving frequency and/or at least one of the neighbor frequencies…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Koskinen disclosed invention, and have wherein the model is a machine learning model, as taught by Lee, thereby, to provide the technique that aim to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity, as discussed by Lee, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claim 9 (depends on at least claim 1), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Koskinen disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Koskinen does not particularly disclose means for performing: training said machine learning model. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lee, which teaches means for performing: training said machine learning model (see Lee, at least ¶ [0072], “…An AI technology may be applied to the wireless devices 100a to 100f and the wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the AI server…” and see at least ¶ [0437], “…UE may perform serving cell measurements and/or neighbor cell measurements. Based on the measurement results on the frequencies included in the measurement configuration, the UE may perform cell selection and/or reselection…” and see at least ¶ [0450], “…the UE may perform relaxed measurement on a serving frequency and/or at least one of neighbor frequencies…” and see at least ¶ [0460], “…the UE may inform that the UE has been performing the relaxed measurement on the serving frequency and/or at least one of the neighbor frequencies…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Koskinen disclosed invention, and have means for performing: training said machine learning model, as taught by Lee, thereby, to provide the technique that aim to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity, as discussed by Lee, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Consider claim 10 (depends on at least claim 1), Koskinen in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Koskinen disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Koskinen does not particularly disclose obtaining a set of input data from the user device; labelling the data, including indicating whether a handover occurred; and training the model by minimising a loss function. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Lee, which teaches obtaining a set of input data from the user device (see Lee, at least ¶ [0103], “…receives inputs to be used by the processor 102…”);
labelling the data, including indicating whether a handover occurred (see Lee, at least ¶ [0114], “…mobility functions (including: handover and context transfer…”); and
training the model by minimising a loss function (see Lee, at least ¶ [0058], “…it is necessary for wireless connection to be established with latency, reliability, and capacity similar to those of the cable and management of wireless connection needs to be simplified. Low latency and a very low error probability are new requirements when connection to 5G is needed…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Koskinen disclosed invention, and have obtaining a set of input data from the user device; labelling the data, including indicating whether a handover occurred; and training the model by minimising a loss function, as taught by Lee, thereby, to provide the technique that aim to reduce user and provider costs, improve service quality, and expand and improve coverage and system capacity, as discussed by Lee, (see at least ¶ [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG A NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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.
/CHUONG A NGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645