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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on 03/20/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13, 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13, 15-20 cited “RADAR” without define any description. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20210105633 (hereinafter referred to as Vaidya) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20070270151 (hereinafter referred to as Claussen).
Consider claim 1, Vaidya discloses a method of interference mitigation performed by a base station (see at least ¶ [0124], Fig. 2, “…method 200 includes first detecting interference … radar…, …messaging indicating that the interferer is present/operational …, the access node (gNB or a proxy detection device thereof) performs the detection.…”), the method comprising:
receiving RADAR operation information (see at least ¶ [0124], Fig. 2, “…first detecting interference or a prospective interferer per step 202…” and further see at least ¶ [0154], Fig. 3, “…detection of interference/radar in one of the frequencies…”);
determining interference based on the RADAR operation information (see at least ¶ [0125], “…selects a new frequency band or group of frequencies …which are putatively free of interference. This may again be active or passive in nature; i.e., via actual monitoring of the carrier(s), or via data/massaging indicating that there are no interferers currently operational or planned for at least a prescribed period of time…” and further see at least ¶ [0154], “…where the access node (e.g., the gNB) is currently operating, the gNB picks a frequency where no radar operations/interference are present (e.g., frequency “Y”), and prepares a redirect request…”); and
based on the interference determination, reconfiguring a paging configuration operated by the base station to minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference (see at least ¶ [0126], “…the gNB or its proxy informs the network entity (e.g., AMF) of the “detection” event and the selected new carrier(s)…” and see at least ¶ [0128], “…the AMF initiates paging toward the affected/identified UEs to alert them to the incipient channel change…” and see at least ¶ [0129], “…in response to the paging, the identified UEs each transition to an active/connected (RRC_CONNECTED) state, and per step 212, the UEs are all redirected by the cognizant gNB of the redirection to the new carrier(s)…” and further see at least ¶ [0155], “…the gNB transmits/broadcasts the redirect request to the appropriate client/user devices (UEs)…” and see at least ¶ [0157], “…the UE compares it against the camped cell's ARFCN …, and in step 312, if a match is found, the UE performs cell reselection to frequency indicated…”).
Vaidya disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Vaidya does not particularly disclose minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Claussen, which teaches minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference (see Claussen, at least ¶ [0007], “…configure a communication system to minimize or eliminate the impact of mutual interference between picocell base station units and macrocell base stations…” and see at least ¶ [0024], “…a determination is made whether the measured interference level indicates that the transmit power of the PCBSU should be changed…” and see at least ¶ [0025], “…the determined interference level provides at least some indication of the position of the PCBSU within the macrocell and provides a basis for adjusting the transmit power accordingly. In a situation where the PCBSU is experiencing relatively high and undesirable interference (e.g., close to the base station 22), the transmit power of the PCBSU preferably is increased. On the other hand, where relatively low interference levels are detected (e.g., near the edge of the macrocell 24), the PCBSU may decrease the transmit power to minimum levels for providing coverage within the picocell and to minimize the amount of interference experienced by any macrocell mobile stations within the vicinity of the PCBSU…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Vaidya disclosed invention, and have minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference, as taught by Claussen, thereby, to provide a base station transceivers are arranged to provide wireless communication coverage over geographic areas surrounding the base station, as discussed by Claussen, (see at least ¶ [0002]).
Consider claim 11, Vaidya discloses a wireless network for operation in reception range of a system that transmits and receives electromagnetic radiation in a frequency range shared with the wireless network, comprising:
a base station and an interference estimator, configured to estimate an interference associated with the system that transmits and receives electromagnetic radiation (see at least ¶ [0125], “…selects a new frequency band or group of frequencies …which are putatively free of interference. This may again be active or passive in nature; i.e., via actual monitoring of the carrier(s), or via data/massaging indicating that there are no interferers currently operational or planned for at least a prescribed period of time…” and further see at least ¶ [0154], “…where the access node (e.g., the gNB) is currently operating, the gNB picks a frequency where no radar operations/interference are present (e.g., frequency “Y”), and prepares a redirect request…”);
wherein the base station is configured to receive the interference estimate and based on the interference estimate reconfigure a paging configuration operated by the base station to minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference (see at least ¶ [0126], “…the gNB or its proxy informs the network entity (e.g., AMF) of the “detection” event and the selected new carrier(s)…” and see at least ¶ [0128], “…the AMF initiates paging toward the affected/identified UEs to alert them to the incipient channel change…” and see at least ¶ [0129], “…in response to the paging, the identified UEs each transition to an active/connected (RRC_CONNECTED) state, and per step 212, the UEs are all redirected by the cognizant gNB of the redirection to the new carrier(s)…” and further see at least ¶ [0155], “…the gNB transmits/broadcasts the redirect request to the appropriate client/user devices (UEs)…” and see at least ¶ [0157], “…the UE compares it against the camped cell's ARFCN …, and in step 312, if a match is found, the UE performs cell reselection to frequency indicated…”).
Vaidya disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Vaidya does not particularly disclose minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Claussen, which teaches minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference (see Claussen, at least ¶ [0007], “…configure a communication system to minimize or eliminate the impact of mutual interference between picocell base station units and macrocell base stations…” and see at least ¶ [0024], “…a determination is made whether the measured interference level indicates that the transmit power of the PCBSU should be changed…” and see at least ¶ [0025], “…the determined interference level provides at least some indication of the position of the PCBSU within the macrocell and provides a basis for adjusting the transmit power accordingly. In a situation where the PCBSU is experiencing relatively high and undesirable interference (e.g., close to the base station 22), the transmit power of the PCBSU preferably is increased. On the other hand, where relatively low interference levels are detected (e.g., near the edge of the macrocell 24), the PCBSU may decrease the transmit power to minimum levels for providing coverage within the picocell and to minimize the amount of interference experienced by any macrocell mobile stations within the vicinity of the PCBSU…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Vaidya disclosed invention, and have minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference, as taught by Claussen, thereby, to provide a base station transceivers are arranged to provide wireless communication coverage over geographic areas surrounding the base station, as discussed by Claussen, (see at least ¶ [0002]).
Consider claim 19, Vaidya discloses a method for operating a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) in a wireless network having a base station and which operates in reception range of a RADAR system (see at least ¶ [0123], “…methods of using one or more access nodes … and a network entity … to manage interference (e.g., radar) found in a frequency channel being used by at least one … user or client device (e.g., UE) registered with the access nodes…”) comprising:
determining that the WTRU is in a first subset of cells of a plurality of cells where there is RADAR interference (see at least ¶ [0123], “…first detecting interference or a prospective interferer … an actual detection of electromagnetic emissions from e.g., weather radar, or … indicating that the interferer is present/operational …the access node … performs the detection…”); and
receiving a paging message from the base station directed to the first subset of cells in accordance with a first paging configuration (see at least ¶ [0128], “…initiates paging toward the affected/identified UEs to alert them to the incipient channel change…”), the first paging configuration being configured to avoid paging frames that incur interference to or from the RADAR (see at least ¶ [0129], “…in response to the paging, the identified UEs each transition to an active/connected … state, and per step 212, the UEs are all redirected by the cognizant gNB of the redirection to the new carrier(s)…”).
Vaidya disclose all the subject matters of the claimed invention concept. However, Vaidya does not particularly disclose minimize or eliminate an impact of the interference. In an analogous field of endeavor, attention is directed to Claussen, which teaches configured to avoid paging frames that incur interference (see Claussen, at least ¶ [0007], “…configure a communication system to minimize or eliminate the impact of mutual interference…” and see at least ¶ [0024], “…a determination is made whether the measured interference level indicates that the transmit power of the PCBSU should be changed…” and see at least ¶ [0025], “…the determined interference level provides at least some indication of the position of the PCBSU within the macrocell and provides a basis for adjusting the transmit power accordingly. In a situation where the PCBSU is experiencing relatively high and undesirable interference (e.g., close to the base station 22), the transmit power of the PCBSU preferably is increased. On the other hand, where relatively low interference levels are detected (e.g., near the edge of the macrocell 24), the PCBSU may decrease the transmit power to minimum levels for providing coverage within the picocell and to minimize the amount of interference experienced by any macrocell mobile stations within the vicinity of the PCBSU…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by the know method, and that in combination. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; Vaidya disclosed invention, and have configured to avoid paging frames that incur interference, as taught by Claussen, thereby, to provide a base station transceivers are arranged to provide wireless communication coverage over geographic areas surrounding the base station, as discussed by Claussen, (see at least ¶ [0002]).
Consider claim 2 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches selecting a first set of wireless transmit receive units (WTRUs) and a second set of WTRUs (see at least ¶ [0039], “…detecting wireless interference in the first frequency, selecting a second frequency that is free of interference, and switching the one or more wireless user devices from the first frequency to the second frequency…”);
transmitting a first paging message to the first set of WTRUs on a first carrier frequency (see at least ¶ [0067], “…the wireless network includes gNBs controlling UEs and operating in the 5G NR-U spectrum, and the method includes: detecting a radar signal in a first frequency, wherein the first frequency is currently being used by the wireless network…”); and
transmitting a second paging message to the second set of WTRUs on the first carrier frequency (see at least ¶ [0067], “…selecting one or more second frequencies free of radar operations; and switching/redirecting one or more UEs to operate on at least one of the second frequencies…”);
wherein the first set of WTRUs is impacted by the interference (see at least ¶ [0131], “…the gNB, assumed to be operating in a first frequency (i.e., frequency “X”), detects incumbent radar operations…”); and the second set of WTRUs is not impacted by the interference (see at least ¶ [0131], “…Upon such detection, the gNB picks a frequency where no radar operations are present e.g. frequency “Y.” The gNB starts broadcasting NR service parameters on frequency Y with the same Physical Cell ID (PCI) as that of frequency X…”).
Consider claim 3 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches determining by the base station, based on the interference determination, a first subset of cells of a plurality of cells where there is not RADAR interference and a second subset of cells of the plurality of cells where there is RADAR interference (see at least ¶ [0064], “…a wireless access node perform interference (e.g., radar) detection, find interference in a first frequency, select a second frequency without interference, and initiate an operation configured to switch one or more user devices from the first frequency to the second frequency…”);
transmitting a first paging message to the first subset of cells in accordance with a first paging configuration; and transmitting a second paging message to the second subset of cells in accordance with a second paging configuration (see at least ¶ [0068], “…a network access point (e.g., a gNB) detects the radar signal, selects the second frequencies, and initiates the switch to the second frequencies for the UEs…” and further see at least ¶ [0125], “…the access node (e.g., gNB or a proxy node thereof) selects a new frequency band or group of frequencies (e.g., carriers or bands of carriers) which are putatively free of interference…”).
Consider claim 4 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the first paging message and the second paging message are sent on the same carrier frequency (see at least ¶ [0068], “…The gNB starts broadcasting NR service parameters on frequency Y with the same Physical Cell ID (PCI) as that of frequency X …”).
Consider claim 5 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration comprises a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasion that avoids time slots during which RADAR interference occurs (see at least ¶ [0155], “…The parameters of this PDCCH CSS are broadcast as part of PDCCH_ConfigCommon in system information. …includes the corresponding new frequency (“Y”) to which redirection of UEs is to occur...” and see at least ¶ [0220], “…the maximum duration of transmission during a given channel access, a gNB may have to perform a channel access procedure multiple times, in which case there would be additional delay due to such repetition of the channel access procedure …”).
Consider claim 6 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration comprises a paging search space having time slots that do not occur during periods when RADAR interference occurs (see at least ¶ [0046], “…the interference detection includes radar signal detection in the first frequency channel, and the selecting a second frequency that is free of interference includes checking a list of pre-selected frequency bands for interference…” and see at least ¶ [0049], “…the historical interference data includes the number of interferences detected in a particular channel frequency band (first frequency band) within a time period…”).
Consider claim 7 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration operates in a control resource set that does not occupy a frequency band in which RADAR interference occurs (see at least ¶ [0147], “…selecting the second frequency includes identifying a plurality of alternate frequencies in real time … and identifying/selecting an unoccupied frequency from the plurality of alternate frequencies. In another variant, selecting the second frequency includes obtaining a predetermined list of alternate frequencies and identifying/selecting an unoccupied frequency from the predetermined list of alternate frequencies…”).
Consider claim 8 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration comprises a first subset of PDCCH monitoring occasions that does not include any monitoring occasions that occur during RADAR interference and wherein the first subset includes monitoring occasions for each antenna beam pattern in which the base station operates (see at least ¶ [0058], “…the wireless user device, while in idle and/or inactive mode, is configured to monitor a redirect channel (physical channel similar to the paging channel) for a redirect message and, in response to a redirect message, switch from a first frequency to a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is provided in the redirect message. In one variant, the wireless user device is configured to minimize power consumption during the monitoring of the redirect channel…” and see at least ¶ [0155], “…The parameters of this PDCCH CSS are broadcast as part of PDCCH_ConfigCommon in system information. …includes the corresponding new frequency (“Y”) to which redirection of UEs is to occur...” and see at least ¶ [0220], “…the maximum duration of transmission during a given channel access, a gNB may have to perform a channel access procedure multiple times, in which case there would be additional delay due to such repetition of the channel access procedure …”).
Consider claim 9 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the first paging configuration operates in a first control resource set during a first complete antenna pattern sweep and the second paging operation operates in a second control resource set, which is different than the first control resource set and during a second complete antenna pattern sweep (see at least ¶ [0192], “…The antenna(s) 510 of the DUe NR radio may include multiple spatially diverse individual elements in e.g., a MIMO- or MISO-type configuration, such that spatial diversity of the received signals can be utilized. Moreover, a phased array or similar arrangement can be used for spatial resolution within the environment, such as based on time delays associated with signals received by respective elements…” and see at least ¶ [0212], “…the UE 433 may include a DML module 803 which is configured to, inter alia, (i) enable receipt of network-initiated paging messages and associated data relating to interferer (e.g., weather radar) detection…”).
Consider claim 10 (depends on at least claim 1), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied to claim rejection 1 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the determining interference further comprises determining that the interference is above a threshold (see at least ¶ [0049], “…the user device discovers a redirect message within a certain time threshold). In one implementation, the historical interference data includes the number of interferences detected in a particular channel frequency band (first frequency band) within a time period…”).
Consider claim 12 (depends on at least claim 11), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 11 as applied to claim rejection 11 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches select a first set of wireless transmit receive units (WTRUs) and a second set of WTRUS (see at least ¶ [0039], “…detecting wireless interference in the first frequency, selecting a second frequency that is free of interference, and switching the one or more wireless user devices from the first frequency to the second frequency…”);
transmit a first paging message to the first set of WTRUs on a first carrier frequency (see at least ¶ [0067], “…the wireless network includes gNBs controlling UEs and operating in the 5G NR-U spectrum, and the method includes: detecting a radar signal in a first frequency, wherein the first frequency is currently being used by the wireless network…”); and
transmit a second paging message to the second set of WTRUs on the first carrier frequency (see at least ¶ [0067], “…selecting one or more second frequencies free of radar operations; and switching/redirecting one or more UEs to operate on at least one of the second frequencies…”);
wherein the first set of WTRUs is impacted by the interference (see at least ¶ [0131], “…the gNB, assumed to be operating in a first frequency (i.e., frequency “X”), detects incumbent radar operations…”); and the second set of WTRUs is not impacted by the interference (see at least ¶ [0131], “…Upon such detection, the gNB picks a frequency where no radar operations are present e.g. frequency “Y.” The gNB starts broadcasting NR service parameters on frequency Y with the same Physical Cell ID (PCI) as that of frequency X…”).
Consider claim 13 (depends on at least claim 11), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 11 as applied to claim rejection 11 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches determine, based on the interference determination, a first subset of cells of a plurality of cells where there is not RADAR interference and a second subset of cells of the plurality of cells where there is RADAR interference (see at least ¶ [0064], “…a wireless access node perform interference (e.g., radar) detection, find interference in a first frequency, select a second frequency without interference, and initiate an operation configured to switch one or more user devices from the first frequency to the second frequency…”);
transmit a paging message to the first subset of cells in accordance with a first paging configuration; and transmit a paging message to the second subset of cells in accordance with a second paging configuration (see at least ¶ [0068], “…a network access point (e.g., a gNB) detects the radar signal, selects the second frequencies, and initiates the switch to the second frequencies for the UEs…” and further see at least ¶ [0125], “…the access node (e.g., gNB or a proxy node thereof) selects a new frequency band or group of frequencies (e.g., carriers or bands of carriers) which are putatively free of interference…”).
Consider claim 14 (depends on at least claim 13), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as applied to claim rejection 13 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the first paging message and the second paging message are sent on the same carrier frequency (see at least ¶ [0068], “…The gNB starts broadcasting NR service parameters on frequency Y with the same Physical Cell ID (PCI) as that of frequency X …”).
Consider claim 15 (depends on at least claim 13), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as applied to claim rejection 13 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration comprises a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasion that avoids time slots during which RADAR interference occurs (see at least ¶ [0155], “…The parameters of this PDCCH CSS are broadcast as part of PDCCH_ConfigCommon in system information. …includes the corresponding new frequency (“Y”) to which redirection of UEs is to occur...” and see at least ¶ [0220], “…the maximum duration of transmission during a given channel access, a gNB may have to perform a channel access procedure multiple times, in which case there would be additional delay due to such repetition of the channel access procedure …”).
Consider claim 16 (depends on at least claim 13), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as applied to claim rejection 13 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration comprises a paging search space having time slots that do not occur during periods when RADAR interference occurs (see at least ¶ [0046], “…the interference detection includes radar signal detection in the first frequency channel, and the selecting a second frequency that is free of interference includes checking a list of pre-selected frequency bands for interference…” and see at least ¶ [0049], “…the historical interference data includes the number of interferences detected in a particular channel frequency band (first frequency band) within a time period…”).
Consider claim 17 (depends on at least claim 13), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as applied to claim rejection 13 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration operates in a control resource set that does not occupy a frequency band in which RADAR interference occurs (see at least ¶ [0147], “…selecting the second frequency includes identifying a plurality of alternate frequencies in real time … and identifying/selecting an unoccupied frequency from the plurality of alternate frequencies. In another variant, selecting the second frequency includes obtaining a predetermined list of alternate frequencies and identifying/selecting an unoccupied frequency from the predetermined list of alternate frequencies…”).
Consider claim 18 (depends on at least claim 13), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as applied to claim rejection 13 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the second paging configuration comprises a first subset of PDCCH monitoring occasions that does not include any monitoring occasions that occur during RADAR interference and wherein the first subset includes monitoring occasions for each antenna beam pattern in which the base station operates (see at least ¶ [0058], “…the wireless user device, while in idle and/or inactive mode, is configured to monitor a redirect channel (physical channel similar to the paging channel) for a redirect message and, in response to a redirect message, switch from a first frequency to a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is provided in the redirect message. In one variant, the wireless user device is configured to minimize power consumption during the monitoring of the redirect channel…” and see at least ¶ [0155], “…The parameters of this PDCCH CSS are broadcast as part of PDCCH_ConfigCommon in system information. …includes the corresponding new frequency (“Y”) to which redirection of UEs is to occur...” and see at least ¶ [0220], “…the maximum duration of transmission during a given channel access, a gNB may have to perform a channel access procedure multiple times, in which case there would be additional delay due to such repetition of the channel access procedure …”).
Consider claim 20 (depends on at least claim 19), Vaidya in view of Claussen discloses the limitations of claim 19 as applied to claim rejection 19 above and further discloses:
Vaidya teaches wherein the first paging configuration is reconfigured based on a RADAR interference determination (see at least ¶ [0147], “…a local DUe (or its proxy) performs radar detection, detects radar operation at a first frequency X and, upon such detection, selects another frequency that does not have radar interference (second frequency Y)…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG A NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/CHUONG A NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645