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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 2 February 2024 and 12 September 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 18/434,626 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-30 of the instant application are in the same scope as claim 1-30 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 15-17, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et a. US 2024/0196426 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Gao”).
As to claim 1, Gao teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (¶¶310 and 312; see figure 14), comprising:
a memory (¶¶310 and 312; see figure 14); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (¶¶310 and 312; see figure 14):
determine that a transmission of uplink control information (UCI) would at least partially overlap in time with transmissions of a set of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs), the set of PUSCHs including a plurality of PUSCHs on a same component carrier (CC) that are at least partially overlapping in time (¶¶4, 167, and 230; see figures 1 and 6: determine that UCI overlaps with a plurality of overlapping PUSCHs, overlapping PUSCH2 and PUSCH3 both on CC2);
select one PUSCH of the set of PUSCHs for multiplexing the UCI, the selection of the one PUSCH being based at least partially on a group association between the UCI and each PUSCH of the set of PUSCHs, or one or more transmission parameters of each PUSCH of the plurality of PUSCHs (¶¶4, 168, 200-209, and 230-235; see figures 1 and 6: follow group association/transmission parameter rule set to determine which PUSCH to multiplex with UCI); and
multiplex the UCI on the selected one PUSCH for simultaneous transmission (¶¶4, 169, and 230; see figures 1 and 6: multiplex the UCI on the selected PUSCH for simultaneous transmission).
As to claim 2, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (¶¶310-311; see figure 14).
As to claim 3, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the selection of the one PUSCH is based at least partially on the group association between the UCI and each PUSCH of the set of PUSCHs, and the selection of the one PUSCH is based at least partially on whether the one PUSCH is in a same group as the UCI (¶¶4, 168, 200-209, and 230-235; see figures 1 and 6: select PUSCH having same priority group as the UCI).
As to claim 4, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein each group is defined based on an association of the UCI and the PUSCH with at least one of a control resource set (CORESET) group, a UE panel identifier (ID), an uplink (UL) beam group, a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource set, a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) code division multiplex (CDM) group, or a priority (¶¶4, 168, 200-209, and 230-235; see figures 1 and 6: many group association options including priority).
As to claim 5, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the selection of the one PUSCH of the set of PUSCHs for multiplexing the UCI is based on a rule order (¶¶4, 168, 200-209, and 230-235; see figures 1 and 6: follow group association/transmission parameter rule set to determine which PUSCH to multiplex with UCI).
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 24, Gao teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (¶¶310 and 312; see figure 14), comprising:
a memory (¶¶310 and 312; see figure 14); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (¶¶310 and 312; see figure 14):
determine that a transmission of uplink control information (UCI) would at least partially overlap in time with transmissions of a set of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs), the set of PUSCHs including a plurality of PUSCHs on a same component carrier (CC) that are at least partially overlapping in time (¶¶4, 167, and 230; see figures 1 and 6: determine that UCI overlaps with a plurality of overlapping PUSCHs, overlapping PUSCH2 and PUSCH3 both on CC2);
select at least one PUSCH of the set of PUSCHs for multiplexing the UCI, the at least one PUSCH including a different number of PUSCHs based on application of a rule order (¶¶4, 168, 200-209, and 230-235; see figures 1 and 6: follow rule set to determine which PUSCHs to multiplex with UCI); and
multiplex the UCI on each PUSCH of the selected at least one PUSCH for simultaneous transmission (¶¶4, 169, and 230; see figures 1 and 6: multiplex the UCI on the selected PUSCHs for simultaneous transmission).
As to claim 25, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 24, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (¶¶310-311; see figure 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-14, 18-23, 26, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Takahashi et al. US 2024/0357633 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Takahashi”).
As to claim 6, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the rule order comprises (1) PUSCHs in a same group as the UCI have priority for selection (¶¶319-320: same priority group), (3) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (4) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), and (5) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time).
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus…priority for selection, (3) PUSCHs…for selection,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “(2) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)”.
However, Takahashi teaches (2) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “(2) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 7, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs in a same group as the UCI have priority for selection (¶¶319-320: same priority group), (3) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (4) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), and (5) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time).
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus…rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs…for selection,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)”.
However, Takahashi teaches (1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 8, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (3) PUSCHs in a same group as the UCI have priority for selection (¶¶319-320: same priority group), (4) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), and (5) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time).
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus…rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs…for selection,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)”.
However, Takahashi teaches (1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 9, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (3) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), (4) PUSCHs in a same group as the UCI have priority for selection (¶¶319-320: same priority group), and (5) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time).
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus…rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs…for selection,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)”.
However, Takahashi teaches (1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 10, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (3) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), (4) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time), and (5) PUSCHs in a same group as the UCI have priority for selection (¶¶319-320: same priority group).
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus…rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs…for selection,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)”.
However, Takahashi teaches (1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 11, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “the selection…one PUSCH”.
However, Takahashi teaches the selection of the one PUSCH is based at least partially on the one or more transmission parameters of each PUSCH of the plurality of PUSCHs, the one or more transmission parameters of each PUSCH of the plurality of PUSCHs comprises at least one of a starting resource block (RB) index associated with a frequency domain resource allocation of the PUSCH, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for the PUSCH, whether the PUSCH is an initial transmission or a retransmission, a resource allocation in time and frequency for the PUSCH, a number of layers in the PUSCH, a configured grant (CG) index of the PUSCH, whether the PUSCH has a same beam as a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource on which the UCI was originally scheduled, or a transmission power associated with the PUSCH, wherein the selection of the one PUSCH is based at least partially on the one or more transmission parameters of the one PUSCH (¶¶32-54, 202, and 205: PUSCH selection based on transmission parameters including allocation or PUSCH type indicated by MCS index, allocation position, PHY layer properties, if UCI is for the PUSCH, CQI index, TBS, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “the selection…one PUSCH” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 12, Gao in view of Takahashi teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Gao further teaches the selection of the one PUSCH for multiplexing the UCI is based on a rule order (¶¶4, 168, 200-209, and 230-235; see figures 1 and 6: follow group association/transmission parameter rule set to determine which PUSCH to multiplex with UCI).
As to claim 13, Gao in view of Takahashi teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Gao further teaches the rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (3) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), (4) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time), and (5) PUSCHs in a same group as the UCI have priority for selection (¶¶319-320: same priority group).
Takahashi further teaches (1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao in view of Takahashi by including “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as further taught by Takahashi for the same rationale as set forth in claim 11 (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 14, Gao in view of Takahashi teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Takahashi further teaches when rule (5) is applied for selecting the one PUSCH for multiplexing the UCI after application of rules (1) – (4), the one PUSCH is selected based on at least one of:
whether the one PUSCH has a lowest starting RB index of the plurality of PUSCHs; whether the one PUSCH has a lowest MCS or a highest MCS of the plurality of PUSCHs;
whether the one PUSCH corresponds to an initial transmission or a retransmission of the plurality of PUSCHs;
whether the one PUSCH has a larger resource allocation in time and frequency of the plurality of PUSCHs;
whether the one PUSCH has a larger number of layers or a smaller number of layers of the plurality of PUSCHs;
whether the one PUSCH has a lower CG index of the plurality of PUSCHs;
whether the one PUSCH is to be transmitted on a same beam as the PUCCH resource on which the UCI was originally scheduled; or
whether the one PUSCH has a larger transmission power of the plurality of PUSCHs (¶¶32-54, 202, and 205: PUSCH selection based on transmission parameters including allocation or PUSCH type indicated by MCS index, allocation position, PHY layer properties, if UCI is for the PUSCH, CQI index, TBS, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao in view of Takahashi by including “when rule…of PUSCHs” as further taught by Takahashi for the same rationale as set forth in claim 11 (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 21, claim 21 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 22, claim 22 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
As to claim 23, claim 23 is rejected the same way as claim 11.
As to claim 26, Gao teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs that include aperiodic (AP) channel state information (CSI) (AP-CSI) have priority for selection (¶338: select PUSCH with A-CSI), (3) PUSCHs with lower CC indexes have priority for selection (¶341: select PUSCH based on carrier index), and (4) PUSCHs with an earlier start time have priority for selection (¶343: select PUSCH with earliest start time).
Although Gao teaches “The apparatus…rule order comprises (2) PUSCHs…for selection,” Gao does not explicitly disclose “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)”.
However, Takahashi teaches (1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs) (¶203: DG PUSCH preferentially selected over CG PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao by including “(1) PUSCHs configured through dynamic grants (DGs) have priority for selection over PUSCHs configured through configured grants (CGs)” as taught by Takahashi because it provides Goa’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible UE capabilities for supporting PUCCH/PUSCH multiplexing (Takahashi, ¶¶210-217).
As to claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 25.
As to claim 29, claim 29 is rejected the same way as claim 26.
Claim(s) 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Takahashi as applied to claims 26 and 29 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. US 2024/0250782 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yoshioka”).
As to claim 27, Gao in view of Takahashi teaches the apparatus of claim 26.
Although Gao in view of Takahashi teaches “The apparatus of claim 26,” Gao in view of Takahashi does not explicitly disclose “the at least…for selection”.
However, Yoshioka teaches the at least one PUSCH comprises the plurality of PUSCHs when the plurality of PUSCHs have a same start time and, after application of rules (1) – (4), the plurality of PUSCHs remain for selection (¶¶91 and 93: multiplex UCI with all PUSCHs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Gao in view of Takahashi by including “the at least…for selection” as taught by Yoshioka because it provides Goa in view of Takahashi’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of having a multiplexing solution for all scenarios (Yoshioka, ¶¶91 and 93).
As to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Khoshnevisan et al., US 2025/0193879 A1 – Transmissions Using Overlapping Physical Uplink Control Channels and Physical Uplink Shared Channels
Huang et al., US 2025/0159678 A1 – Multiplexing Configured Grant Signaling and Feedback with Different Priorities
Wang, US 2024/0306154 A1 – User Equipment and Method for Multiplexing Uplink Control Information
Yang et al., US 2023/0292320 A1 – UCI Multiplexing with Physical Layer Prioritization and LCH Based Prioritization
Yang et al., US 2023/0284223 A1 – Multiplexing of Uplink Control Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469