DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 30, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Phan et al. (US 2021/0251023 A1) hereinafter Phan.
Regarding claim 1 – Phan discloses one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: refer to Figure 7 and paragraph [0098] - provides an apparatus 10 comprising a control circuitry (CTRL) 12, such as at least one processor, and at least one memory 14 including a computer program code (PROG), wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code (PROG), are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to carry out any one of the above-described processes.
receive, via a first radio access network (RAN), a scheduling assignment for a second V2X device, Refer to Figure 1B, 3, and paragraph [0036] - scheduling assignment (SA) for the SL transmission is addressed to a locally unique access-stratum (AS) UE identifier (ID) or SL ID of an intended receiver, also, paragraph [0040] – the setup of L1 unicast-based D2D between two UEs in proximity of one another may be fully controlled by a serving RAN , also, paragraph [0045] - Upon determining the positive in step 302 (i.e. that the RAN serving the first device 120 or the RAN serving the second device 122 is able to assist in setting up the unicast SL connection), the method proceeds to step 304A
decode the scheduling assignment to determine resource reservation information for the second V2X device on the first RAN, refer to paragraph [0047] - This may be realised using RAN-level signaling enhancements as discussed later. Else, if the involved UE 122, which responds to the request from the initiator UE 120 for the needed unicast D2D session, can benefit from the serving RAN thereof (i.e. the RAN of the second device 122 is able to provide needed assistance for facilitating L1 unicast-based SL), then step 304A may be entered as well.
modify at least one transmission associated with a second RAN based at least in part on the resource reservation information for the second V2X device on the first RAN, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0076] - In step 512, the UE 122 may receive a response from the RAN 112. The response may include the requested resource allocation for the L1 unicast-based SL connection from the RAN serving the second device 122, also, paragraph [0078] - the RAN 112 may indicate to the requesting UE 122 a set of L1 SL IDs e.g. in the response of step 512. The UE 122 may indicate these to the initiator UE 120 who can then use those for setting up plurality of SL connections with a plurality of involved UEs. In addition to the L1 SL IDs, also dedicated resource pools for the plurality of SLs may be provided by the RAN 112 to the UE 122 for forwarding to the UE 120, also, paragraph [0080] - That is, the UE 122 may inform the serving RAN information regarding the applied L1 unicast-based SL connection taking place between the UEs 120 and 122. The information may identify the first device 120 (i.e. the peer UE of the SL). The indication may also indicate any unused L1 SL-RNTIs out of the allocated set of L1 SL-RNTIs possibly received in step 512.
Regarding claim 30 – Phan discloses – (Please see claim 1 for the rejection of claim 30 elements below.)
receiving, by the first V2X device and via a first radio access network (RAN), a scheduling assignment for a second V2X device;
decoding, by the first V2X device, the scheduling assignment to determine resource reservation information for the second V2X device on the first RAN; and
modifying, by the first V2X device, at least one transmission associated with a second RAN based at least in part on the resource reservation information for the second V2X device on the first RAN.
Regarding claim 50 – Phan discloses - A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus at an initiator network node, cause the apparatus to: refer to paragraph [0114] - The computer program medium may be a non-transitory medium, also, paragraph [0114] - Embodiments of the methods described may be carried out by executing at least one portion of a computer program comprising corresponding instructions, also, paragraph [0134] - there is provided a computer program product embodied on a distribution medium readable by a computer and comprising program instructions which, when loaded into an apparatus, execute the method according to the first aspect.
(Please see claim 1 for the rejection of claim 50 elements below.)
receive, via a first radio access network (RAN), a scheduling assignment for a second V2X device;
decode the scheduling assignment to determine resource reservation information for the second V2X device on the first RAN; and
modify at least one transmission associated with a second RAN based at least in part on the resource reservation information for the second V2X device on the first RAN.
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.
Claims 2-9, 39-46, and 51-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan (same as above) in view of Ashraf et al. (US 2022/0191725 A1) hereinafter Ashraf.
Regarding claim 2 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transmission is modified based at least in part on a determination that a distance between the first V2X device and the second V2X device satisfies a distance threshold.
Ashraf discloses wherein the at least one transmission is modified based at least in part on a determination that a distance between the first V2X device and the second V2X device satisfies a distance threshold, refer to Figure 4 and paragraph [0085] - responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being greater than a distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “Yes” output of block 419), or processor 1103 may determine to not transmit ACK/NACK feedback responsive to the RSRP being greater than the RSRP threshold and responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being less than the distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “No” output of block 419), and claim 1.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein the at least one transmission is modified based at least in part on a determination that a distance between the first V2X device and the second V2X device satisfies a distance threshold.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 3 – Phan and Ashraf disclose claim 2. Phan does not disclose wherein the distance is calculated based at least in part on location information received from the second V2X device.
Ashraf discloses wherein the distance is calculated based at least in part on location information received from the second V2X device, refer to paragraph [0060] - the distance between transmitter and receiver V2X wireless devices UEs can be determined/calculated based on their Global Positioning System GPS location or equivalent derived from an actual GPS location. Similarly, the distance between the transmitter and receiver V2X wireless devices UEs can be calculated based on certain identifiers IDs such as zone ID or any other local ID which is assigned according to the actual position during the connection establishment phase, also, paragraph [0085] - based on GPS information received from the second wireless device,
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein the distance is calculated based at least in part on location information received from the second V2X device.
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 4 – Phan and Ashraf disclose claim 2. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance is calculated based at least in part on a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with receiving the scheduling assignment.
Ashraf discloses wherein the distance is calculated based at least in part on a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with receiving the scheduling assignment, refer to Figure 4 and paragraph [0085] - responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being greater than a distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “Yes” output of block 419), or processor 1103 may determine to not transmit ACK/NACK feedback responsive to the RSRP being greater than the RSRP threshold and responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being less than the distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “No” output of block 419), and claim 1.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein the distance is calculated based at least in part on a reference signal received power (RSRP) value associated with receiving the scheduling assignment.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 5 - Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transmission is modified based at least in part on a determination that a signal strength, associated with receiving the scheduling assignment, satisfies a signal strength threshold.
Ashraf discloses wherein the at least one transmission is modified based at least in part on a determination that a signal strength, associated with receiving the scheduling assignment, satisfies a signal strength threshold, refer to Figure 4 and paragraph [0085] - responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being greater than a distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “Yes” output of block 419), or processor 1103 may determine to not transmit ACK/NACK feedback responsive to the RSRP being greater than the RSRP threshold and responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being less than the distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “No” output of block 419), and claim 1.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein the at least one transmission is modified based at least in part on a determination that a signal strength, associated with receiving the scheduling assignment, satisfies a signal strength threshold.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 6 – Pan and Ashraf disclose claim 5. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal strength is 6. indicated by a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or a reference signal received power (RSRP).
Ashraf discloses wherein the signal strength is 6. indicated by a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or a reference signal received power (RSRP), refer to Figure 4 and paragraph [0085] - responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being greater than a distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “Yes” output of block 419), or processor 1103 may determine to not transmit ACK/NACK feedback responsive to the RSRP being greater than the RSRP threshold and responsive to a distance between the first and second V2X wireless devices being less than the distance threshold (resulting in operations following the “No” output of block 419), and claim 1.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein the signal strength is 6. indicated by a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or a reference signal received power (RSRP).
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 7 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is pre-configured on the first V2X device.
Ashraf discloses wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is pre-configured on the first V2X device, refer to paragraph [0060] - a V2X wireless device UE determines whether or not to send HARQ ACK/NACK feedback based on comparing the RSRP with a certain RSRP threshold, also, paragraph [0062] - a network may (pre-)configure the criteria to be used by the V2X wireless device UE to decide if HARQ ACK/NACK feedback could be transmitted. For instance, depending on the communication scenarios and/or use cases, (pre-)configuration may allow either RSRP-based criteria or distance-based criteria or both RSRP-based and distance-based criteria.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is pre-configured on the first V2X device.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claims 8 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is configured on the first V2X device via the second RAN.
Ashraf discloses wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is configured on the first V2X device via the second RAN, refer to Figure 1 and paragraph [0004] - As shown in FIG. 1, V2I (vehicle-to-infrastructure) communications may be provided between a vehicle and the radio access network RAN (e.g., between V2X wireless device UE-1 and eNB or between V2X wireless device UE-2 and eNB), also, Figure 3 and paragraph [0040] - FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating elements of a node (also referred to as a network node, base station, eNB, eNodeB, gNB, gNodeB, etc.) of a Radio Access Network (RAN) configured to provide cellular communication according to embodiments of inventive concepts, also, see Figure 4 and paragraph [0082] - When the measured RSRP is greater than the RSRP threshold at block 411, processor 1103 may determine at blocks 415 and 419 to not transmit ACK/NACK feedback (following the “No” output of block 419) based on the RSRP being greater than the RSRP threshold. In this case, if the data packet is successfully decoded at block 441, processor 1103 may process the data packet at block 431 responsive to success decoding the data packet without transmitting ACK feedback, also, paragraph [0094] - the distance threshold may be determined based on a communication range requirement of the data packet, and/or based on a configuration received from a radio access network (the second RAN).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is configured on the first V2X device via the second RAN.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 9 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is based on a configuration of the first V2X device.
Ashraf discloses wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is based on a configuration of the first V2X device, refer to paragraph [0060] - a V2X wireless device UE determines whether or not to send HARQ ACK/NACK feedback based on comparing the RSRP with a certain RSRP threshold, also, paragraph [0062] - a network may (pre-)configure the criteria to be used by the V2X wireless device UE to decide if HARQ ACK/NACK feedback could be transmitted. For instance, depending on the communication scenarios and/or use cases, (pre-)configuration may allow either RSRP-based criteria or distance-based criteria or both RSRP-based and distance-based criteria.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Ashraf to provide Phan with wherein a threshold associated with modifying the at least one transmission is based on a configuration of the first V2X device.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage. The response may further (in case of in-coverage) indicate whether the second device 122 is served by the same RAN as the first device 120
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 39 – Please see claim 2 (above) for rejection of claim 39.
Regarding claim 40 - Please see claim 3 (above) for rejection of claim 40.
Regarding claim 41 - Please see claim 4 (above) for rejection of claim 41.
Regarding claim 42 - Please see claim 5 (above) for rejection of claim 42.
Regarding claim 43 - Please see claim 6 (above) for rejection of claim 43.
Regarding claim 44 - Please see claim 7 (above) for rejection of claim 44.
Regarding claim 45 - Please see claim 8 (above) for rejection of claim 45.
Regarding claim 46 - Please see claim 9 (above) for rejection of claim 46.
Regarding claim 51 - Please see claim 2 (above) for rejection of claim 51.
Regarding claim 52 - Please see claim 5 (above) for rejection of claim 52.
Regarding claim 53 - Please see claim 7 (above) for rejection of claim 53.
Regarding claim 54 - Please see claim 8 (above) for rejection of claim 54.
Regarding claim 55 - Please see claim 9 (above) for rejection of claim 55.
Claim 10 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan (same as above) in view Yeh et al. (US 2022/0014963 A1) hereinafter Yeh.
Regarding claims 10 and 47 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission.
Yeh discloses wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission, refer to paragraph [0076] - on packet delivery delay bounds may be defined or configured, and packets determined to have been received after the packet delivery delay bound may be dropped, also, Figure 6 and paragraph [0127] - DU 630b and RUs 633b1 and 633b2 may belong to a second RAN, also, paragraph [0261] - The selection algorithm(s) may be based on the task offloading criteria/parameters, for example, by taking into account network, computational, and energy consumption requirements for performing application tasks, as well as network functionalities, processing, and offloading coding/encodings, or differentiating traffic between various RATs, also, paragraph [0362] - modify the values of one or more associated RAN parameters, also, paragraph [0586] - including packets dropped, packets lost in transmission and packets received in wrong format, also Figure 17.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Yeh to provide Phan with wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses, refer to Figure 5 and paragraph [0094] - The response may in an embodiment indicate whether the second UE is out-of-coverage (OoC) or in-coverage.
The benefit being Phan can decide on a course of action based on whether or not the two V2Xs devices are in-coverage or out-of-coverage.
Regarding claim 47 - Please see claim 10 (above) for rejection of claim 47.
Claims 10, 11, 47, and 48, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan (same as above) in view Park (US 2023/0239900 A1).
Regarding claim 10 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission.
Park discloses wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission, refer to paragraph [0015] - transmitting the generated coordination message to a Tx UE. Here, the Tx UE may perform resource reselection based on the coordination message, also, Figure 8 and paragraph [0138] - The Tx UE 810 may perform a resource reselection procedure based on the coordination message received from the C-UE 820 and, through this, low latency requirements may be satisfied by preventing the above resource collision issue.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Park to provide Phan with wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses resource reservation, refer to paragraph [0083] - the UE 120 may in step 604 perform sensing and D2D resource reservation for the D2D session to be set up.
The benefit being Phan can use the coordination message to avoid collisons.
Regarding claim 11 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not disclose wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission.
Park discloses wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission, refer to paragraph [0015] - generating a coordination message based on the coordination request; and transmitting the generated coordination message to the Tx UE, also, Figure 6 and paragraph [0117] - within a resource selection procedure,
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Park to provide Phan with wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission.
wherein the one or more processors, to modify the at least one transmission associated with the second RAN, are configured to drop a packet associated with the at least one transmission or performing a resource re-selection associated with the at least one transmission
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses resource reservation, refer to paragraph [0083] - the UE 120 may in step 604 perform sensing and D2D resource reservation for the D2D session to be set up.
The benefit being Phan can use the coordination message to avoid dropped packets.
Regarding claim 47 - Please see claim 10 (above) for rejection of claim 47.
Regarding claim 48 – Please see claim 11 (above) for rejection of claim 48.
Claims 12 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan (same as above) in view Centonza et al. (US 2023/0308949 A1) hereinafter Centonza.
Regarding claim 12 – Phan discloses claim 1. Phan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first RAN is a Long Term Evolution (LTE)-V2X network and the second RAN is a New Radio (NR)-V2X network.
Centonza discloses wherein the first RAN is a Long Term Evolution (LTE)-V2X network and the second RAN is a New Radio (NR)-V2X network, refer to paragraph [0305] - The first RAN and CN nodes are in a first system (e.g., LTE/E-UTRAN/EPC) while the second RAN and CN nodes are in a second system (e.g., NR/NG-RAN/5GC).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art at the time of the invention, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to combine Phan with Centonza to provide Phan with wherein the first RAN is a Long Term Evolution (LTE)-V2X network and the second RAN is a New Radio (NR)-V2X network.
The suggestion/motivation is that Phan discloses both LTE and NR networks, refer to paragraph [0017] - The 3GPP solution to 5G is referred to as New Radio (NR). 5G has been envisaged to use multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) multi-antenna transmission techniques, more base stations or nodes than the current network deployments of LTE (a so-called small cell concept),
The benefit being that Phan can utilize both older technology and newer technology to provide solutions to communications (sidelink).
Regarding claim 49 - Please see claim 12 (above) for rejection of claim 49.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ajami et al. (US 11,844,106 B2) discloses low latency schemes for Peer-to-Peer (P2P) communication.
Shafin et al. (US 2023/0371102 A1) disclose EML MR operation for P2P communication.
Montemurro et al. (US 2011/0082939 A1) discloses methods and apparatus to proxy discovery and negotiations between network entities to establish P2P communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-3090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-0422. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form .
John Pezzlo
13 January 2026
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465B