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 .
Regarding claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20, Applicant argues that ‘…JIANG does not disclose the "receiv[ing] a configuration for one or more power states that each include one or more configurations for a scaling of a peak throughput"…’ Examiner disagrees. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In construing the meaning of claims terms, caution must be taken not to import limitations from the specification as “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted). The claim recites ‘…receive a configuration for one or more power states…’ The phrase ‘one or more’ could mean, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, one. Jiang discloses that the UE receives configuration of power efficiency modes. That is, ‘power efficiency mode’ is the power state. Within this power efficiency mode is multiple power efficiency modes. (e.g. one or more configurations). Each of these configurations are based upon a CSI and CQI report). Further, the UE has a throughput that the UE cans support based upon the CSI reported. In other words, there are multiple power efficient modes and each mode is tailored to a particular CSI which can affect the throughput that a UE can support for that power efficient mode configuration. (See Jiang, fig. 5, para. 77, 84, 85, 72, 90). That is, this is scaling. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Applicant is failing to considered what actually has been claimed and what the art actually teaches.
Further, Applicant claims that Examiner’s position on claim 7 is ‘…irreconcilable with the position that JIANG anticipates a “scaling of peak throughput” across power states…’ Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 and claim 7 are fundamentally different. Claim 7 recites two schemes. Jiang only discloses one scheme the ‘low power scheme’. However, this implies but does not explicitly state that there must be a regular power or high-power scheme too. The regular power and/or high-power scheme would likely scale higher than a low power scheme and provide greater throughput than a low power scheme. This would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity as required under KSR. That is, claim 1 does not mention any scheme at all. Therefore, Applicant’s comparison is misreading of the claims and Applicant has not considering each and every word of the claims as required during prosecution.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (2020/0092818).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Jiang fig. 1, 5; UE as a part of a wireless communication system)
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, the one or more processors, individually or collectively and based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, being configured to: (See Jiang fig. 8, para. 104; UE with a processor(s) executing an algorithm stored in memory(s))
receive a configuration for one or more power states that each include one or more configurations for a scaling of a peak throughput and one or more processing timelines; (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 77; Information indicating set of operational modes, 524, are received by the UE which have configurations of power efficiency modes (e.g. one or more power states) that include processing timelines (e.g. one or more processing timelines), maximum rank, maximum number of RB (e.g. a config for a scaling of peak throughput); para. 84, 72; throughput UE can support; see also para. 90)
receive an indication of a power state from among the one or more power states; and (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 74, UE receives config info/ dynamic DCI or WUR signal (indicating mode) (e.g. indication of a power state) which dynamically indicates that the UE may operate in a power efficient mode; see also para. 88)
receive and process a communication according to the peak throughput and the processing timeline of the indicated power state. (See Jiang fig. 5, 6, para. 89; operate in the indicated mode based upon the adjusted parameters)
Regarding claim 6, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more power states comprises one of more of:
a first scheme for the scaling of the peak throughput and a first scheme for a processing timeline of the one or more processing timelines;
a second scheme for the scaling of the peak throughput and the first scheme for the processing timeline;
the second scheme for the scaling of the peak throughput and the second scheme for the processing timeline; and (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 77; Information indicating set of operational modes, 524, are received by the UE which have configurations of power efficiency modes (e.g. one or more power states) that include processing timelines (e.g. one or more processing timelines), maximum rank, maximum number of RB (e.g. a config for a scaling of peak throughput); para. 84, 72; throughput UE can support; see also para. 90; each of the set of multiple scaling of peak throughput and processing timelines are the different schemes)
a modem off state.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to receive the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to receive the indication using a low power radio, and wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to wake up, by the UE, a main radio based at least in part on a scheme associated with the indication. (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 59; wake-up radio signal received on a low power radio which wakes up main radio)
Regarding claim 14, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein to receive the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to receive the indication in a low power wake up signal. (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 59; wake-up radio signal received on a low power radio which wakes up main radio)
Regarding claim 16, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration is a semi-static configuration, (See Jiang para. 64; semi-statically) and wherein to receive the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to receive a set of bits in a low power wake up signal. (See Jiang fig. 5; config info and WUR Signal; para. 65; signals have bits)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Golitschek (2014/0254452).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a RB size, and wherein to receive the communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to set one or more antennas or antenna panels of the UE based at least in part on the RB size. (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 77; Information indicating set of operational modes, 524, are received by the UE which have configurations of power efficiency modes that include processing timelines), maximum rank, maximum number of RB; para. 77, 82; adjusting antennas for the state (including rank used))
Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the RB size is a RF bandwidth size. However, Golitschek does disclose wherein the RB size is a RF bandwidth size. (See Golitschek para. 95-96; power saving bandwidth of 1.4MHz having 6RBs and cell bandwidth of 20MHz) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the RB size is a RF bandwidth size of Golitschek with the motivation being to extend battery life by reducing power usage when possible and further to explicitly identify the amount of bandwidth to the UE to prevent confusion and further to optimize limited resources by only assigning what is necessary and thusly having wireless and battery resources available for other devices and/or processes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Golitschek (2014/0254452) and further in view of Li (2019/0254060).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a target processing duration for processing a physical downlink shared channel message. However, Sakhnini does disclose wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a target processing duration for processing a physical downlink shared channel message. (See Sakhnini fig. 5; K0/K2 time for processing PDSCH) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a target processing duration for processing a physical downlink shared channel message of Sakhnini with the motivation being to allow the UE to decode signals and prepare buffers and further to prevent dropped data when the UE is not ready and further to allow time for RF front-end tuning.
Jiang in view of Sakhnini does not explicitly disclose setting a processing duration of processing timeline. However, Li does disclose setting a processing duration of processing timeline. (See Li para. 33; UE processing time for decoding DL data sent on PDSCH) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang in view of Sakhnini to include the teaching of setting a processing duration of processing timeline of Li with the motivation being to allow the UE to decode signals and further to prevent dropped packets and further to perform error checks and decoding on received data in order to retrieve original data.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Chen (2018/0287843) and further in view of Dalsgaard (2021/0037594).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a quantity of component carriers (CCs). However, Chen does disclose wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a quantity of component carriers (CCs). (See Chen para. 83; eNB may configure a quantity of CC for a UE) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a quantity of component carriers (CCs) of Chen with the motivation being to allow for efficient usage of limited wireless resources and further to reduce delay and further to increase throughput and further to meet UE capabilities and further to balance throughput with battery usage.
Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein to receive the communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to set one or more antennas or antenna panels of the UE based at least in part on the quantity of CCs. However, Dalsgaard does disclose wherein to receive the communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to set one or more antennas or antenna panels of the UE based at least in part on the quantity of CCs. (See Dalsgaard para. 103, 43; UE activates RF chains (e.g. including antennas) based upon CA including CC) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang in view of Chen to include the teaching of wherein to receive the communication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to set one or more antennas or antenna panels of the UE based at least in part on the quantity of CCs of Dalsgaard with the motivation being to allow for reception/transmission based upon what the network sends/receives and further to save battery by only activating what is needed and further to reduce latency and increase throughput when needed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Gonzalez (2025/0159606).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jiang does not explicitly wherein the one or more power states comprises a modem off state. However, Gonzalez does disclose wherein the one or more power states comprises a modem off state. (See Gonzalez para. 117) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the one or more power states comprises a modem off state of Gonzalez with the motivation being to save even more power and further to extend the battery life of the device and further allowing low power devices to operate longer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Jiang discloses that the low power mode has a certain throughput it can support. (See Jiang para. 82, 72) Jiang does not explicitly disclose that one scheme would have a higher throughput than another scheme. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of that one scheme would have a higher throughput than another scheme with the motivation being it is common sense (that is, Jiang discloses that there is a certain amount of throughput a UE can support in low power mode which implies that there is a different amount of throughput a UE can support in a non-low power mode) and further it is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to have different modes of operation; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. in the throughput could be lower, higher, or the same); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing throughput lower, higher, or the same and one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity would recognize that a low power mode would likely have less throughput)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Yi (2019/0223097).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second scheme for the scaling of the peak throughput comprises a parameter for a maximum radio frequency bandwidth. However, Yi does disclose wherein the second scheme for the scaling of the peak throughput comprises a parameter for a maximum radio frequency bandwidth. (See Yi para. 62; UE RF bandwidth is configured as maximum UE RF bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the second scheme for the scaling of the peak throughput comprises a parameter for a maximum radio frequency bandwidth of Yi with the motivation being to increase throughput and reduce delay and latency and further to save battery by only activating what is needed and further to reduce latency and increase throughput when needed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Chen (2018/0287843).
Regarding claim 10, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Jiang does not explicitly disclose a quantity of component carriers. However, Chen does disclose a quantity of component carriers. (See Chen para. 83; eNB may configure a quantity of CC for a UE) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of a quantity of component carriers of Chen with the motivation being to allow for efficient usage of limited wireless resources and further to reduce delay and further to increase throughput and further to meet UE capabilities and further to balance throughput with battery usage.
Jiang in view of Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein the second scheme has a greater number of CCs than a first scheme. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the second scheme has a greater number of CCs than a first scheme with the motivation being it is common sense (that is, Jiang discloses that there are multiple schemes; Chen says that a quantity of CCs could be configured for the UE; therefore, the quantity of CCs for the first scheme and the second scheme could be the same or different) and further it is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to have different modes of operation; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. in the CCs could be lower, higher, or the same); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing CCs lower, higher, or the same and one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity would recognize that a low power mode would likely have less CCs)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Olsen (2004/0255008).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Jiang discloses a low power mode. (See Jiang para. 77) Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the low power mode has less throughput. However, Olsen does disclose wherein the low power mode has less throughput. (See Olsen para. 9) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the low power mode has less throughput of Olsen with the motivation being it is common sense (if the low power mode had better throughput than the regular power mode then it would never make sense to leave the low power mode) and further to recognize the tradeoffs in power usage vs throughput and further to match the tradeoff of power usage to what the device actually needs in terms of throughput.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 6, Jiang discloses processing timelines for operational modes of the UE. (See Jiang para. 77) Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first scheme for the processing timeline provides a longer timeline or a slower clock rate than the second scheme for the processing timeline. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the first scheme for the processing timeline provides a longer timeline or a slower clock rate than the second scheme for the processing timeline with the motivation being it is common sense (that is, Jiang discloses that there are multiple processing timelines for multiple operational modes; therefore, the processing timelines could be the same or different) and further it is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to have different modes of operation; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. in the processing timeline between the first and second modes could be lower, higher, or the same); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing processing timelines that are lower, higher, or the same.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Lei (2022/0022147).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Jiang discloses different power states. (See Jiang para. 77) Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE is a RedCAP UE. However, Lei does disclose wherein the UE is a RedCAP UE. (See Lei para. 41, 100) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the UE is a RedCAP UE of Lei with the motivation being to provide lower manufacturing costs, longer battery life and reduced device complexity compared to standard 5G devices and further for compact form factor.
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)(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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (2020/0092818).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: (See Jiang fig. 1, 5; base station as a part of a wireless communication system)
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, the one or more processors, individually or collectively and based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, being configured to: (See Jiang fig. 11, para. 128-129; base station with a processor(s) executing an algorithm stored in memory(s))
transmit a configuration for one or more power states that each include one or more configurations for a scaling of a peak throughput and one or more processing timelines; and (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 77; Information indicating set of operational modes, 524, are sent by the base station which have configurations of power efficiency modes (e.g. one or more power states) that include processing timelines (e.g. one or more processing timelines), maximum rank, maximum number of RB (e.g. a config for a scaling of peak throughput); para. 84, 72; throughput UE can support; see also para. 90)
transmit an indication of a power state from among the one or more power states. (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 74, UE receives (base station transmits) config info/ dynamic DCI or WUR signal (indicating mode) (e.g. indication of a power state) which dynamically indicates that the UE may operate in a power efficient mode; see also para. 88)
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (2020/0092818) and further in view of Golitschek (2014/0254452).
Regarding claim 18, Jiang discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein a parameter of the one or more configurations comprises a RB size (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 77; Information indicating set of operational modes, 524, are received by the UE which have configurations of power efficiency modes that include processing timelines), maximum rank, maximum number of RB; para. 77, 82; adjusting antennas for the state (including rank used))
Jiang does not explicitly disclose wherein the RB size is a RF bandwidth size. However, Golitschek does disclose wherein the RB size is a RF bandwidth size. (See Golitschek para. 95-96; power saving bandwidth of 1.4MHz having 6RBs and cell bandwidth of 20MHz) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jiang to include the teaching of wherein the RB size is a RF bandwidth size of Golitschek with the motivation being to extend battery life by reducing power usage when possible and further to explicitly identify the amount of bandwidth to the UE to prevent confusion and further to optimize limited resources by only assigning what is necessary and thusly having wireless and battery resources available for other devices and/or processes.
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)(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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (2020/0092818).
Regarding claim 20, Jiang discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Jiang fig. 1, 5; UE as a part of a wireless communication system)
receiving, by the UE, a configuration for one or more power states that each include one or more configurations for a scaling of a peak throughput and one or more processing timelines; (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 77; Information indicating set of operational modes, 524, are received by the UE which have configurations of power efficiency modes (e.g. one or more power states) that include processing timelines (e.g. one or more processing timelines), maximum rank, maximum number of RB (e.g. a config for a scaling of peak throughput); para. 84, 72; throughput UE can support; see also para. 90)
receiving, by the UE, an indication of a power state from among the one or more power states; and (See Jiang fig. 5, para. 74, UE receives config info/ dynamic DCI or WUR signal (indicating mode) (e.g. indication of a power state) which dynamically indicates that the UE may operate in a power efficient mode; see also para. 88)
receiving and processing, by the UE, a communication according to the peak throughput and the processing timeline of the indicated power state. (See Jiang fig. 5, 6, para. 89; operate in the indicated mode based upon the adjusted parameters)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights