DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 02/10/2026, claims 3 and 17- 18 are cancelled, claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 19 are amended. Claims 1- 2, 4- 16 and 19- 22 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the remarks on 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 10, last seven lines of the remarks, applicant argues, “Therefore, Xu at most discloses "if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred, the relay UE may provide information (e.g., the information of the Uu link failure) to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure", rather than detecting the reason of RRC message transmission failure (what causes this failure) and then providing the information of the Uu link failure to the remote UE. Further, Xu fails to disclose the relationship between an RRC release message and the connection failure, let alone the above-identified features, which require "receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device and used for causing the relay terminal device to enter an idle state ”.
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. rather than detecting the reason of RRC message transmission failure (what causes this failure) and then providing the information of the Uu link failure to the remote UE), examiner respectfully submits that the applicant argument does not meet the claim limitation and are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner respectfully note that the applicant's arguments are intended use, which may be render some of the claim limitation, see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04 Never the less, Xu teaches as per the limitations (“..sending, by a relay terminal device, a notification message to a remote terminal device in response to connection failure of the relay terminal device when the relay terminal device performs an access operation, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the relay terminal device …sent by the network device and used for causing the relay terminal device to enter an idle state”); see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.
On page 11, lines 2- 11 of the remarks applicant argues, “…specific manifestations of the connection failure and fails to disclose that the connection failure of the relay terminal device includes an RRC release message used for causing the relay terminal device to enter an idle state, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer, thereby teaching away from the above-identified features of claim 1, which require "the connection failure comprises: failing to pass a unified access control (UAC) verification; receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device: or receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device and used for causing the relay terminal device to enter an idle state, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer”.
Examiner respectfully submits that above argued limitations are a part of “OR” limitation of claim 1 which examiner has not considered for rejection citation purposes.
On page 11 regarding (ii) applicant argues, “The filed date of Zhang is December 29, 2023, with a priority date of December 30, 2022. The filed date of the present application is May 7, 2021. Both the filed date and the priority date of Zhang are later than the filed date of the present application. Therefore, Zhang is not a qualified prior art reference”.
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits that reference Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0224366 A1) has foreign priority date 6th May 2021 not dec 30th 2022.
On page 11 second paragraph, applicant argues, “Kim fails to disclose the relationship between an RRC release message and the connection failure, let alone the above-identified features, which require "receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device and used for causing the relay terminal device to enter an idle state”.”
Examiner disagrees and respectfully submits it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device and used for causing the relay terminal device to enter an idle state), examiner respectfully submits that the applicant argument does not meet the claim limitation and are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner respectfully note that the applicant's arguments are intended use, which may be render some of the claim limitation, see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04 Never the less, Xu teaches as per the limitations (wherein the access failure is failing to pass a UAC verification, and the timer is a prohibit timer; or the access failure is receiving an RRC reject message or an RRC release message sent by a network device, and the timer is a T302 timer) Kim in col. 37 lines 25- 51 regarding the request for the connection to the network (BS) is rejected (or fails) due to low layer failure, radio link failure, or cell barring, the relay UE may transmit, to the remote UE, connection failure information indicating that the request for the connection for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission from the remote UE has been rejected (has failed). …. The AS (RRC) of the remote UE may transmit the connection failure information, which indicates that transmission/connection has failed, to the NAS of the remote UE, and the NAS of the remote UE may not make an NAS signaling request for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission until information indicating the alleviation of access barring is received from the AS (RRC) of the remote UE. Here, the remote UE may operate the barring timer using the value of the barring timer provided from the relay UE. When the barring timer expires, the AS (RRC) of the remote UE may report the alleviation of access barring to the NAS of the remote UE.
On page 12, regarding (iv) same above discussed reason is applicable since Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also applicant fails to clearly state about which limitations of which claims are missing or concerning since certain limitations are of “OR” limitations.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1- 2, 4- 5, 9- 13, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0224366 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method for connection failure processing (see [0102] here relay UE as a relay terminal and remote UE as a remote terminal), the method comprising:
sending, by a relay terminal device, a notification message to a remote terminal device in response to an connection failure of the relay terminal device when the relay terminal device performs access operation, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the relay terminal device (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and the notification message is used by the remote terminal device for performing relay terminal device reselection (see [0115] last three lines). But fails to state about wherein the access failure comprises:
failing to pass a unified access control (UAC) verification;
receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device; or
receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer; however Zhang teaches in [0083- 0084] regarding receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Xu to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 2, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 1, Xu teaches wherein the access operation of the relay terminal device is performed in response to a trigger of one of:
a radio resource control (RRC) connection establishment of the remote terminal device,
an RRC connection resume of the remote terminal device, or
an RRC connection reestablishment of the remote terminal device; in context with [0102] RRC procedure refer to Fig. 15 see #1508, 1510 as a radio resource control (RRC) connection establishment of the remote terminal device.
Regarding claim 4, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 1, further comprising: in response to the access failure of the relay terminal device, starting a timer; Xu see [0120] #2016 starting a guard timer.
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 4, wherein the notification message carries a duration of the timer; Xu see [0120] timer duration.
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches a method for connection failure processing, the method comprising (see [0102] here relay UE as a relay terminal and remote UE as a remote terminal):
receiving, by a remote terminal device, a notification message sent by a relay terminal device, wherein the notification message is sent by the relay terminal device in response to a connection failure occurring to the relay terminal device when the relay terminal device performs access operation, or
the notification message is sent by the relay terminal device in response to the relay terminal device receiving, during operation of a timer of the relay terminal device, a connection request sent by the remote terminal device (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and performing relay terminal device reselection after the remote terminal device receives the notification message, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the relay terminal device (see [0115] last three lines). But fails to state about wherein the access failure comprises:
failing to pass a unified access control (UAC) verification;
receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device; or
receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer; however Zhang teaches in [0083- 0084] regarding receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Xu to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 10, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 9, further Xu teaches comprising: sending to the relay terminal device an RRC establishment request message, an RRC resume request message, or an RRC reestablishment request message; in context with [0102] RRC procedure refer to Fig. 15 see #1508, 1510 as a radio resource control (RRC) connection establishment of the remote terminal device.
Regarding claim 11, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 9, further Xu teaches comprising:
performing, in response to receiving the notification message, one or more of:
performing RRC establishment failure processing in response to receiving the notification message after sending an RRC establishment request message to the relay terminal device;
performing RRC resume failure processing in response to receiving the notification message after sending an RRC resume request message to the relay terminal device;
reestablishing all established bearer radio link layer control (RLC);
notifying, in response to an RRC connection establishment being requested by a higher layer, the higher layer that access is prohibited;
notifying, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being an RRC establishment process, the higher layer of a connection establishment failure;
discarding, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being an RRC resume process, all secret keys for communication with a network device;
notifying, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being the RRC resume process and the RRC connection resume process being triggered by the higher layer, the higher layer of a connection resume failure;
setting, in response to a process initiated by the remote terminal device being the RRC resume process and the RRC connection resume process being triggered by updating of a radio access network notification area (RNA), a delay for updating the RNA to be true; or
performing relay terminal device reselection; see [0115] last three lines..
Regarding claim 12, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 11, wherein Xu teaches the notifying the higher layer that the access is prohibited comprises:
notifying the higher layer that access of all access categories is prohibited; or
notifying the higher layer that access of all access categories other than access categories 0 and 2 is prohibited; see claim 11’s its “OR” limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 9, further comprising: determining, in response to receiving the notification message, whether a duration of a timer has been configured; and starting the timer in response to the duration of the timer having been configured; Xu see [0120] guard timer duration and initiating it.
Regarding claim 16, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 13, wherein the duration of the timer is carried in the notification message, or is configured by a network device, or is configured by the relay terminal device, or is specified by a protocol; Xu see [0120] timer duration.
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches a terminal device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, through executing the instructions stored in the memory, is configured to (see [0102] here relay UE as a terminal and remote UE as a remote terminal), the method comprising:
send a notification message to a remote terminal device in response to a connection failure of the terminal device when the relay terminal device performs access operation, wherein the notification message indicates the connection failure of the relay terminal device (see [0102].. if the relay UE can detect that RRC message transmission failure has occurred (e.g., either in the relay link or the Uu link), the relay UE may take action in response to the RRC message transmission failure. For example, for the relay link failure case, the relay UE may inform the network of the relay link failure. For the Uu link failure case, the relay UE may provide information to the remote UE based on the Uu link failure, which may facilitate the remote UE performing link reselection. For example, the relay UE may send an indication of the Uu link failure to the remote UE, as one possibility. As another possibility, the relay UE may send an indication to suspend the relay link to all remote UEs that have a relay link established with the relay UE. As a still further possibility, the relay UE may close the relay link with the remote UE directly (e.g., possibly without explicitly indicating that the Uu link failure has occurred.), and the notification message is used by the remote terminal device for performing relay terminal device reselection (see [0115] last three lines). But fails to state about wherein the access failure comprises:
failing to pass a unified access control (UAC) verification;
receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device; or
receiving an RRC release message sent by the network device, wherein the RRC release message carries a wait timer; however Zhang teaches in [0083- 0084] regarding receiving an RRC reject message sent by a network device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Xu to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches a terminal device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, through executing the instructions stored in the memory, causes the terminal device to perform the method according to claim 9; pls see claim 9’s recitations.
Regarding claim 21, Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform the method according to claim 1; pls see claim 1’s recitations.
Regarding claim 22, Xu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform the method according to claim 9; pls see claim 9’s recitations.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0224366 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pat. No. 10932175 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 4, but fails to state about, wherein
the access failure is failing to pass a UAC verification, and the timer is a prohibit timer; or
the access failure is receiving an RRC reject message or an RRC release message sent by a network device, and the timer is a T302 timer; however Kim teaches in col. 37 lines 25- 51 regarding the request for the connection to the network (BS) is rejected (or fails) due to low layer failure, radio link failure, or cell barring, the relay UE may transmit, to the remote UE, connection failure information indicating that the request for the connection for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission from the remote UE has been rejected (has failed). …. The AS (RRC) of the remote UE may transmit the connection failure information, which indicates that transmission/connection has failed, to the NAS of the remote UE, and the NAS of the remote UE may not make an NAS signaling request for network connection/signaling transmission/data transmission until information indicating the alleviation of access barring is received from the AS (RRC) of the remote UE. Here, the remote UE may operate the barring timer using the value of the barring timer provided from the relay UE. When the barring timer expires, the AS (RRC) of the remote UE may report the alleviation of access barring to the NAS of the remote UE.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Xu in view of Zhang to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 7- 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0224366 A1) and further in view of Han et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0385883 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 4, further comprising:
determining whether a connection request sent by another remote terminal device is received during operation of the timer; and
sending, in response to the connection request sent by the another remote terminal device being received during the operation of the timer, the notification message to the another remote terminal device; here Xu teaches in Fig. 9 and [0104- 0105] about .. In 916, a second remote UE 904 may provide a RRC connection request to the relay UE 906. In 918, the relay UE 906 may provide a connection request to the gNB 908 on behalf of the second remote UE 904, e.g., including identification information for the second remote UE 904…; but fails to state about specifically that during operation of the timer and sending response during the operation of the timer; however Han teaches in context with Fig. 4 and [0060- 0064] teaches in [0066] the second UE may start a third timer for receiving a unicast connection establishment message upon transmitting the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE does not receive the unicast connection establishment message before the third timer expires, the second UE may retransmit the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE receives the unicast connection establishment message before the third timer expires in step 408, the second UE may perform step 410. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Han with the teachings of Xu in view of Zhang to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein during operation of the timer having receiving and sending operations, greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 8, Xu in view of Zhang and Han teaches as per claim 4, wherein the determining whether the connection request sent by the another remote terminal device is received during the operation of the timer comprises:
determining, in response to receiving data sent by the another remote terminal device during the operation of the timer, whether the data sent by the another remote terminal device is from a specific bearer; and determining, in response to the data sent by the another remote terminal device being from the specific bearer, that the connection request sent by the another remote terminal device is received during the operation of the timer; Han Fig. 9 and [0104- 0105] about .. In 916, a second remote UE 904 may provide a RRC connection request to the relay UE 906. In 918, the relay UE 906 may provide a connection request to the gNB 908 on behalf of the second remote UE 904, e.g., including identification information for the second remote UE 904…; but fails to state about specifically that during operation of the timer and sending response during the operation of the timer; however Han teaches in context with Fig. 4 and [0060- 0064] teaches in [0066] the second UE may start a third timer for receiving a unicast connection establishment message upon transmitting the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE does not receive the unicast connection establishment message before the third timer expires, the second UE may retransmit the unicast connection establishment request to the first UE. In the case that the second UE receives the unicast connection (i.e. as a specific bearer ) establishment message before the third timer expires in step 408, the second UE may perform step 410.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0224366 A1) and further in view of Freda et al. (CN 115553058).
Regarding claim 14, Xu in view of Zhang teaches as per claim 13, but fails state about further comprising:
performing, in response to starting the timer, one or more of:
prohibiting access during operation of the timer;
prohibiting access to a cell via the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer; or
prohibiting selecting the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer; however Freda teaches in pages 93- 94 about .. The remote WTRU may determine one or more access inhibition parameters for Uu access via the relay WTRU based on information provided by the relay WTRU. The access parameter may include one or more of the following items, and can be each associated with access identity provided by the upper layer: prohibiting access at a given time; prohibiting the value of the timer; selecting a random number to determine a range for prohibiting a timer or whether to allow access; access type; and/or the number of attempts prior to initiating an action associated with a failed access control, as described herein…It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Freda with the teachings of Xu in view of Zhang to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0051758 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0224366 A1) further in view of Freda et al. (CN 115553058) and in further view of Freda et al. (WO 2021/207505 A1), hereafter Freda1.
Regarding claim 15, Xu in view of Zhang and Freda teaches as per claim 13, but Xu fails state about, wherein the prohibiting the access to the cell via the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer comprises: prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, at least one of an RRC establishment request message or an RRC resume request message; or
prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, a message of a specific bearer; however Freda1 teaches in [0333- 0334] about …. A remote WTRU may determine one or more access barring parameters for Uu access via a relay WTRU based on information provided by the relay WTRU. The access parameters may include one or more of the following, and may each be associated with an access identity provide by upper layers: whether an access is barred at a given time; value of a barring timer; range over which to select a random number to determine the barring timer, or whether the access is allowed; the access category; and/or, the number of attempts before initiating an action associated with failed access control, as described herein. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Freda1 with the teachings of Xu in view of Zhang and Freda to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the prohibiting the access to the cell via the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer comprises: prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, at least one of an RRC establishment request message or an RRC resume request message; or prohibiting sending, to the relay terminal device during the operation of the timer, a message of a specific bearer; greater way resources can be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. 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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights