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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 24 August 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are amended.
Claim 8 is canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 7 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 August 2026, with respect to rejection of Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 August 2026 regarding the rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Applicant states the following (refer to page 15 of the response):
“Nowhere in the cited paragraphs, nor elsewhere in the paragraphs relied upon, does Roy disclose that these three actions are performed as a single, integrated determination process in which one piece of information (e.g., a capability attribute of a node) serves as an input that causally determines the outcome of another action (e.g., the selection of a sensing node). The Office's characterization of these three parallel actions as collectively disclosing a unified "determining according to information" step, as recited in amended claim 1, is not supported by the plain language of Roy.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the claim language. Specifically, Claims 1 and 14 do not recite any language amounting “a capability attribute of a node” or “selection of a sensing node” as stated by Applicant. Rather, the claims recite “capability configuration information of each sensing node” but do not any structure, format, or content contained therein. Further, the claim do not contain a step of “selecting” a sensing node. Rather, the sensing node is “determined”, which does not involve any further step of selecting. Regarding Applicant’s statement that the claims contain “a unified “determining according to information” step, the claim language provides no further detail as to any number of acts that would be part of the claimed “determining”. As such, given its broadest reasonable interpretation as presently drafted, the office submits that Roy’s disclosure at paragraphs 0400-0402, where the gNB may identify (i.e., determine) the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing, may specify a range resolution, and may include WTRU-requested grouping in order to obtain measurement results from other WTRUs, reasonably reads on the “determining” step absent further detail in the claim language.
Applicant further states the following (refer to pages 15-16 of the response):
“Amended claim 1 recites that the first sensing node is determined "according to the first sensing requirement information and capability configuration information of each sensing node." As is clear from the specification (e.g., paragraph describing "Manner 1" for determining the first sensing node), the "capability configuration information" is information that is inherent to and reported by the sensing node itself (e.g., pre-stored or reported capability attributes of each sensing node), and this information flows in the direction of "node's own capability attribute network-side entity making a selection determination based thereon." That is, the capability information originates from the node and is used by the network element as an input for a selection decision.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Applicant’s statement that “capability configuration information” is information that is inherent to and reported by the sensing node itself) is not consistent with how this concept is described in Applicant’s specification, as originally filed. Paragraph 0126, which describes the referenced “Manner 1”, states the following:
“Capability configuration information of each sensing node may be pre-stored in the network side device. For example, each sensing function network element may pre-store the capability configuration information of each sensing node scheduled by the sensing function network element.”
As can be seen from the cited passage, the specification does not describe any feature of capability configuration information as being inherent to the sensing node. Rather, this portion of the specification describes an example scenario where this information may be pre-stored, but does not establish a special definition so as to limit the Office’s interpretation. As such, given its broadest reasonable interpretation as presently drafted, the Office submits that Roy’s disclosure at paragraphs 0400-0402, where the gNB may identify (i.e., determine) the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing, may specify a range resolution, and may include WTRU-requested grouping in order to obtain measurement results from other WTRUs, reasonably reads on the “capability configuration information” absent further detail in the claim language. Further, the content of the “capability configuration information” is not further limited as to what particular capabilities are contained therein. Accordingly, Applicant’s position that the range resolution and WTRU location (i.e., being within the region of interest) are “structurally reversed relative to the claimed “capability configuration information” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language as currently drafted. Applicant further states that the “range resolution” specified by the gNB is not “(a) an attribute inherent to, or characteristic of, the capability of any individual WTRU (as opposed to a task parameter imposed by the network); or (b) used by the gNB as a criterion or basis for selecting or determining which WTRU(s) should perform the sensing measurement.” However, for the reasons established above, the claimed capability configuration information is not claimed as being “inherent to the capability of any individual WTRU”. Further, while the claim establishes certain parameters that are a basis for the determination of sensing nodes, the details specific to the determination (i.e., what particular steps are undertaken in order to perform said determination) are not claimed. For these reasons, the rejection of Claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant states the following (refer to page 18 of the response):
“The Office equates "a request from a higher layer application" with "capability configuration information" of the WTRU. However, a request originating from a higher layer application is, by its nature, an externally received instruction or requirement, which is conceptually and functionally distinct from "capability configuration information," which, as described in the specification, refers to attributes inherent to the sensing node itself (e.g., its processing capability, supported signal configurations, or hardware characteristics). An externally received request is not, and cannot reasonably be characterized as, the node's own capability. The Office's characterization of "a request from a higher layer application" as being synonymous with "capability configuration of the first sensing node" is not supported by Roy and reflects an unsupported equivalence between two distinct technical concepts.”
However, as noted with regards to Claims 1 and 14, the claim language is silent with regards to specific features of the “capability configuration information”. The position that the information comprises “attributes inherent to the sensing node itself” is not supported by the claim language or by paragraph 0126 of the specification, as established above.
Applicant further states (refer to pages 18-19 of the response):
“As set forth in the specification, "the type of the target sensing collaboration" is a defined technical concept referring specifically to one of three enumerated collaboration architectures: (i) collaboration between sensing nodes of different sensing types coordinated by the same sensing function network element; (ii) collaboration between sensing nodes of the same sensing type coordinated by the same sensing function network element; or (iii) collaboration performed by different sensing function network elements. This limitation concerns the selection among distinct collaboration topologies/architectures.”
The Office notes that Applicant has not provided evidence that sets forth the “defined technical concept” above. Turning to the disclosure as originally filed, paragraphs 0110-0113 set forth three types of target sensing collaboration, but indicates that these are optional. As such, Applicant’s specification does not establish a “defined technical concept” as stated above.
Lastly, Applicant states (refer to page 19 of the response):
“The Office further maps the "sending" and "receiving" of "the type of the target sensing collaboration" to, respectively, the WTRU sending a JCS resource request (step 506) and receiving a JCS resource activation with sensing parameters (step 508). However, nothing in the cited passages of Roy indicates that either the JCS resource request or the JCS resource activation conveys information indicative of a collaboration architecture type as defined above. Rather, these messages, at most, relate to the allocation and configuration of sensing resources/parameters, which is a distinct technical concept from the claimed "type of target sensing collaboration." The Office's mapping again conflates two technically distinct concepts without any supporting textual basis in Roy.”
The Office first notes that, similar to the issue above, the claim language does not provide further detail that would limit interpretation of the claimed “type of target sensing collaboration”. Therefore, the parameters disclosed in Roy read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language “type of target sensing collaboration” absent further detail in the claim language.
For these reasons, the rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 June 2026 and 16 July 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0086144), hereinafter Roy.
Regarding Claim 14, Roy discloses a wireless sensing collaboration apparatus (Figure 1A – base stations 114a or 114b), used in a first sensing function network element (Figure 8 – the BS facilitates a sensing operation), the apparatus comprising:
a processor (paragraph 0474 – the methods disclosed are executed by a processor),
a memory (paragraph 0474 – the methods disclosed are implemented by software/firmware on computer-readable medium such as memory), and
a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the processor (paragraph 0474 – the methods disclosed are implemented by software/firmware on computer-readable medium such as memory executed by a processor) to perform:
obtaining first sensing requirement information (paragraphs 0396-0397 and Figure 8 – the BS receives a group JCS measurement report from a WTRU that can indicate a minimum report periodicity and position of the WTRU, and may receive a zone configuration);
determining a first sensing node and a second sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information, and obtaining respective sensing requirement information of the first sensing node and the second sensing node (paragraphs 0396 and 0400 – the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing); and
obtaining a target sensing result, wherein the target sensing result is determined according to results of target collaborative sensing performed by the first sensing node and the second sensing node respectively according to respective sensing requirement information (paragraph 0399 – a group measurement report can be provided by the BS to the WTRU via PDSCH transmission),
wherein the determining the first sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information comprises: determining the first sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information and capability configuration information of each sensing node (paragraphs 0400-0402 – the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing, may specify a range resolution, and may include WTRU-requested grouping in order to obtain measurement results from other WTRUs).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the same steps performed by the wireless sensing collaboration apparatus of Claim 14. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 2, Roy discloses wherein the determining, by the first sensing function network element, the first sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information comprises: determining, by the first sensing function network element, the first sensing node and a type of a target sensing collaboration according to the first sensing requirement information, and sending the first sensing requirement information to the first sensing node (paragraphs 0312-0313 – the BS sends a group sensing configuration to the WTRU); or determining, by the first sensing function network element, the first sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information, sending the first sensing requirement information to the first sensing node, and receiving the type of the target sensing collaboration from the first sensing node (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 3, Roy discloses wherein the determining, by the first sensing function network element, the second sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information comprises: determining, by the first sensing function network element, second sensing requirement information and the second sensing node according to the type of the target sensing collaboration and the first sensing requirement information, and sending the second sensing requirement information to the second sensing node (paragraphs 0312-0313 – the BS broadcasts a group sensing configuration (to multiple WTRUs); or receiving, by the first sensing function network element, the second sensing requirement information from the first sensing node, determining the second sensing node according to the second sensing requirement information and the type of the target sensing collaboration, and sending the second sensing requirement information to the second sensing node (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 4, Roy discloses wherein the obtaining, by the first sensing function network element, the target sensing result comprises: obtaining, by the first sensing function network element, a first measurement quantity and/or a first sensing result measured by the first sensing node by performing a first sensing process (paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements); obtaining, by the first sensing function network element, a second measurement quantity and/or a second sensing result measured by the second sensing node by performing a second sensing process, wherein the target collaborative sensing comprises the first sensing process and the second sensing process (paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements; paragraph 0402 – the WTRU supplements its own measurements in blind-spots for higher precision); and determining, by the first sensing function network element, the target sensing result corresponding to the first sensing requirement information according to the first measurement quantity and/or the first sensing result, and the second measurement quantity and/or the second sensing result (paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements; paragraph 0402 – the WTRU supplements its own measurements in blind-spots for higher precision; paragraph 0356 – the WTRU transmits a measurement report to the BS); or sending, by the first sensing function network element, the first measurement quantity and/or the first sensing result, and the second measurement quantity and/or the second sensing result to a core network element, and receiving the target sensing result corresponding to the first sensing requirement information from the core network element (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
or obtaining, by the first sensing function network element, the second measurement quantity and/or the second sensing result measured by the second sensing node by performing the second sensing process, and sending the second measurement quantity and/or the second sensing result to the first sensing node (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and receiving, by the first sensing function network element, the target sensing result corresponding to the first sensing requirement information from the first sensing node (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 5, Roy discloses wherein after the sending, by the first sensing function network element, the first sensing requirement information to the first sensing node, the method further comprises: determining, by the first sensing function network element, first sensing signal related configuration information according to the first sensing requirement information and the capability configuration information of the first sensing node, and sending the first sensing signal related configuration information to the first sensing node (paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements; paragraphs 0313-0314 – the BS can carry out group sensing configuration change, where a command is issued to switch the current active sensing configuration to a different configuration); or receiving, by the first sensing function network element, the first sensing signal related configuration information from the first sensing node, wherein the first sensing signal related configuration information is used for configuring a first signal for the first sensing node to perform the first sensing process (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 6, Roy discloses after the sending, by the first sensing function network element, the second sensing requirement information to the second sensing node, the method further comprises: determining, by the first sensing function network element, second sensing signal related configuration information according to the second sensing requirement information and the capability configuration information of the second sensing node, and sending the second sensing signal related configuration information to the second sensing node (paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements; paragraphs 0313-0314 – the BS can carry out group sensing configuration change, where a command is issued to switch the current active sensing configuration to a different configuration); or receiving, by the first sensing function network element, the second sensing signal related configuration information from the second sensing node, wherein the second sensing signal related configuration information is used for configuring a second signal for the second sensing node to perform the second sensing process (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 7, Roy discloses wherein the determining, by the first sensing function network element, a first sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information comprises: selecting, by the first sensing function network element, a third sensing node according to the first sensing requirement information, and sending the first sensing requirement information to the third sensing node (paragraphs 0396 and 0400 – the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing); and
receiving, by the first sensing function network element, first feedback information from the third sensing node (paragraph 0356 – the WTRU transmits a measurement report to the BS); and determining, by the first sensing function network element according to the first feedback information, the third sensing node that supports execution of the first sensing process to serve as the first sensing node for performing the sensing process (paragraphs 0313-0314 – the BS can carry out group sensing configuration change, where a command is issued to switch the current active sensing configuration to a different configuration).
Regarding Claim 9, Roy discloses wherein a type of the target sensing collaboration comprises any one of the following: the target collaborative sensing performed by sensing nodes of different sensing types coordinated by a same sensing function network element collaboratively (paragraph 0400 - the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing); the target collaborative sensing performed by sensing nodes of a same sensing type coordinated by a same sensing function network element collaboratively (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and the target collaborative sensing performed by different sensing function network elements collaboratively (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 10, Roy discloses wherein the second sensing node meets at least one of the following: having a sensing type the same as that of the first sensing node (paragraph 0400 - the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing), or having a sensing type different from that of the first sensing node (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); scheduled by the first sensing function network element (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), or scheduled by a second sensing function network element (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and the second sensing node is a reference station (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 11, Roy discloses the features of Claim 10, as set forth above. Claim 11 further limits a non-selected option from Claim 12 relating to a case that the second sensing node is scheduled by the second sensing function. Therefore, Roy anticipates Claim 11 as well.
Regarding Claim 12, Roy discloses the first sensing requirement information comprises at least one of the following: a sensing target (Figure 8 at 806 – the Group JCS measurement report configuration contains start time and periodicity), sensing target prior information (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), a sensing indicator (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation), and a sensing measurement quantity (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation);
wherein the sensing measurement quantity comprises at least one of the following: a first-level measurement quantity that is a measurement quantity to be measured by performing a sensing process (paragraph 0332 – backscatter measurements can be transmitted as part of the sensor sharing); a second-level measurement quantity that is a measurement quantity obtained by performing first preset processing on the first-level measurement quantity (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and a third-level measurement quantity that is a measurement quantity obtained by performing second preset processing on the first-level measurement quantity and/or the second-level measurement quantity (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 13, Roy discloses the features of Claim 12, as set forth above. Claim 13 further limits a non-selected option from Claim 12 relating to the second-level measurement quantity and third-level measurement quantity. Therefore, Roy anticipates Claim 13 as well.
Regarding Claim 15, Roy discloses wherein a type of the target sensing collaboration comprises any one of the following: the target collaborative sensing performed by sensing nodes of different sensing types coordinated by a same sensing function network element collaboratively (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); the target collaborative sensing performed by sensing nodes of a same sensing type coordinated by a same sensing function network element collaboratively (paragraph 0400 - the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing); and the target collaborative sensing performed by different sensing function network elements collaboratively (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 16, Roy discloses a wireless sensing collaboration apparatus (Figure 1B – WTRU 102), applied to a first sensing node, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (Figure 1B – processor 118),
a memory (Figure 1B – non-removable memory 130), and
a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the processor (refer to paragraphs 0036-0037) to perform:
obtaining first sensing requirement information (Figure 5 at steps 504-508 – the WTRU receives JCS resource request);
determining a type of a target sensing collaboration according to capability configuration information of the first sensing node and the first sensing requirement information (Figure 5 at steps 504-508 – the WTRU determines to perform sensing based on a request from a higher layer application (i.e., capability configuration), and sending the type of the target sensing collaboration (Figure 5 at 506 – the WTRU sends the JCS resource request); or receiving the type of the target sensing collaboration (Figure 5 at 508 – the WTRU receives the JCS resource activation with sensing parameters).
Regarding Claim 17, Roy discloses after the sending or receiving the type of the target sensing collaboration, the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform: performing a first sensing process to measure a first sensing measurement quantity (paragraph 0402 – the WTRU may perform its own measurements in blind-spots; paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements); obtaining a second sensing measurement quantity measured by a second sensing node (paragraph 0402 – the WTRU supplements its own measurements in blind-spots with measurement data from other WTRUs; paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements) or obtaining a second sensing result calculated by the second sensing node according to the second sensing measurement quantity; and calculating a target sensing result according to the first sensing measurement quantity and the second sensing measurement quantity or the second sensing result (paragraphs 0318-0327 – the network can coordinate distribution of group sensor measurements; paragraph 0402 – the WTRU supplements its own measurements in blind-spots for higher precision).
Regarding Claim 18, Roy discloses wherein after the sending or receiving the type of the target sensing collaboration, the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform: performing a first sensing process to measure a first sensing measurement quantity and/or a first sensing result (paragraphs 0351-0354 – the WTRU carries out measurement according to the received configuration), and sending the first sensing measurement quantity and/or the first sensing result to a first sensing function network element (paragraph 0356 – the WTRU transmits a measurement report to the BS).
Regarding Claim 19, Roy discloses wherein after the determining a type of a target sensing collaboration according to the capability configuration information of the first sensing node and the first sensing requirement information, the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform: determining first signal related configuration information of the first sensing node according to capability configuration information of the first sensing node and the first sensing requirement information (paragraphs 0351-0354 – the WTRU carries out measurement according to the received configuration); or determining first signal related configuration information of the first sensing node according to capability configuration information of the first sensing node and the first sensing requirement information, determining a recommended value of second signal related configuration information of a second sensing node, and sending the recommended value of the second signal related configuration information (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 20, Roy discloses wherein the type of the target sensing collaboration comprises any one of the following: the target collaborative sensing performed by sensing nodes of different sensing types coordinated by a same sensing function network element collaboratively (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); the target collaborative sensing performed by sensing nodes of a same sensing type coordinated by a same sensing function network element collaboratively (paragraph 0400 - the gNB may identify the group of neighboring WTRUs that fall within the region of interest of the requesting WTRU, e.g., for sensing data sharing); and the target collaborative sensing performed by different sensing function network elements collaboratively (Note: this is claimed in the alternative and is therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jeon et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230076874) discloses joint sensing and communication (paragraph 0212), where a UE and base station sensing beam report configurations (refer Figures 7 and 8).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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 W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights