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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on July 22, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2021-0096580 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application filed on 12/20/2023 only includes the front pages (see pages 99-102) without any texts that provide support for the instant specification.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 with respect to the priority issue have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “…despite priority acknowledgment in the Office Action summary, page 2 of the Office Action requests submission of the complete document of the Foreign Priority Application. The Office Action indicates that only the front pages were submitted.
In reply, Applicant's review of PAIR finds that a 103 page Foreign Priority
Application was received on December 20, 2023. In addition, the instant application is a U.S. National Stage application, where the priority documents were furnished during the international phase, which is also confirmed in PAIR. (See Doc. Type 371p filed Dec. 20, 2023). It is believed that the USPTO has automatically retrieved such documents during the instant National Stage application.
It is believed that Applicant has met the necessary requirements for priority acknowledgment. Applicant welcomes further input from the Examiner if this is not the case” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, page 6).
In response to applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above. The 103 pages Foreign Priority Application document received on December 20, 2023 merely contains the front pages (pages 1-5) that are related to the Foreign Priority Application, and the rest of the document does not contain any text that are related to the Foreign Priority Application, thus, do not provide any support for the instant specification.
Furthermore, the priority document (371 national stage application) which was retrieved on December 20, 2023, is the WO 2023/003206 with the international filing date of June 30, 2022, not the Foreign Priority Application, KR 10-2021-0096580. Therefore, at best, the priority date established for the instant application is June 30, 2022.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 03/10/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment filed on 03/10/2026. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 with respect to Lohr reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “The rejection cites to Lohr to teach not starting timers or setting the HARQ process to not pending. Applicant's review of Lohr finds that it discloses methods for managing "empty MAC PDUs" (i.e., MAC PDUs containing zero MAC SDUs). Lohr also discloses preventing autonomous retransmission of such empty MAC PDUs to reduce power consumption and interference because retransmitting an empty PDU containing no useful data is inefficient. In sum, Lohr discloses flushing the HARQ buffer or stopping the timer when the PDU is empty.
In contrast, claim 1 addresses a specific scenario where a MAC PDU does not include user data but is multiplexed with Uplink Control Information (UCI). In this scenario, the amended claims require a specific control logic: "starting of a CGT and a CGRT... are skipped" and "a retransmission ... is prohibited ... regardless of whether the first MAC PDU is successfully transmitted." Lohr does not teach this specific behavior.
First, Lohr focuses on "empty MAC PDUs" that have no value. In contrast, claim 1 recites PDUs that carry important control information (UCI).
Second, Lohr does not teach the specific condition of "skipping" the starting of timers to prohibit retransmission "regardless of whether the first MAC PDU is successfully transmitted." In claim 1, even if the LBT succeeds (indication not received) and the transmission is attempted, the retransmission on the subsequent grant is proactively prohibited by skipping the timers.
This implies a distinct control mechanism where the retransmission is disabled despite the potential need for HARQ reliability, specific to the UCI-only multiplexing case. Lohr merely teaches canceling retransmission because there is no data to send (empty), which is fundamentally different from prohibiting retransmission of a UCI-multiplexed PDU regardless of its transmission success status on the subsequent grant.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Lohr
with Fan to arrive at the specific "skipping" and "unconditional prohibition of retransmission on a subsequent grant" features recited in the amended claims, as Lohr's teaching is limited to preventing transmission of useless (empty) data.
In view of the foregoing, the discussed reference fails to teach various features of claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons presented above, even if one skilled in the art were to combine the teachings of the asserted references in the manner alleged, claim 1 would be patentable since not all of the claim elements are taught or suggested. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. Independent claims 6, 11, and 12 contain language similar to claim 1, and therefore these claims are also believed to be patentable over these references for reasons similar to those presented above in conjunction with claim 1. The rejected and currently pending dependent claims are also patentable at least by virtue of their dependence upon their respective independent claims” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, pages 7-8).
In response to applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above. (1) Lohr teaches on paragraphs [35-36, 141, 267], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [142-143, 148, 318], as follows:
[0035] Thus, in conventional methods, the UE would treat an empty MAC PDU, e.g., a MAC PDU that is generated only for UCI multiplexing, the same as any other MAC PDU containing uplink data. Therefore, the UE would, for example, perform some autonomous retransmission, e.g., for NR-U case, or transmit a dynamically scheduled retransmission. This may lead to unnecessary UE power consumption and also create interference for a transmission of a MAC PDU that doesn't contain any useful data.
[0036] The solution to the foregoing issue, as described herein, prevents the MAC entity from performing autonomous retransmissions for an empty MAC PDU, which does not contain any MAC service data units (“SDUs”) and may only be comprised of padding/buffer status report (“BSR”). Furthermore, in the claimed solution, the UE ignores a DCI scheduling a retransmission for an “empty” MAC PDU. In one embodiment, the UE flushes the HARQ transmission buffer after the initial transmission of a MAC PDU that contains zero MAC SDUs and is only comprised of padding and/or BSR, e.g. padding BSR. In another embodiment, UCI indicates that a corresponding MAC PDU transmitted on a PUSCH carries no MAC SDUs nor MAC CE(s) except a potential BSR, for the purpose of UCI multiplexing.
[0141] Throughout the disclosure, the term “empty MAC PDU” refers to the case where the UE generates a MAC PDU/TB that does not contain any data of a configured DRB/SRB, i.e., zero MAC SDUs. Furthermore the “empty MAC PDU/TB” may be only comprised of padding and/or a padding BSR MAC CE. Alternatively, the empty MAC PDU/TB may only include a periodic BSR and there is no data available for any LCG.
[0267] According to one implementation of this embodiment, the UE shall deprioritize the (re)transmission of a MAC PDU which has no uplink data (e.g., SRB/DRB) and contains only padding, e.g., the UE solely generated for the purpose of UCI-multiplexing. According to another implementation of this embodiment, the UE prioritizes an initial transmission of an “empty” TB carrying UCI-only information on the PUSCH over an autonomous retransmission. To transmit the UCI information immediately, the UE shall delay an autonomous retransmission that is competing for the transmission (e.g., HARQ process selection) and rather transmit the “empty” TB containing no higher layer UL data, but only the UCI multiplexed on the PUSCH.
Therefore, Lohr has taught the empty MAC PDU carrying the UCI, and not “have no value” as erroneously argued by the Applicant.
(2)Furthermore, Lohr teaches on paragraphs [35-36, 143-145, 256, 268, 322], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [140, 143, 145-146, 307, 317-318] as follows:
[0035] Thus, in conventional methods, the UE would treat an empty MAC PDU, e.g., a MAC PDU that is generated only for UCI multiplexing, the same as any other MAC PDU containing uplink data. Therefore, the UE would, for example, perform some autonomous retransmission, e.g., for NR-U case, or transmit a dynamically scheduled retransmission. This may lead to unnecessary UE power consumption and also create interference for a transmission of a MAC PDU that doesn't contain any useful data.
[0036] The solution to the foregoing issue, as described herein, prevents the MAC entity from performing autonomous retransmissions for an empty MAC PDU, which does not contain any MAC service data units (“SDUs”) and may only be comprised of padding/buffer status report (“BSR”). Furthermore, in the claimed solution, the UE ignores a DCI scheduling a retransmission for an “empty” MAC PDU. In one embodiment, the UE flushes the HARQ transmission buffer after the initial transmission of a MAC PDU that contains zero MAC SDUs and is only comprised of padding and/or BSR, e.g. padding BSR. In another embodiment, UCI indicates that a corresponding MAC PDU transmitted on a PUSCH carries no MAC SDUs nor MAC CE(s) except a potential BSR, for the purpose of UCI multiplexing.
[0143] According to one implementation of this embodiment, a UE operating in a shared spectrum does not perform an autonomous retransmission of an “empty” MAC PDU/TB carrying UCI-only for cases when no DFI has been received until expiration of cg-RetransmissionTimer CGRT corresponding to the HARQ process. According to one further aspect of this embodiment, the UE may flush the HARQ buffer upon expiration of the cg-RetransmissionTimer. The UE does not deliver the configured uplink grant and the associated HARQ information to the HARQ entity.
[0144] According to one further implementation of this embodiment, the UE flushes the HARQ buffer after the initial transmission or transmission attempt of an empty MAC PDU, e.g., MAC PDU is comprised of zero MAC SDU(s) and only padding/padding BSR is contained in the MAC PDU. In an implementation of the embodiment, the behavior of a UE flushing the HARQ buffer after the first transmission of an empty MAC PDU carrying only UCI is configurable by the gNB/NW. The UE behavior would be similar to the case that the UE skips an UL transmission due to no data availability. For cases when the UE did not have data available at initial transmission while there was also no overlapping UCI, the initial transmission gets skipped as part of the normal UL skipping procedure and MAC does not create a MAC PDU for the UL grant. Per the current procedure, MAC flushes the HARQ buffer in this case. According to this implementation of the embodiment, MAC flushes the HARQ buffer also for the case that MAC generated an empty MAC PDU just for the purpose of UCI multiplexing.
[0145] According to one further implementation of the embodiment, the UE skips uplink retransmissions of MAC PDUs for cases when the MAC PDU contains only padding and/or BSR and zero MAC SDUs. In one specific implementation the parameter/IE enhancedSkipUplinkTxDynamic or enhancedSkipUplinkTxConfigured configures whether the UE shall or is allowed to skip also HARQ retransmissions for cases when the MAC PDU is a padding PDU containing zero MAC SDUs. Alternatively a new parameter/information element (“IE”) is introduced that configures whether the UE shall or is allowed to skip HARQ retransmission(s) of empty padding MAC PDUs.
[0146] According to one implementation of the embodiment, the UE doesn't start the configuredGrantTimer and/or cg-RetransmissionTimer upon having performed the transmission on CG PUSCH for cases when the MAC PDU transmitted on the CG PUSCH is empty, e.g., MAC PDU doesn't contain any uplink data (DRB/SRB), e.g., zero MAC SDU(s), but only padding and was soley generated for the purpose of UCI-multiplexing.
[0256] According to one embodiment, the UE ignores a DCI scheduling a retransmission of a TB/PUSCH transmission carrying only UCI. For cases when a UE receives a DCI addressed to the CS-RNTI scheduling a retransmission of a MAC PDU which carries no uplink data (DRB/SRB) but only e.g., padding, i.e., the MAC PDU was solely generated for the purpose of UCI-multiplexing, the UE ignores according to this embodiment the DCI and does not perform a retransmission. According to one implementation of the embodiment, the UE flushes the HARQ buffer upon having transmitted a MAC PDU on a CG PUSCH resource which carries no data of a DRB/SRB (zero MAC SDU), e.g., carrying only padding information and/or padding BSR. Since the HARQ buffer is empty, UE will for the case of receiving a retransmission DCI ignore such uplink grant.
[0268] According to another embodiment, the UE shall not start the drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerUL for the corresponding HARQ process upon having transmitted a MAC PDU in a configured uplink grant if the MAC PDU is an “empty MAC PDU” containing only padding and/or padding BSR and zero MAC SDUs. By not starting the drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerUL timer, the UE will not go to ActiveTime, e.g., after expiry of drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerUL, and monitor PDCCH for any retransmission grants. Hence a further power saving benefit can be achieved by this embodiment.
[0322] In one embodiment, the processor does not start a CG timer or a CG retransmission timer in response to transmission of the empty MAC PDU to prevent autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU.
Therefore, Lohr has clearly taught the specific condition for skipping the starting of timers (when not received the LBT failure indication and when transmitting the empty MAC PDU multiplexed with UCI) to prevent retransmission of the empty MAC PDU, even when the empty MAC PDU is not successfully transmitted, since the empty MAC PDU merely contains the UCI, which is outdated or superseded when retransmitted. Thus, Lohr has not only canceled retransmission because there is not data to send, but also, has proactively prevented retransmission for the empty MAC PDU, by not started the CG timer and the CG retransmission timer and ignored the DCI scheduling a retransmission of the empty MAC PDU carrying only UCI.
Accordingly, Lohr has taught prohibiting retransmission of a UCI-multiplexed PDU regardless of its transmission success status on the subsequent grant.
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 1-2, 6-7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0267159 A1 to Lohr et al. (hereafter refers as Lohr).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11 and 12, Lohr teaches a method (a method for transmitting data by a UE/terminal device, in a wireless communication system, Fig. 1, 5-6, provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 1, 5), a user equipment (UE) (UE/terminal device/first apparatus performs the method in a wireless communication system, Fig. 1, 5-6, provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 1, 5), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (the UE includes a memory, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]) comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (the memory stores therein instructions that when executed by at least one processor, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]), cause a user equipment (UE) to perform operations (cause the at least one processor of the UE to perform the method, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]), the UE comprising:
at least one processor (the UE includes a processor, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]); and
at least one computer memory (the UE includes a memory, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]) storing instructions (the memory stores therein instructions, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform operations (that when executed by at least one processor, cause the terminal device to perform the method, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [277, 279-281], provisional 63/195,548, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [327-330]) comprising:
generating a medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (generating MAC PDU, paragraphs [130, 139, 140, 144], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [126, 139, 140, 143]); and
transmitting the MAC PDU according to a configured uplink grant related to a Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process (transmitting the MAC PDU on a configured uplink resource based on configured uplink grant to a HARQ process, paragraphs [181-184, 212, 228-233, 256, 264], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [143, 146-147, 172, 307]);
wherein, based on a listen before talk (LBT) failure indication not being received (when a LBT failure indication not being received, paragraphs [267-271], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [318-323]) and based on the MAC PDU including no user data and being multiplexed with uplink control information (UCI) (and when the MAC PDU contains only padding and/or padding BSR, paragraphs [267-271], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [318-323], i.e. no user data and being multiplexed with UCI, paragraphs [36, 141, 267], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [142-143, 148, 318]):
i) starting of a configured grant timer (CGT) and a configured grant retransmission timer (CGRT) for the HARQ process are skipped (not starting a configured grant timer and cg-retransmission timer for the HARQ process, when transmitting the MAC PDU with only UCI and no user data, paragraph [146, 267-268], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [146, 317-319]), and
ii) a retransmission of the MAC PDU is prohibited on a subsequent configured uplink grant related to the HARQ process regardless of whether the MAC PDU is successfully transmitted (preventing retransmission of the MAC PDU on a subsequent configured uplink grant related to the HARQ process, i.e. ignore DCI grant for retransmission(s), even when no DFI is received, paragraphs [35-36, 143, 145, 256, 268, 322], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [140, 143, 145-146, 307, 317-318]).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Lohr further teaches triggering, by the UE, a new transmission associated with the HARQ process based on the CGT and the CGRT for the HARQ process not running (triggering a new transmission if the CGT and the CGRT are not running, see Lohr, paragraphs [155-160], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [156-160, 211-212]) and status of the HARQ process being set to not pending (and the status of the HARQ process is no pending, see Lohr, paragraphs [155-160, 210], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [156-160, 211-212]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0267159 A1 to Lohr et al. (hereafter refers as Lohr) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2023/0269036 A1 to Fan et al. (hereafter refers as Fan).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Lohr further teaches wherein, based on the LBT failure indication being received, status of the HARQ process is set to pending (when the LBT failure indication is received, the CGT and CGRT for the HARQ process are not started and the HARQ process is set to pending state, see Lohr, paragraphs [247-249], provisional 63/195,548, paragraphs [218-219]).
However, Lohr does not explicitly teach based on the LBT failure indication being received “the CGT and the CGRT for the HARQ process are not started”.
Fan further teaches wherein, based on the LBT failure indication being received, the CGT and the CGRT for the HARQ process are not started, and status of the HARQ process is set to pending (when the LBT failure indication is received, i.e. LBT failed, the CGT and CGRT for the HARQ process are not started and the HARQ process is set to pending state, see Fan, paragraphs [68, 146-147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of wherein, based on the LBT failure indication being received, the CGT and the CGRT for the HARQ process are not started, and status of the HARQ process is set to pending as taught by Fan, with the teachings of wherein, based on the LBT failure indication being received, status of the HARQ process is set to pending as taught by Lohr, for a purpose of reducing amount of resources being used/running, by not starting the CGT and CGRT when the HARQ process is in the pending status (see Fan, paragraphs [68, 146-147]).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0267159 A1 to Lohr et al. (hereafter refers as Lohr) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2023/0379092 A1 to Chin et al. (hereafter refers as Chin).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Lohr does not explicitly teach “during the CGT for the HARQ process is running, a new transmission associated with the HARQ process is prohibited, and during the CGRT for the HARQ process is running, a retransmission associated with the HARQ process is prohibited”.
Chin teaches during the CGT for the HARQ process is running, a new transmission associated with the HARQ process is prohibited (while the CG timer for the HARQ process is running, the UE is prohibited from performing a new transmission associated with the HARQ process, see paragraph [184], provisional 63/091,239, page 6), and during the CGRT for the HARQ process is running, a retransmission associated with the HARQ process is prohibited (while the CG retransmission timer for the HARQ process is running, the UE is prohibited from performing a retransmission associated with the HARQ process, see paragraph [208], provisional 63/091,239, page 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of during the CGRT for the HARQ process is running, a retransmission associated with the HARQ process is prohibited as taught by Chin, with the teachings of Lohr, for a purpose of increase efficiency in performing retransmission for the HARQ process by providing an appropriate time duration for HARQ process, which prevent the retransmission when the CGRT is running (see Chin, see paragraphs [184, 208], provisional 63/091,239, pages 6-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ETSI TS 138 321 v18.2.0 discloses starting configured grant timer and configurated grant retransmission timer for an identified HARQ process, in response to LBT failure indication is not received from lower layers, and sets the status of the HARQ process to non pending (pages 68-71).
US 2020/0351832 A1 discloses when UL LBT succeed, performing MAC PDU transmissions and starting CGT and CGRT (see Fig. 1G).
US 2024/0195535 A1 discloses when the MAC PDU including no user data, an user equipment flushes user data from the buffer and stops the CGRT timer (paragraphs [68-69]).
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 DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights