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 .
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 01/05/2024, 09/30/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 12, 55, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabet (US-20160337107).
As to claim 1, 12, 55, 57: Tabet teaches an information processing method, performed by a network device, and comprising: receiving first information of the User Equipment (UE) ([0089] At 502, a UE (e.g., such as UE 106) may send first information to a network entity. The network entity may be a mobility management entity (MME) comprised in or coupled to a base station (e.g., base station 102) or may be a base station (e.g., base station 102). The first information may indicate the capabilities of the UE. The capabilities may indicate that the UE supports full duplex frequency division duplexing (FD-FDD) (full duplex mode of operation), half duplex FDD (HD-FDD) (half duplex mode of operation), or both (although not concurrently). In some embodiments the capabilities may additionally indicate that the UE is a power constrained (or peak current limited) device); and determining configuration for a working mode of the UE based on the first information (abstract: mode of operation); wherein the working mode comprises at least a full duplexing mode ([0089], claim 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Zhang (US-20220014344).
As to claim 4: Tabet teaches the method of claim 1, … and the first information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE ([0089], abstract, claim 8).
Tabet may not explicitly teach further comprising: sending second information for indicating a mobility state of the UE, and wherein the second information. However, Zhang teaches further comprising: sending second information for indicating a mobility state of the UE, and wherein the second information ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Hong (CN-108476446-A), Zhang (US-20220014344).
As to claim 6: Tabet teaches the method of claim 1 … , and wherein the first information and at least one of the third information or second information are used for configuration by the network device for the working mode of the UE ([0089], claim 8).
Tabet may not explicitly teach further comprising: sending third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE. However, Hong teaches further comprising: sending third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE (In one embodiment, the triggering condition can include a data caching service data to be transmitted to one or more of: user equipment to be transmitted service data of service quality high than the preset quality threshold; In step 505, the base station obtains the duplex capability of the user equipment).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement service cache data volume, taught by Hong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if UE would benefit from full duplex. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Hong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach and the second information is configured for indicating a mobility state of the UE. However, Zhang teaches and the second information is configured for indicating a mobility state of the UE ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1).
As to claim 9: Tabet teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the first information of the UE comprises: sending the first information of the UE based on a trigger condition; wherein sending the first information of the UE based on the trigger condition comprises at least one of: … , and sending the first information of the UE; determining that the UE is in a first mobility state, and sending the first information of the UE; wherein the UE in the first mobility state has a moving rate lower than a rate threshold; determining that the transmission power of the UE is less than or equal to the power threshold and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state, and sending the first information of the UE; or determining that a service cache data volume of the UE is greater than a preset data volume, and sending the first information of the UE.
Tabet may not explicitly teach determining that a transmission power of the UE is less than or equal to a power threshold. However, Barrebek teaches determining that a transmission power of the UE is less than or equal to a power threshold (The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metric conditions include one of: an uplink power threshold, said uplink power threshold being such that the user equipment supports full duplex operation only below the uplink power threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds, taught by Harrabek, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether full duplex is to be implemented. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Harrabek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1) in view of Yong (EP-2805545-A1).
As to claim 11: Tabet teaches the method of claim 9.
Tabet may not explicitly teach comprising: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE within a preset time range is less than or equal to a threshold, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state. However, Yong teaches further comprising: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE (mobile device can measure Reference Signal Receiving Power (RSRP) and Reference Signal Receiving Quality (RSRQ) levels of the serving cell for every discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle. Difference between maximum and minimum RSRP and/or RSRQ can be used in determining an estimate how the mobile device crosses the cell) within a preset time range (If a predefined time expires (T >= TCRMAX), Ntotai is compared with predefined thresholds to obtain the mobility state.) is less than or equal to a threshold, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state ((NCR_ Ntotai < NCR_H => mobility state of UE is classified as medium; totai < NC _M => mobility state of UE is classified as normal)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining mobility state, taught by Yong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yong and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 2, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tabet (US-20160337107).
As to claim 2, 14: Tabet teaches the method of claim 12, wherein, the first information is used to indicate at least one of: a transmission power supported by the UE in the working mode; the transmission power supported by the UE working in the full duplexing mode; or the transmission power supported by the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode (11:35-47, claim 8 power constraints).
As to claim 13: Tabet teaches the method of claim 12, wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, and determining configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode; or determining that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, and determining configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode (11:35-47, claim 8).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1).
As to claim 16: Tabet teaches the method of claim 14, wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises one of: … or determining to that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, and/or the first information indicates the transmission power being greater than the power threshold, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the non-full duplexing mode.
Tabet may not explicitly teach determining to that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, and the first information indicates the transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode. However, Harrebek teaches determining to that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, and the first information indicates the transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metric conditions include one of: an uplink power threshold, said uplink power threshold being such that the user equipment supports full duplex operation only below the uplink power threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds, taught by Harrabek, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether full duplex is to be implemented. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Harrabek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Zhang (US-20220014344).
As to claim 17: Tabet teaches the method of claim 12.
Tabet may not explicitly teach further comprising: determining a mobility state of the UE; wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the mobility state of the UE. However, Zhang teaches further comprising: determining a mobility state of the UE; wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the mobility state of the UE ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 19: Tabet teaches the method of claim 17, wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the mobility state of the UE comprises one of: determining to that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode ([0089], claim 8 full duplexing mode) … , and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (abstract: mode of operation); or determining to that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode and/or the UE is in a second mobility state, and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode, and wherein a moving rate of the UE in the first mobility state is less than a moving rate of the UE in the second mobility state.
Tabet may not explicitly teach and the UE is in a first mobility state. However, Zhang teaches and the UE is in a first mobility state ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 20: Tabet teaches the method of claim 17.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein determining the mobility state of the UE comprises: receiving second information of the UE; and determining the mobility state of the UE based on the second information. However, Zhang teaches wherein determining the mobility state of the UE comprises: receiving second information of the UE; and determining the mobility state of the UE based on the second information ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Zhang (US-20220014344) in view of Yong (EP-2805545-A1).
As to claim 21: Tabet teaches the method of claim 20.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein determining the mobility state of the UE based on the second information comprises one of: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE (mobile device can measure Reference Signal Receiving Power (RSRP) and Reference Signal Receiving Quality (RSRQ) levels of the serving cell for every discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle. Difference between maximum and minimum RSRP and/or RSRQ can be used in determining an estimate how the mobile device crosses the cell) within a preset time range (If a predefined time expires (T >= TCRMAX), Ntotai is compared with predefined thresholds to obtain the mobility state.) is less than or equal to a threshold based on the second information, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state ((NCR_ Ntotai < NCR_H => mobility state of UE is classified as medium; totai < NC _M => mobility state of UE is classified as normal)); or determining that the change value of the signal strength of the reference signal received by the UE within the preset time range is greater than the threshold based on the second information, and determining that the UE is in the second mobility state.. However, Yong teaches wherein determining the mobility state of the UE based on the second information comprises one of: determining that a change value of a signal strength of a reference signal received by the UE (mobile device can measure Reference Signal Receiving Power (RSRP) and Reference Signal Receiving Quality (RSRQ) levels of the serving cell for every discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle. Difference between maximum and minimum RSRP and/or RSRQ can be used in determining an estimate how the mobile device crosses the cell) within a preset time range (If a predefined time expires (T >= TCRMAX), Ntotai is compared with predefined thresholds to obtain the mobility state.) is less than or equal to a threshold based on the second information, and determining that the UE is in the first mobility state ((NCR_ Ntotai < NCR_H => mobility state of UE is classified as medium; totai < NC _M => mobility state of UE is classified as normal)); or determining that the change value of the signal strength of the reference signal received by the UE within the preset time range is greater than the threshold based on the second information, and determining that the UE is in the second mobility state.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining mobility state, taught by Yong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yong and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Zhang (US-20220014344) in view of Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1).
As to claim 22: Tabet teaches the method of claim 17, wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the mobility state of the UE comprises one of: … ; or determining to that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, the first information indicates the transmission power being greater than the power threshold and/or the UE is in a second mobility state, and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode.
Tabet may not explicitly teach determining to that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold and the UE is in a first mobility state, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode. However, Harrebek teaches determining to that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold and the UE is in a first mobility state, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metric conditions include one of: an uplink power threshold, said uplink power threshold being such that the user equipment supports full duplex operation only below the uplink power threshold)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds, taught by Harrabek, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether full duplex is to be implemented. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Harrabek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107) in view of Hong (CN-108476446-A).
As to claim 23: Tabet teaches the method of claim 12.
Tabet may not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE. However, Hong teaches further comprising: receiving third information for indicating a service cache data volume of the UE (In one embodiment, the triggering condition can include a data caching service data to be transmitted to one or more of: user equipment to be transmitted service data of service quality high than the preset quality threshold; In step 505, the base station obtains the duplex capability of the user equipment.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement service cache data volume, taught by Hong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if UE would benefit from full duplex. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Hong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 24: Tabet teaches the method of claim 23.
Tabet may not explicitly teach wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the third information; wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the third information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than or equal to a preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode; or determining that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode and/or the third information indicates the service cache data volume being less than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode. However, Hong teaches wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the third information; wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information and the third information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than or equal to a preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (In one embodiment, the triggering condition can include a data caching service data to be transmitted to one or more of: user equipment to be transmitted service data of service quality high than the preset quality threshold, the user equipment is more than the preset cache value, base station with full duplex transmission mode between user devices will not cause uplink and downlink crosstalk and the like); or determining that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode and/or the third information indicates the service cache data volume being less than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement service cache data volume, taught by Hong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if UE would benefit from full duplex. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Hong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabet (US-20160337107), Hong (CN-108476446-A) in view of Zhang (US-20220014344), Harrebek (EP-3716521-A1).
As to claim 26: Tabet teaches the method of claim 23, wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information comprises: determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information, the-second information and the third information; wherein determining the configuration for the working mode of the UE based on the first information, the second information and the third information comprises one of: determining that the first information comprises information allowing the full duplexing mode, … ; or determining that the first information comprises information disallowing the full duplexing mode, the first information indicates the transmission power being greater than the power threshold, the second information indicates the UE being in the second mobility state and/or the third information indicates the service cache data volume being less than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in a non-full duplexing mode.
Tabet may not explicitly teach the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold. However, Harrebek teaches the first information indicates a transmission power being less than or equal to a power threshold (The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metric conditions include one of: an uplink power threshold, said uplink power threshold being such that the user equipment supports full duplex operation only below the uplink power threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement power thresholds, taught by Harrabek, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine whether full duplex is to be implemented. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Harrabek in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach the second information indicates the UE being in a first mobility state. However, Zhang teaches the second information indicates the UE being in a first mobility state ([0073] the UE may transmit a mobility report to a base station to indicate the neighbor TRP for the purpose of pairing the neighbor TRP with the serving TRP in the full-duplex communication mode or the simultaneous half-duplex mTRP communication mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UE mobility state, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and dynamically optimize radio behavior. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Tabet in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Tabet may not explicitly teach and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode. However, Hong teaches and the third information indicates the service cache data volume being greater than the preset data volume, and determining the configuration of the UE working in the full duplexing mode (In one embodiment, the triggering condition can include a data caching service data to be transmitted to one or more of: user equipment to be transmitted service data of service quality high than the preset quality threshold, the user equipment is more than the preset cache value, base station with full duplex transmission mode between user devices will not cause uplink and downlink crosstalk and the like).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement service cache data volume, taught by Hong, into the communication system, taught by Tabet, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and determine if UE would benefit from full duplex. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Tabet and Hong in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466