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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, and 16-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 and 16 comprises a plurality of optional features, indicated by the plurality of ‘or’ statements, which may or may not be present in the claim, making the claim indefinite because the scope the of the claim is not clearly defined.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 16, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
Claim 15, recites, in part:
sending, by the secondary terminal, a first request to the primary terminal, the first request comprising a size of the uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device for the secondary terminal; and receiving, by the secondary terminal, first data from the primary terminal, packetizing the first data, and sending the data packet obtained by the packetization, wherein the first data is data buffered by the primary terminal and conforms to the size of the uplink grant resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 10-11, 16, 18, and 19-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0029353 A1) in view of Aminaka et al. (US 2018/0049259 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Xu discloses:
a terminal (fig.2 element 20), comprising a processor (fig.2 element 2012) and a memory (fig.2 element 2013), the memory storing a computer program or instruction runnable in the processor (fig.2 element 2013 Application Program), and the program or instruction, when executed by the processor, implementing steps of:
an information reporting method (par.[0187] describes the relay-UE transmitting a BSR), comprising:
receiving, by a primary terminal (par.[0187] describes a relay-UE), configuration information from a network side device (par.[0187] describes the relay trigger Scheduling Request, which causes the network to send an uplink grant), wherein the primary terminal is capable of co-transmitting data with a secondary terminal (the office notes that terminals are capable of co-transmission with a plurality of other terminals to the network, or between each other on the sidelink, fig.1); and
sending, by the primary terminal, a buffer status report (BSR) to the network side device according to the configuration information (par.[0187] describes the reception of the UL grant, and par.[0186] describes the transmission of the BSR based on the UL grant).
While the disclosure of Xu substantially disclose the claimed subject matter, they do not disclose:
the configuration information is used for indicating at least one of the following:
the network side device configuring a split bearer for the primary terminal;
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal;
the PDCP entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal, the PDCP entity being associated with at least two RLC entities, and the RLC entities being located at different primary terminals or secondary terminals; or
standardized interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Aminaka teaches:
the configuration information is used for indicating at least one of the following:
the network side device configuring a split bearer for the primary terminal;
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal;
the PDCP entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal, the PDCP entity being associated with at least two RLC entities, and the RLC entities being located at different primary terminals or secondary terminals; or
standardized interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal (par.[0061] describes the reception of a Sidelink configuration at the relay-UE, which allows for the relay to transmit and receive data between the relay and remote-UE over a PCS/PC5 interface. The PC5 interface being a standardized interface between the relay-UE and the remote UE. Additionally, the relay may transmit a BSR for the remote-UE, par.[0069 – 0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu with the disclosure of Aminaka. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for the relay to request transmission resources for a remote UE.
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration information is used for indicating at least one of the following:
non-standardized interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal;
non-ideal interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal;
ideal interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal; or
a BSR reporting manner adopted by the primary terminal (as discussed above, the disclosure of Xu teaches a BSR reporting manner, and may disclose the other above features as well).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Xu discloses:
a terminal (fig.2 element 20 or 30), comprising a processor (fig.2 element 2012 or 3012) and a memory (fig.2 elements 2015 or 3015), the memory storing a computer program or instruction runnable in the processor (fig.2 element 2015 or 3015 Application Program), and the program or instruction, when executed by the processor, implementing steps of:
an information reporting method (par.[0187] describes the relay-UE transmitting a BSR for a remote UE), comprising:
receiving, by a secondary terminal (fig.7 element 203, par.[0258] describes reception of SL grant for the purpose of sending SL to a relay, wherein the Relay receives and forwards information to and from the remote UE), configuration information from a network side device (fig.7 depicts the remote/relay UE receiving from the base station a configuration as discussed above, in element 203), wherein the secondary terminal is capable of co-transmitting data with a primary terminal (the office notes that terminals are capable of co-transmission with a plurality of other terminals to the network, or between each other on the sidelink, fig.1); and
sending, by the secondary terminal, a buffer status report (BSR) to the network side device according to the configuration information (par.[0187] describes the reception of the UL grant, and par.[0186] describes the transmission of the BSR based on the UL grant. And fig.7 the remote UE forwards the BSR to the network via the relay based on the grant received in element 203).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Xu discloses:
a network side device, comprising a processor and a memory (fig.2 the base station) the memory storing a program configured to:
perform a configuration method (fig.7 depicts a configuration method), comprising:
sending, by a network side device (fig.7 depicts a network side device, Base Station), configuration information to a primary terminal and/or a secondary terminal (fig.7 element 203 wherein the Relay UE receives the SL Grant and forwards the SL Grant to the remote UE);
wherein the primary terminal is capable of co-transmitting data with the secondary terminal (fig.1 depicts the primary terminal and secondary terminal performing co-transmission between one another, and the network).
While the disclosure of Xu substantially disclose the claimed subject matter, they do not disclose:
the configuration information is used for indicating at least one of the following:
the network side device configuring a split bearer for the primary terminal;
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal;
the PDCP entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal, the PDCP entity being associated with at least two RLC entities, and the RLC entities being located at different primary terminals or secondary terminals; or
standardized interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Aminaka teaches:
the configuration information is used for indicating at least one of the following:
the network side device configuring a split bearer for the primary terminal;
a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal;
the PDCP entity of the split bearer configured by the network side device being located at the primary terminal, the PDCP entity being associated with at least two RLC entities, and the RLC entities being located at different primary terminals or secondary terminals; or
standardized interfaces being adopted between the primary terminal and the secondary terminal (par.[0061] describes the reception of a Sidelink configuration at the relay-UE, which allows for the relay to transmit and receive data between the relay and remote-UE over a PCS/PC5 interface. The PC5 interface being a standardized interface between the relay-UE and the remote UE. Additionally, the relay may transmit a BSR for the remote-UE, par.[0069 – 0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu with the disclosure of Aminaka. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for the relay to request transmission resources for a remote UE.
Claim(s) 2 and 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Aminaka as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0092118 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the disclosure of Xu and Aminaka teaches the transmission of a Buffer Status Report, by a UE, but may not disclose:
wherein a buffered data volume in the BSR comprises at least one of:
a data volume of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of an aggregation bearer; or
a data volume of a radio link control (RLC) entity located at the primary terminal corresponding to the PDCP entity of the aggregation bearer; and
wherein the aggregation bearer is a split bearer whose PDCP anchor is at the primary terminal.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Kim teaches:
wherein a buffered data volume in the BSR comprises at least one of:
a data volume of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) entity of an aggregation bearer (par.[0138] which recites, in part, “If the threshold is allocated to the corresponding split bearer or the corresponding PDCP, the terminal reports the buffer status of the corresponding split bearer through the cell group instructed by the ul-DataSplitDRB-ViaSCG when the uplink data amount is equal to or less than the threshold and reports the buffer status of the corresponding split bearer using both cell groups including another cell group and transmits the data of the corresponding split bearer when the uplink data amount exceeds the threshold.”, That is when the aggregate data volume threshold is met, the UE would send or attempt to send a BSR, fig.6); or
a data volume of a radio link control (RLC) entity located at the primary terminal corresponding to the PDCP entity of the aggregation bearer; and
wherein the aggregation bearer is a split bearer whose PDCP anchor is at the primary terminal (fig.4 depicts a terminal which could be a primary terminal, wherein the aggregate split bearer would be located and discussed in the paragraph above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures Xu for transmitting a BSR. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow the network to send an UL grant sufficient for the aggregated bearer by taking into account the data buffered on the legs of the Dual Connectivity.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-9, 12, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2023/0276476 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure of Xu teaches the transmission of a BSR by either a first or second terminal, but does may not disclose:
wherein the buffered data volume in the BSR comprises:
a first data volume;
wherein the first data volume is a data volume of an RLC entity located at the secondary terminal corresponding to the PDCP entity of the aggregation bearer.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Zhang teaches:
a first data volume (fig.15 element 1502);
wherein the first data volume is a data volume of an RLC entity located at the secondary terminal corresponding to the PDCP entity of the aggregation bearer (par.[0339] which recites, “This BSR MAC CE generated by the remote UE reflects buffer status at PC5-RLC layer and/or NR-PDCP layer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Xu with the disclosure of Zhang. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for the UE which is remote to the cell, to send buffered data.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses:
wherein the BSR is sent in a case that the primary terminal receives a BSR request of the secondary terminal, the BSR request comprising the first data volume (fig.15 element 1502 which describes a terminal, (i.e. the primary terminal) receiving from a first terminal (i.e. the secondary terminal), a BSR request which comprises the data volume of the first terminal).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses:
wherein the sending the buffer status report (BSR) to the network side device comprises:
the primary terminal sends the first data volume using a target logical channel group (LCG), or
sends the first data volume through a target medium access control control element (MAC CE) (par.[0016] describes the MAC entity determines amount of UL data available for a logical channel or logical channel group, thus, the UE sends on the logical channel group a BSR, wherein the BSR is processed by the MAC entity (i.e. MAC-CE) and sent to the base station). The office interprets the information received from the logical channel group to the MAC layer, as using the a target logical channel group as the MAC layer can identify the amount of UL Grant needed for a particular/target LCG based on the information sent form the LCG to the MAC entity, and wherein the MAC entity forms a MAC-CE with a BSR to send over the physical layer to the network, par.[0045 – 0060] and table therewith).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses:
acquiring, by the primary terminal, a size of uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device for the secondary terminal (fig.17 element 1702 – 1704); and
sending, by the primary terminal, first data buffered and conforming to the size of the uplink grant resources to the secondary terminal (fig.18 element 1802 – 1804).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses:
wherein the acquiring a size of uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device for the secondary terminal comprises:
the primary terminal monitors a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) of the secondary terminal to acquire the size of the uplink grant resources (fig.19 element 1904, wherein the relay receives an uplink transmission grant); or
the primary terminal receives a first request from the secondary terminal, the first request comprising the size of the uplink grant resources (fig.15 elements 1502 and 1504).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses:
a PDCP protocol data unit (PDU) ;
at least one of an initially transmitted RLC PDU, a retransmitted RLC PDU and
an RLC status PDU;
at least one of a MAC PDU, a MAC sub PDU and a MAC CE; or
a MAC transport block (TB) (par.[0073] describes data that is buffered and needs to be sent, wherein the PDCP layer has PDU, which are buffered, or PDU which have not been sent to a lower layer, which would be RLC SDU, that need to constructed into RLC PDU when transmitted to MAC layer, wherein the MAC layer would then concatenate a plurality of MAC PDUC into a TB for transmission over physical layer).
Regarding claim 12, the disclosures of Xu and Aminaka teaches the independent claims 1 and 11, but may not disclose:
wherein the first data volume is a data volume of an RLC entity located at the secondary terminal corresponding to a PDCP entity of an aggregation bearer; and
the aggregation bearer is a split bearer whose PDCP anchor is at the primary terminal.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Zhang teaches:
wherein the first data volume is a data volume of an RLC entity located at the secondary terminal corresponding to a PDCP entity of an aggregation bearer (par.[0045] and also par.[0026 - 0029] which describes how the RLC data volume of the remote-UE/Secondary-UE is calculated, and par.[0055]); and
the aggregation bearer is a split bearer whose PDCP anchor is at the primary terminal (fig.3 and par.[0014 – 0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu and Amnaka with the disclosure of Zhang. The motivation/suggestion would have been that to have a mechanism for transmitting remote-UE data when the data reaches a threshold level and when the remote-UE is remote to the base station.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to the independent claims in view of Inokuchi et al. (US 2020/0296738 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the disclosure of Xu teaches sending a BSR by a remote UE or a relay UE in order to obtain an uplink grant, but may not disclose:
acquiring, by the secondary terminal, uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device therefor; and packetizing, by the secondary terminal, buffered data of the secondary terminal according to a size of the uplink grant resources, and sending the data packet obtained by the packetization; or,
wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the secondary terminal, a BSR request to the primary terminal, the BSR request comprising a first data volume and being used for reporting the first data volume by the primary terminal; wherein the first data volume is a data volume of an RLC entity located at the secondary terminal corresponding to a PDCP entity of an aggregation bearer; and
the aggregation bearer is a split bearer whose PDCP anchor is at the primary terminal.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Inokuchi teaches:
acquiring, by the secondary terminal, uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device therefor; and packetizing, by the secondary terminal, buffered data of the secondary terminal according to a size of the uplink grant resources, and sending the data packet obtained by the packetization (par.[0053] describes the Remote UE based on the Sidelink BSR transmits a sidelink grant so that the remote_UE may packetize and forward data indicated by the BSR to the relay_UE for forwarding data on the uplink).
wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the secondary terminal, a BSR request to the primary terminal, the BSR request comprising a first data volume and being used for reporting the first data volume by the primary terminal; wherein the first data volume is a data volume of an RLC entity located at the secondary terminal corresponding to a PDCP entity of an aggregation bearer; and
the aggregation bearer is a split bearer whose PDCP anchor is at the primary terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu, with the disclosure of Inokuchi. The motivation/suggestion would have been that an appropriate radio resource needs to be allocated to the remote UE in order for the remote UE to be able to transmit the buffered data.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to the independent claims in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0199251 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure of Xu teaches the independent claims, but may not disclose:
sending, by the secondary terminal, second data through an RLC entity thereof; wherein the second data comprises at least one of: an RLC service data unit (SDU) segment incapable of being completely accommodated during one sending process of the RLC entity; an RLC status PDU triggered according to an RLC AM protocol in a case that the RLC entity of the secondary terminal is in an AM; or an RLC retransmitted PDU triggered according to the RLC AM protocol in a case that the RLC entity of the secondary terminal is in the AM.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Kim teaches:
sending, by the secondary terminal, second data through an RLC entity thereof; wherein the second data comprises at least one of: an RLC service data unit (SDU) segment incapable of being completely accommodated during one sending process of the RLC entity; an RLC status PDU triggered according to an RLC AM protocol in a case that the RLC entity of the secondary terminal is in an AM; or an RLC retransmitted PDU triggered according to the RLC AM protocol in a case that the RLC entity of the secondary terminal is in the AM (par.[0231] which recites, in part, “The transmitting side RLC layer apparatus retransmits the RLC PDU 8 reporting that the receiving side RLC layer apparatus has not received.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings Xu with the disclosure of Kim for retransmitting an RLC PDU. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the RLC AM protocol ensures that packets which were not received can be retransmitted in a timely manner.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to the independent claims in view of Yin et al. (US 2017/0353819 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses:
Sending by a terminal a BSR based on resources allocated, but may not disclose:
sending, by the secondary terminal, a first request to the primary terminal, the first request comprising a size of the uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device for the secondary terminal and receiving, by the secondary terminal, first data from the primary terminal, packetizing the first data, and sending the data packet obtained by the packetization, wherein the first data is data buffered by the primary terminal and conforms to the size of the uplink grant resources.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Yin teaches:
sending, by the secondary terminal, a first request to the primary terminal, the first request comprising a size of the uplink grant resources allocated by the network side device for the secondary terminal (fig.11 the relay UE receives a SL-Grant from the eNB and forwards the SL-Grant to the Remote_UE) and receiving, by the secondary terminal, first data from the primary terminal (fig.11 the remote UE can forward data (a) to the relay UE), packetizing the first data, and sending the data packet obtained by the packetization, wherein the first data is data buffered by the primary terminal and conforms to the size of the uplink grant resources (fig.11 the relay UE may forward the (a) to the eNB on the uplink, based on the resources received in the grant, par.[0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu with the disclosure of Yin. The motivation/suggestion would have been to ultimately send data to another remote device, or to another uplink device.
Regarding claim 17, Yin discloses:
sending by a terminal a BSR based on resources allocated, but may not disclose:
allocating, by the network side device, uplink grant resources for the primary terminal and the secondary terminal according to a BSR of the primary terminal; or
allocating, by the network side device, the uplink grant resources for the primary terminal according to the BSR of the primary terminal, and allocating the uplink grant resources for the secondary terminal according to a BSR of the secondary terminal.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Yin teaches:
allocating, by the network side device, uplink grant resources for the primary terminal and the secondary terminal according to a BSR of the primary terminal; or
allocating, by the network side device, the uplink grant resources for the primary terminal according to the BSR of the primary terminal, and allocating the uplink grant resources for the secondary terminal according to a BSR of the secondary terminal (par.[0418 – 0419, and 0424 – 0425] wherein the relay may forward the BSR based on its own buffer or based on its buffer and the buffer of the remote UE, receiving an UL grant in order to transmit uplink data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Xu with the disclosure of Yin. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide an amount of uplink resource capable of transmitting a first or a multiple UEs buffered data.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Claim Objection Claim 14, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants allege that the amendments to claims 2 and 6 overcome the objection, see:
“Applicant submits that claims 2 and 6 are amended herein to have the first “wherein” clause about the “aggregation bearer”, indicating that the definition of the “aggregation bearer” in the second “wherein” clause applies to all the alternatives in the first “wherein clause”. It would appear that the claims are still substantial duplicates and the objection is maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 16 and 20, along with each of their respective dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights