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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen et al. US 20230058943 A1, hereinafter Koskinen in view of Kang US 20210136557 A1, hereinafter Kang, and further in view of Deenoo et al. US 20190174571 A1, hereinafter Deenoo.
Regarding claim 1, Koskinen teaches a method of wireless communication, the method comprising: (Koskinen: Summary, Fig. 2 and para. [0045 & 0152 & 0160] apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including a computer program code)
detecting an expiration of a first inactivity timer (expiry of the timer) for a first user equipment (UE); (Koskinen: para. [0134 & 0132-0133] The polling criteria may be expiry of a timer or if a timer has reached a threshold value. Polling criteria may include at least one of the UE's current time in RRC INACTIVE without data transmission, expiry of the timer, configured criteria met (for example time threshold) and the UE's expected data transfer pattern. Para. [0137-0138] criteria may be, e.g., at least one of expiry of the timer, if the timer has reached a threshold value and time threshold in the INACTIVE state without data transmission. When criteria is fulfilled the UE provides the INACTIVE behaviour information to the network)
the first UE supports a radio resource control (RRC) Inactive state;
(Koskinen: para. [0107] The UE RRC INACTIVE state may improve the latency when transitioning to RRC CONNECTED and/or support small data transmissions without the UE transitioning to RRC CONNECTED. Para. [0110 & 0108-0111] UEs within a cell prefer RRC INACTIVE, it would be of benefit to control this)
determining that the first UE has an ongoing packet session meeting selection criteria (criteria met (for example time threshold)) for the RRC Inactive state; and
(Koskinen: para. [0134] The polling criteria may be expiry of a timer or if a timer has reached a threshold value. Polling criteria may include at least one of the UE's current time in RRC INACTIVE without data transmission, expiry of the timer, configured criteria met (for example time threshold) and the UE's expected data transfer pattern. The data transfer pattern may include e.g., data rate, amount of data and/or next transmission occasion. When configuring the UE to transition to RRC INACTIVE, the network may configure the polling criteria at which the UE should reply to the network by providing an indication of information relating to the inactive state)
based on at least the first UE supporting the RRC Inactive state (Koskinen: para. [0107] The UE RRC INACTIVE state may improve the latency when transitioning to RRC CONNECTED and/or support small data transmissions without the UE transitioning to RRC CONNECTED. Para. [0110 & 0108-0111] UEs within a cell prefer RRC INACTIVE, it would be of benefit to control this) and the first UE having the ongoing packet session meeting the selection criteria for the RRC Inactive state (criteria met (for example time threshold)), and further based on at least the expiration of the first inactivity timer (expiry of the timer), instructing the first UE, by a first base station serving the first UE, to enter the RRC Inactive state.
(Koskinen: para. [0134] The polling criteria may be expiry of a timer or if a timer has reached a threshold value. Polling criteria may include at least one of the UE's current time in RRC INACTIVE without data transmission, expiry of the timer, configured criteria met (for example time threshold) and the UE's expected data transfer pattern. The data transfer pattern may include e.g., data rate, amount of data and/or next transmission occasion. When configuring the UE to transition to RRC INACTIVE, the network may configure the polling criteria at which the UE should reply to the network by providing an indication of information relating to the inactive state)
performing a cell reselection of the first UE from the first base station to a second base station. (Koskinen: para. [0107] cell reselection)
It is noted that Koskinen does not explicitly disclose: determining that the first UE supports a radio resource control (RRC) Inactive state; based on at least the first UE supporting the RRC Inactive state, to enter the RRC Inactive state.
However, Kang from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: determining that the first UE supports a radio resource control (RRC) Inactive state; based on at least the first UE supporting the RRC Inactive state, to enter the RRC Inactive state. (Kang: para. [0041-0045] detecting whether the UE supports the RRC-Inactive state. Para. [0043] UE carries UE capability information in the registration request, and the UE capability information carries the capability indication information configured to indicate whether the UE supports the RRC-Inactive state) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kang in the method Koskinen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for so as to avoid that triggering the access network to transmit a paging message to a UE in the RRC-Inactive state during a process of initiating data transmission or service transmission from the core network to the UE, which effectively reduces air interface signaling and unnecessary power consumption of the RRC-Inactive UE. (Kang: para. [0047]).
Koskinen and Kang do not explicitly teach: and based on at least the first UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station, instructing the first UE, by the second base station, to enter the RRC Inactive state.
Deenoo from the same or similar fields of endeavor teach:
instructing the first UE, by the second base station (Deenoo: para. [0324] WTRU may acquire system information from the configured target cell (and/or from a suitable cell selected in the target RAT), e.g., if not already provided in mobility-command), to enter the RRC Inactive state (Deenoo: [0319-0320 & 0322] WTRU in an RRC state associated to a first RAT (e.g., in a source cell) may receive a reconfiguration (correspond to claim limitation “instructing”) that may include specific parameters. The WTRU may determine from the parameters what RRC state (e.g., a target RRC state - correspond to claim limitation “RRC state/RRC inactive state”) to use in the second RAT (e.g., in a target cell). For example, the WTRU may perform autonomous mobility between two different RATs while in an INACTIVE state and/or a light connected state)
based on at least the first UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station, (Deenoo: [0331 & 0328-0332] perhaps if the source cell and target cell belong to the same RAN area, a WTRU may transition to INACTIVE state (e.g., if NR is target RAT). Para. [0333] Layer 2 configuration may include parameters that may be received by a WTRU and/or may be pre-defined for a WTRU. Parameters may stay constant (correspond to claim limitation “first UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station”) for the duration of a light connection (e.g. inactive state para. [0371]) unless changed by the network and/or internally by the WTRU (e.g., based on changes in state and/or link condition). Para. [0340] WTRU may maintain a layer 2 configuration, the (e.g., entire) layer 2 state and/or the state of lower sub-layers of layer 2, for example, while in light connected state (e.g. inactive state para. [0371]) and/or entering a different cell within the same RAN PA. Para. [0472 & 0005] and Fig. 3 WTRU may receive control signaling that indicates that the WTRU may (e.g., should) transition to, or remain in (correspond to claim limitation “UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station”), the INACTIVE state). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Deenoo in the method Koskinen and Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for a light connected state (and/or lightly connected state) may correspond to an INACTIVE state. A WTRU may engage in autonomous mobility during light connectivity and/or in an INACTIVE state. A WTRU may move within a logical area (e.g., a RAN paging area) without notifying the network, but may provide notice when it has moved outside a logical area (e.g., update RAN paging area). Mobility in light connected state may be network controlled (e.g., to enable handover when data transfer may be allowed and/or ongoing). A WTRU may be reachable during a light connectivity state. A WTRU may engage in autonomous mobility during light connectivity. A WTRU may perform data transfer without leaving light connected state. A WTRU may autonomously transition to a light connectivity state. A network may signal a WTRU to transition a light connectivity state. A transition from inactive to light connectivity may reduce signaling overhead and/or latency/delays that may otherwise occur before a WTRU may perform a first transmission in active mode. A WTRU may transition to connected mode with low latency and/or low overhead (Deenoo: para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the first base station has capacity to support the first UE in the RRC Inactive state, wherein instructing the first UE to enter the RRC Inactive state is further based on at least the first base station having capacity to support the first UE in the RRC Inactive state. (Koskinen: para. [0108] networks may not be able to support the number of devices potentially available to transition to RRC INACTIVE. Upon reaching the limit to the amount of INACTIVE UEs, the network must release some UEs, or directly transition UEs in RRC CONNECTED into RRC IDLE. It may also be challenging for the network to know how long an individual UE has been in INACTIVE and/or CONNECTED state without any need for the connection, i.e., without any DL/UL user data transmissions. The network includes one or more nodes as shown e.g., in FIGS. 1 and 3 which represent the memory of the network. When a node of the network reaches the limit to the amount of INACTIVE UEs, the node may also release some UEs as described for the network above. Para. [0108-0111])
Regarding claim 3, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach the method of claim 1, Koskinen and Kang does not explicitly teach: wherein the selection criteria for the RRC Inactive state comprises a set of quality of service (QoS) identifiers.
Deenoo from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the selection criteria for the RRC Inactive state comprises a set of quality of service (QoS) identifiers. (Deenoo: para. [0122] QoS information. Para. [0129 & 0333] Configuration aspect(s) may include a configuration for logical QoS association/abstraction (e.g., bearer, flow, QoS profile, slice, etc.). This type of configuration may be useful, for example, to determine a priority level associated with downlink data arrival and/or to a scheduling request received by the WTRU. Para. [0040 & 0357] data may have varying quality of service (QoS) requirements, such as differing throughput requirements, latency requirements, error tolerance requirements, reliability requirements, data throughput requirements, mobility requirements) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Deenoo in the method Koskinen and Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for a light connected state (and/or lightly connected state) may correspond to an INACTIVE state. A WTRU may engage in autonomous mobility during light connectivity and/or in an INACTIVE state. A WTRU may move within a logical area (e.g., a RAN paging area) without notifying the network, but may provide notice when it has moved outside a logical area (e.g., update RAN paging area). Mobility in light connected state may be network controlled (e.g., to enable handover when data transfer may be allowed and/or ongoing). A WTRU may be reachable during a light connectivity state. A WTRU may engage in autonomous mobility during light connectivity. A WTRU may perform data transfer without leaving light connected state. A WTRU may autonomously transition to a light connectivity state. A network may signal a WTRU to transition a light connectivity state. A transition from inactive to light connectivity may reduce signaling overhead and/or latency/delays that may otherwise occur before a WTRU may perform a first transmission in active mode. A WTRU may transition to connected mode with low latency and/or low overhead (Deenoo: para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach the method of claim 3, Koskinen does not explicitly teach: wherein the set of QoS identifiers comprises all QoS identifiers having a packet delay budget at or below a packet delay threshold, and/or all QoS identifiers having a predetermined value.
Deenoo from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the set of QoS identifiers comprises all QoS identifiers having a packet delay budget at or below a packet delay threshold (latency budget may be lower than a predefined threshold), and/or all QoS identifiers having a predetermined value. (Deenoo: para. [0122] QoS information. Para. [0129 & 0333] Configuration aspect(s) may include a configuration for logical QoS association/abstraction (e.g., bearer, flow, QoS profile, slice, etc.). This type of configuration may be useful, for example, to determine a priority level associated with downlink data arrival and/or to a scheduling request received by the WTRU. Para. [0040 & 0357] data may have varying quality of service (QoS) requirements, such as differing throughput requirements, latency requirements, error tolerance requirements, reliability requirements, data throughput requirements, mobility requirements. para. [0347 & 0246] A WTRU may determine how much layer 2 context to maintain, for example, based on Service/Slice/flow (e.g., based on latency, reliability, and/or interruption time requirements of the service, such as different handling of layer 2 contexts associated with URLLC, eMBB and/or mMTC. Para. [0258] data PDU and/or part of data PDU whose latency budget may be lower than a predefined threshold) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Deenoo in the method Koskinen and Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for a light connected state (and/or lightly connected state) may correspond to an INACTIVE state. A WTRU may engage in autonomous mobility during light connectivity and/or in an INACTIVE state. A WTRU may move within a logical area (e.g., a RAN paging area) without notifying the network, but may provide notice when it has moved outside a logical area (e.g., update RAN paging area). Mobility in light connected state may be network controlled (e.g., to enable handover when data transfer may be allowed and/or ongoing). A WTRU may be reachable during a light connectivity state. A WTRU may engage in autonomous mobility during light connectivity. A WTRU may perform data transfer without leaving light connected state. A WTRU may autonomously transition to a light connectivity state. A network may signal a WTRU to transition a light connectivity state. A transition from inactive to light connectivity may reduce signaling overhead and/or latency/delays that may otherwise occur before a WTRU may perform a first transmission in active mode. A WTRU may transition to connected mode with low latency and/or low overhead (Deenoo: para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting an expiration of a second inactivity timer (Koskinen: para. [0134 & 0132-0133] The polling criteria may be expiry of a timer or if a timer has reached a threshold value. Polling criteria may include at least one of the UE's current time in RRC INACTIVE without data transmission, expiry of the timer, configured criteria met (for example time threshold) and the UE's expected data transfer pattern. Para. [0137-0138] criteria may be, e.g., at least one of expiry of the timer, if the timer has reached a threshold value and time threshold in the INACTIVE state without data transmission. When criteria is fulfilled the UE provides the INACTIVE behaviour information to the network) for a second UE; (Koskinen: para. [0094] communication devices (e.g., user equipment (UE)) 102, 104, 105 of Fig. 1. Para. [0108] number of devices potentially available to transition to RRC INACTIVE)
the second UE supports the RRC Inactive state; (Koskinen: para. [0107] The UE RRC INACTIVE state may improve the latency when transitioning to RRC CONNECTED and/or support small data transmissions without the UE transitioning to RRC CONNECTED. Para. [0110 & 0108-0111] UEs within a cell prefer RRC INACTIVE, it would be of benefit to control this)
determining that the second UE does not have an ongoing packet session meeting selection criteria (time spent in RRC INACTIVE) for the RRC Inactive state; and
(Koskinen: para. [0112] network to make a controlled decision on which UEs should transition to RRC IDLE from RRC INACTIVE, or potentially from RRC CONNECTED, based on information from the UEs of the time spent in RRC INACTIVE)
based on at least the second UE not having an ongoing packet session meeting the selection criteria for the RRC Inactive state (Koskinen: para. [0112] network to make a controlled decision on which UEs should transition to RRC IDLE from RRC INACTIVE, or potentially from RRC CONNECTED, based on information from the UEs of the time spent in RRC INACTIVE), and further based on at least the expiration of the second inactivity timer, instructing the second UE, by the first base station, to enter an RRC Idle state. (Koskinen: para. [0112] network to make a controlled decision on which UEs should transition to RRC IDLE from RRC INACTIVE)
It is noted that Koskinen does not explicitly disclose: determining that the second UE supports the RRC Inactive state.
However, Kang from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: determining that the second UE supports the RRC Inactive state. (Kang: para. [0041-0045] detecting whether the UE supports the RRC-Inactive state. Para. [0043] UE carries UE capability information in the registration request, and the UE capability information carries the capability indication information configured to indicate whether the UE supports the RRC-Inactive state) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kang in the method Koskinen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for so as to avoid that triggering the access network to transmit a paging message to a UE in the RRC-Inactive state during a process of initiating data transmission or service transmission from the core network to the UE, which effectively reduces air interface signaling and unnecessary power consumption of the RRC-Inactive UE. (Kang: para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach the method of claim 1, wherein instructing the first UE to enter the RRC Inactive state comprises transmitting an RRC Release message with a suspendConfig instruction.
( - Specification of instant application paragraph [0038] teaches “RRC Release message 604 (with a suspendConfig instruction) to put UE 102 into RRC Inactive state 220” the technical term “suspendCondfig” thus is interpreted as information/instruction within RRC Release message that put UE into RRC Inactive state - Koskinen: para. [0122 & 0141-0142] The inactive state may be a RRC INACTIVE state. The indication to operate in the inactive state may be a RRC release message)
Regarding claims 8-12 and 14, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach a system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to: (Koskinen: Summary, Fig. 2 and para. [0045 & 0152 & 0160] apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including a computer program code) and Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7, and therefore device claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected using the same rationales.
Regarding claims 15-19, Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach One or more computer storage devices having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which, upon execution by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations (Koskinen: Summary, Fig. 2 and para. [0045 & 0152 & 0160] apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including a computer program code) and Koskinen, Kang and Deenoo teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5, and therefore device claims 15-19 are rejected using the same rationales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to applicant’s remark on claim 1 (pages 9-10), applicant submits:
Deenoo is directed to a WTRU that can autonomously transition between different connectivity states. Deenoo, para. [0004]. Deenoo describes that a WTRU (an alleged UE) may determine the RRC state of an applicable target cell, and autonomously transition to the determined RRC state. Deenoo, paras. [0328]-[0329]. Thus, Deenoo teaches that the WTRU itself autonomously determines the appropriate RRC state for a target cell. Deenoo does not teach or suggest a WTRU receiving an instruction from a base station of a target cell instructing the WTRU to enter an inactive RRC state based on the WTRU being in the inactive RRC state in a first cell. (page 9)
…
Further, Deenoo only teaches that the layer 2 configuration may include parameters that may be "received" by the WTRU. Deenoo, para. [0333]. Deenoo does not teach or suggest sending an instruction to a WTRU via a base station of a target cell. Further still, Deenoo does not teach or suggest instructing the WTRU to enter an Inactive RRC state in a target cell based on the WTRU being in an Inactive RRC state in an original cell. (page 10)
However, Deenoo in paragraph [0324] teaches WTRU may acquire system information from the configured target cell (and/or from a suitable cell selected in the target RAT - which corresponds to claim limitation “instructing by the second base station”), e.g., if not already provided in mobility-command. In addition, Deenoo in para. Deenoo: [0319-0320 & 0322] teaches WTRU in an RRC state associated to a first RAT (e.g., in a source cell) may receive a reconfiguration (correspond to claim limitation “instructing”) that may include specific parameters. The WTRU may determine from the parameters what RRC state (e.g., a target RRC state - correspond to claim limitation “RRC state/RRC inactive state”) to use in the second RAT (e.g., in a target cell). For example, the WTRU may perform autonomous mobility between two different RATs while in an INACTIVE state and/or a light connected state. In these cited paragraphs, Deenoo the claim limitation “instructing the first UE, by the second base station, to enter the RRC Inactive state”.
Deenoo in paragraphs [0331 & 0328-0332] teaches if the source cell and target cell belong to the same RAN area, a WTRU may transition to INACTIVE state (e.g., if NR is target RAT). Furthermore, Deenoo in paragraphs [0472 & 0005] and Fig. 3 teaches WTRU may receive control signaling that indicates that the WTRU may (e.g., should) transition to, or remain in (correspond to claim limitation “UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station”), the INACTIVE state.
Deenoo in paragraph [0333] teaches Layer 2 configuration may include parameters that may be received by a WTRU and/or may be pre-defined for a WTRU. Parameters may stay constant (correspond to claim limitation “first UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station”) for the duration of a light connection (e.g. inactive state para. [0371]) unless changed by the network and/or internally by the WTRU (e.g., based on changes in state and/or link condition). Deenoo further in paragraph [0340] teaches that WTRU may maintain a layer 2 configuration, the (e.g., entire) layer 2 state and/or the state of lower sub-layers of layer 2, for example, while in light connected state (e.g. inactive state Deenoo: para. [0371]) and/or entering a different cell within the same RAN PA. Therefore, Deenoo in these cited paragraphs discloses that WTRU would maintain its Inactive state in target cell based on previous Inactive state in source cell. Therefore, Deenoo in these cited paragraphs is reasonably correspond to “based on at least the first UE having been in the RRC Inactive state with the first base station”, and thus, the examiner maintains that the prior art explicitly discloses claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please also see PTO-892.
Pertinent to claim 1 - Wu et al. US 20230388919 A1 in para. [0123] the receiving the second information comprises receiving, from the second device, first control information to instruct the first device to maintain the inactive state, and switching from the first cell to the second cell comprises performing cell reselection from the first cell to the second cell while the first device remains in the inactive state.
Pertinent to claim 1 -Yan et al. US 20240031850 A1 [0068] at steps 630 and 640 the first modified data set may simulate the first cell and at least a second cell of the plurality of cells being placed in an inactive state. In addition, in such an example, the at least one instruction may be to place the first cell and the at least the second cell in inactive states in response to determining that the at least the second predicted throughput meets the threshold throughput.
Pertinent to claim 1 -JP 2020523895 A teaches after receiving the first instruction information, the first terminal device is shown in the first instruction information, based on the index of the first secondary cell is set to the active / inactive state, An active/inactive first secondary cell may be determined.
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 WUTCHUNG CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4064. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/WUTCHUNG CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights