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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2022/082702 (international filing date: 03/24/2022) which claims foreign priority to application of CHINA:
PCT/CN2021/109930 (filed 07/31/2021).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 31 line 6-7, the newly added feature is unclear and ambiguous, and examiner respectfully requests clarification. For example, line 6-7 recite “...upon determining the priority indicator comprises the first value, transmit the at least one uplink transmission based on the COT initiated by the network entity...”. However, claim 31 depends from claim 6, in which it recites the “second value to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity” (not first value). Hence, the newly added feature is unclear and ambiguous.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10-13, 16-21, and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi ZHANG (WO 2021/098860 A1, hereinafter ZHANG, NOTE: corresponding US 2021/0201753 A1 used below for rejection citation purposes), in view of MOON et al. (US 2020/0280971 A1, hereinafter MOON_971) and MOON et al. (US 2020/0305191 A1, hereinafter MOON_191).
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) comprising one or more processors and at least one memory coupled with the one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to cause the UE to (in general, see fig. 2-3 and at least their paragraphs 45-48, see also sections including, but not limited to, para. 27-29 and Table 1 as well as para. 68-70 and Tables 3-6):
receive from a network entity, a downlink control information (DCI) that schedules at least one uplink transmission from the UE (ZHANG, see at least para. 45-47, “...a block 202, determining, based on a signaling from a base station, a combination of a listen before talk (LBT) type, a cyclic prefix (CP) extension, and a channel access priority class (CAPC) for an uplink transmission to the base station ...”, not that “...the signaling comprises one or more of a downlink control information (DCI) and a UE-specific radio resource control (RRC) signaling. In some embodiments, the DCI comprises an information field indicating the combination of the LBT type, the CP extension, and the CAPC...”);
determine, based on an indication in the DCI, whether the at least one uplink transmission is based on a channel occupancy time (COT) initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity (ZHANG, see at least para. 47-48 in view of para. 27, “...the first table comprises entire combinations of the LBT type, the length of the CP extension, and the CAPC. In some embodiments, the LBT type comprises a category 1 (Cat1) 16 μs LBT, a Cat2 16 μs LBT, a Cat2 25 μs LBT, or a Cat4 LBT...”), note that “...In an unlicensed band, a recent new radio unlicensed spectrum (NRU) agreement concludes that a downlink channel occupancy time (COT) initiated by a base station can be shared with a user equipment (UE) for uplink transmission. The UE can perform a quick listen before talk (LBT), i.e. LBT category 1 (immediate transmission without LBT) if the base station creates a gap up to 16 μs. The UE can also perform an LBT category 2 (one shot LBT) if the base station creates a gap having a duration of 16 μs or 25 μs...”),
and
transmit the at least one uplink transmission in accordance with the determination (ZHANG, see at least para. 10, “...In a first aspect of the present disclosure, a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising determining, based on a signaling from a base station, a combination of a listen before talk (LBT) type, a cyclic prefix (CP) extension, and a channel access priority class (CAPC) for an uplink transmission to the base station...”),
wherein the indication in the DCI comprises a channel access priority class (CAPC) field for listen-before-talk (LBT) type indication (ZHANG, see at least para. 47-48, “...the first table comprises entire combinations of the LBT type, the length of the CP extension, and the CAPC. In some embodiments, the LBT type comprises a category 1 (Cat1) 16 μs LBT, a Cat2 16 μs LBT, a Cat2 25 μs LBT, or a Cat4 LBT...”, note that entire combinations would mean a CAPC for a LBT type).
ZHANG does not specifically teach wherein the CAPC field for LBT type indication uses a first channel access type (CAT 1) to indicate the COT initiated by the UE and a second channel access type (CAT2) to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity.
MOON_191 teaches wherein the CAPC field for LBT type indication uses a first channel access type (CAT 1) to indicate the COT initiated by the UE (MOON_191, see at least para. 155, “...The LBT type or category may include at least one of first, second, third, and fourth category LBTs. In addition, the base station may configure or indicate information of a channel access priority class (CAPC) for the PUSCH to the terminal. ... The range of the CAPC may be determined by the CAPC used by the terminal to perform the LBT operation for initiating the COT...”).
And MOON_971 teaches [the CAPC field for LBT type indication uses] a second channel access type (CAT2) to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity (MOON_971, in general, see sections disclosing [COT Indication Method] and its “configuration information”, which including many paragraphs starting at para. 194; in particular, see at least para. 204 along with para. 226-227 “...The configuration information of the COT may further include a channel access priority class of the base station. The COT initiated by the base station may be shared with the terminal, and the terminal may perform uplink communication within the shared COT. In this case, the terminal may transmit a PUSCH or a PUCCH having the same or lower priority as the channel access priority class of the base station...”, note that para. 226-227 disclose “...the terminal may transmit a configured grant PUSCH in the configured grant resource (e.g., the configured grant resources belonging to the COT initiated by the base station) by performing an LBT operation according to a changed category (e.g., category 1 or 2). The above-described operation may be a predefined operation. Alternatively, the base station may instruct the terminal to perform the above-described operation...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MOON_191 and MOON_971 into the apparatus of ZHANG for improving efficiency of radio resources, efficiency of the spectrum usage, as well as transmission performance.
Regarding claim 2, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 1.
ZHANG view of MOON_191 does not specifically teach the DCI comprises DCI format 0_2, or DCI format 1_2.
MOON_971 teaches the DCI comprises DCI format 0_2, or DCI format 1_2 (MOON_971, see at least para. 309, “...the downlink scheduling DCI may include DCI formats 1_0, 1_1, 1_2, and the like. ... the uplink scheduling DCI may include DCI formats 0_0, 0_1, 0_2, and the like...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MOON_191 and MOON_971 into the apparatus of ZHANG for improving efficiency of radio resources, efficiency of the spectrum usage, as well as transmission performance.
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 1.
ZHANG further teaches the indication in the DCI comprises a channel access priority class (CAPC) field, wherein the CAPC field uses a first index to indicate the COT initiated by the UE and a second index to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity. (ZHANG, see at least para. 68-70 and Tables 3-6, “...the LBT type, the length of the CP extension, and the CAPC are jointly encoded in the uplink grant... supports indication of all the combinations of the rows in the above tables 3 to 6 below [except a few]...”, note that a person skilled in the art would have known that a CAPC value can associate a LBT type CAT 1 as well as a CAPC value can associate a LBT type CAT 2)
Regarding claim 4, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 1.
ZHANG further teaches the indication in the DCI comprises a field using a first index to indicate the COT initiated by the UE and a second index to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity when the DCI does not include a channel access priority class (CAPC) field. (ZHANG, see at least para. 72-73 and Table 7, for one non-limiting example, “...In some embodiments, for signaling of the LBT type and the CP extension for both downlink assignment and uplink Grant, the following table 7 is used...”, in other words CAT1 and CAT2 can be indicated)
Regarding claim 6, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 1.
ZHANG further teaches the indication in the DCI comprises a priority indicator using a first value to indicate the COT initiated by the UE and a second value to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity. (ZHANG, see at least para. 68-70 and Tables 3-6, “...the LBT type, the length of the CP extension, and the CAPC are jointly encoded in the uplink grant... supports indication of all the combinations of the rows in the above tables 3 to 6 below [except a few]...”, note that a person skilled in the art would have known that a CAPC value can associate a LBT type CAT 1 as well as a CAPC value can associate a LBT type CAT 2)
Regarding claim 10, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 1.
ZHANG further teaches the determine further comprises determine, based on a rule, whether the at least one uplink transmission is based on the COT initiated by the UE or the COT initiated by the network entity. (ZHANG, see at least para. 45-46, “...a block 302, configuring, to a user equipment (UE), a signaling to indicate a combination of a listen before talk (LBT) type, a cyclic prefix (CP) extension, and a channel access priority class (CAPC) for an uplink transmission from the UE to the base station... the signaling comprises one or more of a downlink control information (DCI) and a UE-specific radio resource control (RRC) signaling...”)
Regarding claim 11, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 10.
ZHANG further teaches the rule comprises a pre-coded set of instructions for the UE to initiate the COT applicable to uplink transmissions including at least one of: scheduling request, physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), sounding reference signal (SRS), or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (ZHANG, see at least para. 73, for one non-limiting example, “...For the downlink assignment case, physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) may use the highest CAPC in any case...”)
Regarding claim 12, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 10.
ZHANG further teaches the rule comprises a configuration by a radio resource control (RRC) for the UE to initiate the COT applicable to uplink transmissions including at least one of: scheduling request, physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), sounding reference signal (SRS), or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (ZHANG, see at least para. 45-46 along with para. 73, “...a block 302, configuring, to a user equipment (UE), a signaling to indicate a combination of a listen before talk (LBT) type, a cyclic prefix (CP) extension, and a channel access priority class (CAPC) for an uplink transmission from the UE to the base station... the signaling comprises one or more of a downlink control information (DCI) and a UE-specific radio resource control (RRC) signaling...”)
Regarding claim 13, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 10.
ZHANG further teaches the rule is provided by a signaling for indicating the UE to initiate the COT applicable to uplink transmissions including at least one of: scheduling request, physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), sounding reference signal (SRS), or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (ZHANG, see at least para. 45-46 along with para. 73, “...a block 302, configuring, to a user equipment (UE), a signaling to indicate a combination of a listen before talk (LBT) type, a cyclic prefix (CP) extension, and a channel access priority class (CAPC) for an uplink transmission from the UE to the base station... the signaling comprises one or more of a downlink control information (DCI) and a UE-specific radio resource control (RRC) signaling...”)
ZHANG in view of MOON_191 does not specifically teach media access control (MAC) control element (CE).
MOON_971 teaches media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MOON_971, see at least para. 204 in view of para. 120, “...In the exemplary embodiments, ‘signaling’ may refer to a combination of one or more among physical layer (PHY) signaling (e.g., DCI), medium access control (MAC) signaling (e.g., MAC control element (CE)), RRC signaling...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MOON_191 and MOON_971 into the apparatus of ZHANG for improving efficiency of radio resources, efficiency of the spectrum usage, as well as transmission performance.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 16 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a network entity of claim 16 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the UE of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim
Regarding claims 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 28, in view of claim 16 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13, respectively.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 16 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 31, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches upon determining the priority indicator comprises the first value, align the at least one uplink transmission with a starting point of a fixed frame period (FFP) for transmitting the at least one uplink transmission based on the COT initiated by the UE (ZHANG, see at least para. 47-48; “...the first table comprises entire combinations of the LBT type, the length of the CP extension, and the CAPC...”; MOON_191, see at least para. 155 along with para. 113, “...The range of the CAPC may be determined by the CAPC used by the terminal to perform the LBT operation for initiating the COT...”, note that “...the communication node may perform the CCA operation at the start time or immediately before the start time per a fixed frame or a fixed frame period (FFP). ... when the CCA operation succeeds at the start time or immediately before the start time of any FFP, the FBE may continuously perform transmission and reception during the FFP...”);
and
upon determining the priority indicator comprises the first value, transmit the at least one uplink transmission based on the COT initiated by the network entity (ZHANG, see at least para. 47-48; “...the first table comprises entire combinations of the LBT type, the length of the CP extension, and the CAPC...”; MOON_191, see at least para. 204 along with para. 226-227 “...The configuration information of the COT may further include a channel access priority class of the base station. The COT initiated by the base station may be shared with the terminal, and the terminal may perform uplink communication within the shared COT. In this case, the terminal may transmit a PUSCH or a PUCCH having the same or lower priority as the channel access priority class of the base station...”, note that para. 226-227 disclose “...the terminal may transmit a configured grant PUSCH in the configured grant resource (e.g., the configured grant resources belonging to the COT initiated by the base station) by performing an LBT operation according to a changed category (e.g., category 1 or 2). The above-described operation may be a predefined operation. Alternatively, the base station may instruct the terminal to perform the above-described operation...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MOON_191 and MOON_971 into the apparatus of ZHANG for improving efficiency of radio resources, efficiency of the spectrum usage, as well as transmission performance.
Regarding claim 32, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 3.
ZHANG view of MOON_191 does not specifically teach the DCI comprises DCI format 0_2, or DCI format 1_2.
MOON_971 teaches the DCI comprises DCI format 0_2, or DCI format 1_2 (MOON_971, see at least para. 309, “...the downlink scheduling DCI may include DCI formats 1_0, 1_1, 1_2, and the like. ... the uplink scheduling DCI may include DCI formats 0_0, 0_1, 0_2, and the like...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MOON_191 and MOON_971 into the apparatus of ZHANG for improving efficiency of radio resources, efficiency of the spectrum usage, as well as transmission performance.
Claims 7-9, 14-15, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971, and further in view of Bagheri et al. (WO 2022/234549 A1, hereinafter Bagheri, NOTE: corresponding US 2024/0260030 A1 used below for rejection citation purposes).
Regarding claim 7, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 1.
ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 does not specifically teach the indication in the DCI comprises a COT initiator indicator field using a first value to indicate the COT initiated by the UE and a second value to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity.
Bagheri teaches the indication in the DCI comprises a COT initiator indicator field using a first value to indicate the COT initiated by the UE and a second value to indicate the COT initiated by the network entity (Bagheri, in general, see fig. 4-5 and corresponding paragraphs, in particular, see at least para. 155-156, “...to have a field/column indicating whether the UE or gNB is the COT initiator for each PUSCH of the multi-PUSCH...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bagheri into the apparatus of ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 for enabling effective spectrum sharing.
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 and Bagheri teaches claim 7.
Bagheri further teaches a presence of the COT initiator indicator field is configurable by radio resource control (RRC). (Bagheri, see at least para. 157, e.g. RRC signaling)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bagheri into the apparatus of ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 for enabling effective spectrum sharing.
Regarding claim 9, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 and Bagheri teaches claim 7.
Bagheri further teaches upon determining the first value in the COT initiator indicator field, align the at least one uplink transmission with a starting point of a fixed frame period (FFP) for transmitting the at least one uplink transmission based on the COT initiated by the UE (Bagheri, see at least para. 159, “...In one embodiment, the UE maintains a gap and/or performs LBT between each pair of PUSCH transmissions of the multi-PUSCH if the COT initiator is different for the pair of PUSCH transmissions, e.g., at least for the case that the 1st PUSCH of the pair is transmitted according to g-COT and the latter PUSCH of the pair is transmitted according to the u-COT. In an example, the latter PUSCH is aligned with a u-FFP boundary...”); and
upon determining the second value in the COT initiator indicator field, transmit the at least one uplink transmission based on the COT initiated by the network entity. (Bagheri, see at least para. 159, “...if the COT initiator is different for the pair of PUSCH transmissions, e.g., at least for the case that the 1st PUSCH of the pair is transmitted according to g-COT...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bagheri into the apparatus of ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 for enabling effective spectrum sharing.
Regarding claim 14, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 10.
ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 does not specifically teach determine, regardless whether the network entity has initiated a COT in a next fixed frame period (FFP), whether the at least one uplink transmission is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity based on the at least one of the indication in the DCI or the rule; and transmit the at least one uplink transmission in accordance with the determination.
Bagheri teaches determine, regardless whether the network entity has initiated a COT in a next fixed frame period (FFP), whether the at least one uplink transmission is based on a COT initiated by the UE or a COT initiated by the network entity based on the at least one of the indication in the DCI or the rule; and transmit the at least one uplink transmission in accordance with the determination. (Bagheri, see at least para. 159 in view of para. 157, “...In one embodiment, the UE maintains a gap and/or performs LBT between each pair of PUSCH transmissions of the multi-PUSCH if the COT initiator is different for the pair of PUSCH transmissions, e.g., at least for the case that the 1st PUSCH of the pair is transmitted according to g-COT and the latter PUSCH of the pair is transmitted according to the u-COT. In an example, the latter PUSCH is aligned with a u-FFP boundary...”, note that “...FIG. 5 depicts a multi-PUSCH transmission scheduled by the DCI 502...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bagheri into the apparatus of ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 for enabling effective spectrum sharing.
Regarding claim 15, ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 teaches claim 10.
ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 does not specifically teach upon determining that the network entity has not initiated a network entity fixed frame period (FFP) in a next network FFP, initiate the COT regardless of the rule or the DCI received from the network entity; and transmit the at least one uplink transmission to the network entity based on the COT initiated by the UE.
Bagheri teaches upon determining that the network entity has not initiated a network entity fixed frame period (FFP) in a next network FFP, initiate the COT regardless of the rule or the DCI received from the network entity; and transmit the at least one uplink transmission to the network entity based on the COT initiated by the UE. (Bagheri, see at least para. 149, for one non-limiting example, “...In one embodiment, PUSCH-u 306 can be sent during g-idle 312 (if COT initiator for PUSCH-u 306 is indicated to be the UE) as the gNB does not have any other data to initiate a g-COT in G-FFP2 314...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bagheri into the apparatus of ZHANG in view of MOON_191 and MOON_971 for enabling effective spectrum sharing.
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 24, in view of claim 16 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 16, and 29-30, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 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 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465