DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/27/2024 and 08/29/2024 has been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner suggests the following title “A method of a UE changing to either target, anchor, PRU, or standby states in Sidelink Positioning”.
Claim Objections
Claim 45 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 45 recites “any of claim 42”. The examiner believes that the word “any” is a typo graphical error. It should be changed to “.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim 45 recites a contingent limitation of
“in the event that the first operating state is not the target state… transition to the target state over the other state or states; and/or
in the event that the first operating state is the target state .. transition to the anchor state over the PRU state.
The phrase “in the event” means “the transition to the anchor or target states” occurs only when one of “in the event” condition is met. However, the present claims never affirmatively require the “in the event” condition to occur. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations does not require these conditional steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed.
Examiner suggests positively reciting “in the event” condition is met. For example:
determining whether the first operating state is the target state;
in response to determining that the first operating state is not the target state, transition to the target state over the other state or states; or
in response to determining that the first operating state is the target state, transition to the anchor state over the PRU state.
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 34 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially at the end” in claim 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05 (b)). The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Applicant merely describes identifying a period "substantially" at the end of a positioning session in which the apparatus operated in the target state without describing any period in which the operating in target state and the determining of position would not be considered substantially at the end. It is not clear if 5 seconds or 1 second toward the end of the positioning session considered “substantially at the end”. Therefore, it cannot be determined which period would be "substantially" at the end, and which period would not be. For examination purpose, the examiner interprets the claim “determine the service period Y substantially at the end of a positioning session in which the apparatus operated in the target state and its position has been determined” as “determining the target position at the end of the positioning session”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 26-27, 33, 40-43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041)
Regarding claim 26 and 42, Gangakhed teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor ([0048] “FIG. 2..some or all of the signalling techniques described herein will be coordinated wholly or partly by a processor acting under software control. That software can be embodied in a non-transitory machine readable storage medium having stored thereon processor executable instructions for implementing some or all of the signaling procedures described herein” [0049] For the remote node the processor could, for example, be a central processor of a mobile phone, smartphone, tablet, generic IoT device or any other device with wireless communication capability“); and
at least one memory (non-transitory machine readable storage medium) including computer program code which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus ([0048] “FIG. 2..some or all of the signaling techniques described herein will be coordinated wholly or partly by a processor acting under software control. That software can be embodied in a non-transitory machine readable storage medium having stored thereon processor executable instructions for implementing some or all of the signaling procedures described herein”) to:
operate in a first operating state (anchor or target) of a plurality of operating states (operate as an anchor or a target) as part of a positioning process involving communications with one or more remote nodes (Fig. 12 shows a node can operate in a “anchor” or “target” state; [0047] ”one node may be able to operate both as an anchor and as a target, and to interchange between the two, the target node 204 and the anchor node 208 are likely to be the same in most implementations… FIG. 2 shows the nodes as being different simply because it concentrates on the functional blocks that a remote node will use when operating in accordance with a particular positioning state”)
identify one or more trigger events (threshold) ([0147] “The positioning states “anchor” and “target” are preferably independent of conventional cellular user equipment states .. State transitions from anchor to target and vice versa are suitably based on a threshold set by the network”. Thus the occurring of the transition state from anchor to target requires the identifying of the trigger event of a threshold is being met.);
select a different one of the operating states (state transitions from anchor to target), based at least on: the first operating state, and the presence or absence of one or more trigger events; and
transition from the first operating state to the selected different operating state ([0147] “The positioning states “anchor” and “target” are preferably independent of conventional cellular user equipment states .. State transitions from anchor to target and vice versa are suitably based on a threshold set by the network. This threshold can be user-specific or service/application-specific. An example of a node transitioning between the anchor and target states depending on its estimated position error is shown in FIG. 12. FIG. 12 also compares the new target and anchor states with the legacy RRC states “idle” and “connected”; [0134] When the target node's position is localised to within an acceptable accuracy threshold, it optionally transmits the CP termination message (unicast) on the uplink and on the sidelink (broadcast). The target node may also change its state to “anchor”).
wherein the plurality of operating states comprises at least a target state, an anchor state, (“[0145] The “anchor” and “target” designations of each remote node may be fixed or changeable. In one preferred example, the “anchor” and “target” designations represent an operational state of a remote node, and the node may be configured to change between those states in dependence on how suited it is to acting as an anchor node. A decision about switching states may be made by a remote node independently or in conjunction with input from the network. Input from the network may be limited to indirect input, such as a set of parameters that define under what circumstances it should change state”; [0134] When the target node's position is localised to within an acceptable accuracy threshold, it optionally transmits the CP termination message (unicast) on the uplink and on the sidelink (broadcast). The target node may also change its state to “anchor”).
and a standby state (According to paragraph [0010] of current application’s published specification, in “Standby state” the nodes proactively broadcast beacons indicating their availability”; [0010] “the apparatus may be configured, in the standby state, to advertise to the one or more other remote nodes its availability to transition to one of the other operating states”. [0102] “An example of such network influence is the pre-configuration of particular anchor nodes to proactively broadcast beacons indicating their availability to support cooperative positioning”).
However, Gangakhed does not explicitly teach a positioning reference unit (PRU) state (PRU mode). In an analogous art, Manolakos teaches a positioning reference unit (PRU) state ([0154] “For UE-assisted positioning cases, the accuracy level of the location estimate of the UE is known to the location server…. Some of the devices will have very accurate positioning results while some of the devices will not have very good results. The devices in these sets will change over time. As such, the device(s) that is/are obtaining good positioning results can be dynamically used as PRU(s) for a given time. [0155] The present disclosure provides techniques for location request reporting dedicated for PRU mode. In an aspect, a UE can be configured with multiple positioning configurations (e.g., multiple PRS configurations and/or multiple SRS configurations depending on the positioning technique(s) supported). As a first option, one or more of the PRS/SRS configurations may be dedicated for “normal” mode positioning (where the UE is the target of the positioning session) and one or more PRS/SRS configurations may be dedicated for PRU mode (where the UE operates as a PRU). As a second option, any of the multiple configurations may be activated for either mode (normal UE or PRU)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed’s teaching of positioning to also include Manolakos 's teaching of PRU state to provide increased accuracy and efficiency of positioning services (Manolakos [0134] To improve positioning performance, the use of positioning reference units (PRUs) has been introduced to improve the performance of NR positioning procedures.)
Regarding claim 27 and 43, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 26, wherein, at least one of the one or more trigger events represent, at least in part, a request from, or a requirement of, at least one of the one or more remote nodes (Gangakhed [0103] “FIG. 9(a) shows an example of a signalling exchange in the first, request-based variant of the distributed cooperative positioning scheme: [0104] The target node requiring CP support transmits the CP request via the sidelink (broadcast) indicating the CP mode as “Distributed CP”. This request initiates or continues a cooperative positioning process. [0105] Anchor nodes receiving the sidelink CP request perform an anchor decision function and decide whether or not to participate in the CP. [0106] If the anchor nodes which receive the CP request decide to aid in cooperative positioning of the target node, they broadcast the CP response on the sidelink. [0107] The target node obtains positioning information for the surrounding anchor nodes by means of the CP response messages and performs anchor selection by selecting a subset of the candidate anchor nodes” [0134] When the target node's position is localised to within an acceptable accuracy threshold, it optionally transmits the CP termination message (unicast) on the uplink and on the sidelink (broadcast). The target node may also change its state to “anchor”).
Regarding claim 33, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 26, Manolakos further teaches configured to: select (switch) a different state, of the plurality of operating states (normal mode or PRU mode), at a plurality of different times within a service period Y (positioning session) (Manolakos [0166] The switch from normal mode to PRU mode and back to normal mode will be very fast because they occur during the same positioning session”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed's teaching of positioning to include Manolakos’ teaching of selecting a different state, of the plurality of operating states at a plurality of different times within a service period Y to provide the flexibility of switching between states quickly and promptly.
Regarding claim 40, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the positioning process is an LTE sidelink (SL) positioning process
(Gangakhed [0103] “FIG. 9(a) shows an example of a signalling exchange in the first, request-based variant of the distributed cooperative positioning scheme: [0104] The target node requiring CP support transmits the CP request via the sidelink (broadcast) indicating the CP mode as “Distributed CP”. This request initiates or continues a cooperative positioning process [0151] The position reference signal can be denoted the D2D Positioning Reference Signal (D2D-PRS). This is a sidelink physical signal that is specific to the UE and is transmitted by the Anchor UE on the sidelink to facilitate cooperative positioning for surrounding Target UEs. The purpose of the D2D-PRS is the same as that of legacy PRS in LTE: to provide additional OTDOA measurements for non-localized UEs” ).
Regarding claim 41, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the apparatus is a user equipment (a mobile phone) (Gangakhed [0049] For the remote node the processor could, for example, be a central processor of a mobile phone, smartphone, tablet, generic IoT device or any other device with wireless communication capability “).
Regarding claim 45, it is the same as claim 29 combined with claim 30. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as the combination of claim 29 and 30.
Claim(s) 28 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) further in view of Chen (US 20090161633)
Regarding claim 28 and 44, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 26, further configured to, select the different operating state based, at least in part, on a priority order associated with the plurality of operating states.
In an analogous art, Chen teaches select the different operating state (a communication mode) based, at least in part, on a priority order (priority level) associated with the plurality of operating states
([0011] “The priority levels may be determined using the connection information. In this manner, a mobile computing device may be able to determine a priority level for each available communication mode to aid a user in selecting a communication mode” [0022] ”The mobile computing device 100 may, for example, receive connection information from the destination device indicating that a cellular radiotelephone connection would likely be accepted, a SMS connection may or may not be accepted and an email connection would not be accepted at a given time. In this example, the cellular radio telephone connection mode would be assigned a higher priority level than the SMS connection mode and the SMS connection mode would be assigned a higher priority level than the email connection mode. The priority levels may be set or programmed by a user. The priority levels may also be set or programmed automatically by the communication management module 150 in accordance with a number or preferences, rules or heuristics.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed's teaching of positioning and Manolakos’ teaching of PRU mode to include Chen's teaching of selecting a different mode based on priority levels in order to have a system of prioritizing which mode is more important to choose should there be multiple available choices.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) further in view of Thomas (US 20100216524)
Regarding claim 29, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 28, except wherein, in the event that the first operating state is not the target state and the one or more trigger events represent at least: a first request or requirement to transition to the target state, and a second request or requirement to transition to a state other than the target state, the apparatus is configured to prioritize transition to the target state over the other state or states.
The examiner interprets this limitation as: (1) when two different requests are received, fulfill the request with the higher priority, (2) prioritizing the transition to the target state over other states.
In an analogous, Thomas teaches(1) when two different requests are received , fulfill the request with the higher priority ([0069] “..when two or more requests are pending for wireless communication modules with different priorities, the higher priority request is fulfilled before the lower priority request”).
Gangakhed teaches (2) prioritizing the transition to the target state over other states. (Gangakhed, Fig. 12 shows that when the Estimated Positioning Error is >ε , then the arrow move toward Target state. This means the priority for a Target State is higher when the Estimated Positioning Error is >ε; [0147] “State transitions from anchor to target and vice versa are suitably based on a threshold set by the network”).
Therefore, combining Thomas’ teaching of receiving two different requests and fulfill the request with the higher priority with Gangakhed’s teaching of prioritizing transition to the target state over the other state or states when the Estimated Positioning Error is >ε would result in the teaching of claim 29.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed's teaching of prioritizing Target state and Manolakos’ teaching of PRU mode to include Thomas’ teaching of receiving two different requests and fulfill the request with the higher priority in order for the system to be able to use priority to handle a situation that has multiple different requests .
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) further in view of Thomas (US 20100216524) Akkarakaran (US 20210235303)
Regarding claim 30, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 28, except wherein, in the event that the first operating state is the target state and the one or more trigger events represent at least: a first request or requirement to transition to the anchor state, and a second request or requirement to transition to the PRU state, the apparatus is configured to prioritize transition to the anchor state over the PRU state.
The examiner interprets this limitation as (1) when two different requests are received, fulfill the request with the higher priority, and (2) prioritizing the transition to the anchor state over other states.
In an analogous, Thomas teaches (1) receiving two different requests and fulfill the request with the higher priority ([0069] “..when two or more requests are pending for wireless communication modules with different priorities, the higher priority request is fulfilled before the lower priority request”).
In another analogous art, Akkarakaran teaches (2) prioritizing transition to the anchor state (UE-based positioning) over the PRU (UE-assisted positioning) state
([0087] ”3GPP Rel. 16 introduced various NR positioning aspects directed to increase location accuracy of positioning schemes that involve measurement(s) associated with one or more UL or DL PRSs ... If latency reduction is a priority, then UE-based positioning (same as “anchor” state) techniques (e.g., DL-only techniques without UL location measurement reporting) are typically used. However, if latency is less of a concern, then UE-assisted positioning techniques can be used, whereby UE-measured data is reported to a network entity (e.g., location server 230, LMF 270, etc.). Latency associated UE-assisted positioning (same as “PRU” state) techniques can be reduced somewhat by implementing the LMF in the RAN” Thus, when latency reduction is a priority, then UE-based positioning (same as “anchor” state) has higher priority).
Therefore, Thomas’ teaching of (1) receiving two different requests and fulfill the request with the higher priority combined with Akkarakaran’s teaching of (2) prioritizing transition to the anchor state over the PRU state would result in the claim limitation of claim 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed's teaching of positioning and Manolakos’ teaching of PRU mode to include Thomas’ teaching of receiving two different requests and fulfill the request with the higher priority and Akkarakaran’s teaching prioritizing transition to the anchor state over the PRU state for the system to have the ability to use priority to handle a situation that has multiple different requests .
Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) further in view of Hwang (US 20050097378)
Regarding claim 31, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 28, Gangakhed teaches in the event that the first operating state is one of the target, anchor, and PRU states, the apparatus is configured to prioritize transition to anchor state (Fig. 12 shows a node can operate in a “anchor” or “target” state; [0047] ”one node may be able to operate both as an anchor and as a target, and to interchange between the two, the target node 204 and the anchor node 208 are likely to be the same in most implementations… FIG. 2 shows the nodes as being different simply because it concentrates on the functional blocks that a remote node will use when operating in accordance with a particular positioning state”) [0147] “The positioning states “anchor” and “target” are preferably independent of conventional cellular user equipment states .. State transitions from anchor to target and vice versa are suitably based on a threshold set by the network”);
However, Gangakhed does not teach “in the absence of one or more trigger events representing a request or requirement to transition to a different one of said states, the apparatus is configured to prioritize transition to standby state”.
In an analogous art, Hwang teaches in the absence of one or more trigger events representing a request or requirement to transition to a different one of said states, the apparatus is configured to prioritize transition to standby state
([0081] The low power standby state may refer to a low exit latency that is intended to reduce power when a chip may be aware of a lack of outstanding requests for pending transactions. The low power standby state may be utilized in low power applications, for example, mobile platforms in order to optimize battery life“).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed's teaching of positioning and Manolakos’ teaching of PRU mode to include Hwang's teaching of prioritizing transition to standby state in the absence of trigger request in order to reduce power and thus optimize battery life.
Regarding claim 32, Gangakhed, Manolakos and Hwang teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the apparatus is configured, in the standby state, to advertise (broadcast) to the one or more other remote nodes its availability to transition to one of the other operating states (Gangakhed [0102] FIG. 8 shows an example of a scenario in which a target node A is surrounded by four anchor nodes B-E. All communication between the nodes occurs on the D2D links d1-4 without active network involvement. The network might play a role by indirectly influencing node behaviour (both for the anchor nodes and the target node). An example of such network influence is the pre-configuration of particular anchor nodes to proactively broadcast beacons indicating their availability to support cooperative positioning).
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) further in view of Edge (WO-2014194300)
Regarding claim 34, Gangakhed and Manolakos teach the apparatus of claim 33, except for configured to: determine the service period Y substantially at the end of a positioning session in which the apparatus operated in the target state and its position has been determined.
In an analogous art, Edge teaches determine the service period Y(time interval) substantially at the end of a positioning session ([00122] “the method 900 may include sending an analytics report. For example, the location service requested at stage 902 may be an analytics report and the request may (i) indicate sending of the analytics report at a fixed periodic reporting interval“ [0172]“Events I through L may comprise a repetition of events E through H, respectively, in which the position of the MS is obtained following some periodic time interval...periodic positioning may be repeated until the end of an asset tracking session has been reached”; Determining a Periodic time interval meets the limitation of determination of the service period Y)
in which the apparatus operated in the target state and its position has been determined ([0082] In another particular implementation as shown in FIG. 6 in which the LS and LCS Client may have similar correspondence to FIGS. 1 A and 2 as described for FIG. 4, an MLP service may be used by an LCS client to track the position of one or more target mobile devices. Here, tracking may be based on time (e.g., periodic location reporting), [00169] “…in FIG. 10. At event D, the LS may instigate a positioning session with a location engine on the MS (e.g. using the SUPL location solution) at the end of which the LS may obtain an estimated location or position of the MS. At event E, the LS may transmit the estimated location to the LBS AS in a Location Report”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gangakhed's teaching of positioning and Manolakos’ teaching of PRU mode to include Edge's teaching of determining a service period for receiving a position to necessarily configure the system when to perform the positioning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 33, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 26 and any intervening claims 33.
Regarding claim 35, Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) fail to disclose alone or in combination the limitations that read, “determine a first counter C indicative of a number of transitions to any of the anchor and PRU states within a time window X of the service period Y, and transition to a selected anchor state or a selected PRU state if the value of the first counter C does not exceed a maximum value Cmax”, in combination with all the limitations of claim 26 and all the limitations of intervening claim 33.
Regarding claim 36, Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) fail to disclose alone or in combination the limitations that read, “determine a second counter Da indicative of a time period in which the apparatus has operated in the anchor state in the service period Y, and transition to a selected anchor state if the value of the second counter Da does not exceed a maximum value Damax”, in combination with all the limitations of claim 26 and all the limitations of intervening claim 33.
Regarding claim 37, Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) fail to disclose alone or in combination the limitations that read, “determine a third counter Dp indicative of a time period in which the apparatus has operated in the PRU state in the service period Y, and wherein, the transitioning means is configured to transition to a selected PRU state if the value of the third counter Dp does not exceed a maximum value Dpmax”, in combination with all the limitations of claim 26 and all the limitations of intervening claim 33.
Regarding claim 38, Gangakhed (US 20190239181) in view of Manolakos (WO-2023019041) fail to disclose alone or in combination the limitations that read, “determine a fourth counter Dap indicative of a total time period in which the apparatus has operated in any of the anchor and PRU states within a time window Z of the service period Y, and transition from the anchor state or the PRU state to the standby state if the value of the fourth counter Dap exceeds a maximum value Dapmax”, in combination with all the limitations of claim 26 and all the limitations of intervening claim 33.
Claim 39 is allowable due to its dependency of claim 38.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG L LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 9-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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 L LAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights