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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/US2022/050787, filed on 11/22/2022, and parent Application No. IL290478, filed on 02/09/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for determining a polarization used by a transmitter for at least one reference signal (RS)”
“means for receiving the at least one RS”
“means for measuring polarization characteristics” and
“means for determining whether the at least one RS was received in a line-of-sight (LOS) path from the transmitter” in claim 29. Structure for these limitations may be found in claim 1 (a memory, transceiver, and processor) and the specification as originally filed: Fig. 10 and pg. 32, paragraph 0100 (“In one configuration, the apparatus 1002, and in particular the baseband processor 1004, includes means for…”) provide a detailed example of an apparatus with at least one processor capable of performing the actions of claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites transitory signals. Claim 30 recites "A computer-readable medium storing computer executable code at a receiver, the code when executed by a processor causes the processor to:…”. The phrase "A computer readable medium" is directed to signals per se. A transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. See Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. See Mentor Graphics Corp. V. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. See MPEP 2106.03. The specification clarifies the meaning of the computer-readable apparatus on page 30, paragraph 0097: “The computer-readable medium/memory may be non-transitory.” Therefore, because the BRI of the claim covers both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (e.g., non-volatile media, non-transitory computer readable storage media), as well as subject matter that does not (e.g., storage media not specified to be non-transitory), the claim as a whole is not to a statutory category and thus fails the first criterion for eligibility. See MPEP 2106(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 12, 16-18, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20150382318 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses
An apparatus for wireless communication at a receiver (see pg. 1, paragraph 0003, “The present invention relates to a wireless communication system, and more particularly, to a position calculation method and apparatus in a wireless communication system.”), comprising:
a memory (see Fig. 11, memory 22 and memory 12);
at least one transceiver (see Fig. 11, RF unit 13 and 23); and
at least one processor, communicatively connected to the memory and the at least one transceiver (see Fig. 11, processor 11 and 21), the at least one processor configured to:
determine a polarization used by a transmitter for at least one reference signal (RS) (see pg. 9, paragraph 0098, “The BS notifies the MS [mobile station] of the transmission polarization characteristic information”);
receive the at least one RS with a first received polarization in a first configuration and a second received polarization in a second configuration that is different from the first configuration (see pg. 8, paragraph 0091, “Therefore, the polarization characteristics of the transmitted signal and the received signal, that is, differences in received polarization angle, XPD and polarization rotation direction, may be compared to determine whether reception is performed via an LOS link without reflection, refraction or diffraction. That is, the MS analyzes the characteristic of the signal received by a cross polarization antenna pair including a vertical antenna and a horizontal antenna to check the polarization characteristic of the received signal. Alternatively, the MS receives only the signal having the polarization characteristic of the transmitted signal”);
measure polarization characteristics of the first received polarization and the second received polarization (see pg. 9, paragraph 0098, “the MS measures the polarization characteristic of the received signal and determines whether an LOS link is established between the BS and the MS using information on a difference in polarization characteristic between the transmitted signal and the received signal.”); and
determine whether the at least one RS was received in a line-of-sight (LOS) path from the transmitter based on the measured polarization characteristics and expected received polarization characteristics, wherein the expected received polarization characteristics are based on the determined polarization used by the transmitter (see pg. 1, paragraph 0011, “The method may include…comparing a transmission polarization characteristic and reception polarization characteristic of the measured reference signal and determining whether a light of sight (LOS) link between a base station for transmitting the reference signal and the MS is present or not, when the information on the reference signal includes information on the transmission polarization characteristic of the reference signal, and transmitting information on whether the LOS link is present or not to the serving base station”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to determine whether the at least one RS was received in the LOS path, the at least one processor is further configured to:
compare the measured polarization characteristics of the first received polarization and the second received polarization to the expected received polarization characteristics (see pg. 9, paragraph 0098, “As a representative example, when the BS notifies the MS that a right-handed polarization signal is transmitted, the MS divides the received signal into a right-handed polarization component and a left-handed polarization component, compares the levels and times of arrival of the right-handed polarization component and the left-handed polarization component, and determines a possibility that an LOS link is established”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein, to determine whether the at least one RS was received in the LOS path, the at least one processor is further configured to:
compare a phase difference between first and second measured polarization characteristics of the first and second received polarizations to a phase difference between a first polarization characteristic and a second polarization characteristic of the expected received polarization characteristics (see pg. 8, paragraphs 0088-0089, polarization signals can have a phase difference; pg. 8, paragraph 0091, “the polarization characteristics of the transmitted signal and the received signal, that is, differences in received polarization angle, XPD and polarization rotation direction, may be compared”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polarization used by the transmitter is provided to the apparatus or is preconfigured and known to the apparatus (see pg. 9, paragraph 0098, “The BS notifies the MS [mobile station] of the transmission polarization characteristic information”).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 27, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-2 and 12 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-2 and 12 and claims 17-18 and 27 is that claims 1-2 and 12 refer to an apparatus while claims 17-18 and 27 refer to a method. The examiner considers Kim pg. 1, paragraph 0003, (“The present invention relates to a wireless communication system, and more particularly, to a position calculation method and apparatus in a wireless communication system.”) to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 17-18 and 27.
Regarding claim 29, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-11, 13-15, 19-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20150382318 A1) in view of Walk et al. (US 20230288517 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Walk discloses
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein, to compare the polarization characteristics, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine if a first difference between the polarization characteristics of the first received polarization and the characteristics of the expected received polarization is less than a first threshold (see pg. 2, paragraph 0015, “determining, by the first device, that the value of a given metric, determined from the RSRP measurements of each reference signal via each resource, does not meet a specified threshold,”); and
determine if a second difference between the polarization characteristics of the second received polarization and the characteristics of the expected received polarization is less than a second threshold (see pg. 2, paragraph 0015, “determining, by the first device, that the value of a given metric, determined from the RSRP measurements of each reference signal via each resource, does not meet a specified threshold,”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Both Kim and Walk are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose reference signal polarization analysis for determining line of sight paths for signals. Kim discloses the limitations of claim 2; however, Kim fails to disclose a threshold for the difference between expected polarization and received polarization. This feature is disclosed by Walk where the measured polarization metrics can need to meet a threshold to determine if a line of sight path was used. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a standardized way to determine if the difference between expected and received signals has a significant meaning to determining a line of sight path.
Regarding claim 4, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are a same threshold (see pg. 13, paragraph 0155, “In step 610, the receiver 204 determines if the channel measurement difference between the two polarizations is larger than a threshold…the threshold may be specified in a technical standard, or by the operator of the communications system. The threshold may be determined through collaboration between the devices of the communications system.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose a threshold being the same for both signals for the difference between expected polarization and received polarization. This feature is disclosed by Walk where the threshold can be specified depending on the needs of the system. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a standardized way to determine if the difference between expected and received signals has a significant meaning to determining a line of sight path.
Regarding claim 5, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein, to determine that the at least one RS was received in the LOS path from the transmitter, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the at least one RS was received in the LOS path from the transmitter when both the first difference is less than the first threshold and the second difference is less than the second threshold (see pg. 1, paragraph 0014, “determining, by the first device, that the value of a given metric, determined from the RSRP measurements of each reference signal on each resource, does meet a specified threshold, and based thereon, determining, by the first device, that the LOS characterization of the transmission comprises a LOS transmission.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose a threshold for polarization differences. This feature is disclosed by Walk where not meeting the threshold can indicate a LOS transmission. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a standardized way to determine if the difference between expected and received signals indicates a line of sight path.
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first configuration of the first received polarization or the second configuration of the second received polarization comprises at least one of a circular polarization, a linear polarization, or an elliptical polarization (see Fig. 5, different types of polarization).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the first and second received polarizations are observed for a period of time that exceeds a designated period (see pg. 4, paragraph 0052, sampling time and transmission time can be determined).
Regarding claim 8, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one RS is transmitted across different antenna ports, wherein the polarization characteristics of the first or second received polarization comprise at least one of circular polarization, elliptical polarization, or linear polarization (see pg. 19, paragraph 0220, “In another example embodiment, a reference signal of two antenna ports can be defined with one antenna port defined for horizontal polarization measurement and another defined for vertical polarization measurement.”; pg. 6, paragraph 0092, “Transmission of a different polarization orientation could be achieved in different ways such as with two antennas having a similar antenna pattern, which have polarizations orthogonal to each other, for example with one antenna-polarization parallel with the surface of earth and one perpendicular. By transmitting the same signal at the same time with different powers over both antennas, any linear polarization orientation can be radiated.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose a reference signal transmitted across different antenna ports. This feature is disclosed by Walk where a signal can be transmitted from different antenna ports. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to send multiple distinct signals to increase the signals available for LOS analysis.
Regarding claim 9, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the polarization characteristics of the different antenna ports varies with time in a pattern (see pg. 19, paragraph 0219, “The same sequence may be sent at two different time instances, which are known by the UE. The time instances may generally be close enough so that the channel does not substantially change.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose a reference signal transmitted across different antenna ports that varies with time in a pattern. This feature is disclosed by Walk where a signal sequence can be transmitted at different time instances. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to send multiple distinct signals to increase the signals available for LOS analysis.
Regarding claim 10, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one RS is not received in the LOS path from the transmitter if the first difference is greater than the first threshold or the second difference is greater than the second threshold (see pg. 2, paragraph 0030, “determine a difference between a measurement of the first signal and a measurement of the second signal does not meet a specified threshold, and based thereon determine that the LOS characterization of the transmission comprises a non-LOS (NLOS) transmission”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose a threshold for polarization differences. This feature is disclosed by Walk where meeting the threshold can indicate not being in a LOS transmission. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a standardized way to determine if the difference between expected and received signals indicates a line of sight path.
Regarding claim 11, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to determine whether the at least one RS was received in the LOS path, the at least one processor is further configured to:
estimate an angle of arrival of the at least one RS; and
determine whether the at least one RS was received in the LOS path further based on an estimated angle of arrival (see Fig. 18C; pg. 26, paragraph 0282, angle of arrival can be determined for LOS path).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose estimating angle of arrival and using that to determine LOS path for a signal. This feature is disclosed by Walk where the angle of arrival can be determined and used to determine LOS path. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have another method to determine LOS path using available parameters that are easy to measure.
Regarding claim 13, Walk further discloses
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one RS was received in the LOS path if the phase difference is less than a threshold (see pg. 1, paragraph 0014, “determining, by the first device, that the value of a given metric, determined from the RSRP measurements of each reference signal on each resource, does meet a specified threshold, and based thereon, determining, by the first device, that the LOS characterization of the transmission comprises a LOS transmission.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim fails to disclose a threshold for polarization differences. This feature is disclosed by Walk where not meeting the threshold can indicate a LOS transmission. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have a standardized way to determine if the difference between expected and received signals indicates a line of sight path.
Regarding claim 14, Kim further discloses
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the polarization characteristics of the first received polarization or the second received polarization comprise an amplitude and a phase (see pg. 9, paragraph 0098, signal strength can be examined).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein at least one of the amplitude or the phase of the first received polarization or the second received polarization is compared to the characteristics of the expected received polarization based on the determined polarization used by the transmitter (see pg. 8, paragraphs 0088-0089, polarization signals can have a phase difference; pg. 8, paragraph 0091, “the polarization characteristics of the transmitted signal and the received signal, that is, differences in received polarization angle, XPD and polarization rotation direction, may be compared”).
Regarding claims 19-26 and 28, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 3-15 are applied. The only difference between claims 3-15 and claims 19-26 and 28 is that claims 3-15 refer to an apparatus while claims 19-26 and 28 refer to a method. The examiner considers Kim pg. 1, paragraph 0003, (“The present invention relates to a wireless communication system, and more particularly, to a position calculation method and apparatus in a wireless communication system.”) to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 19-26 and 28.
Regarding claim 30, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied. Walk further discloses
A computer-readable medium storing computer executable code at a receiver, the code when executed by a processor causes the processor to (see pg. 4, paragraph 0079, “The functions or algorithms described herein may be implemented in software in one example embodiment. The software may consist of computer executable instructions stored on computer readable media”):
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Walk into the invention of Kim. Kim discloses the majority of claim 30 as referenced in the claim 1 rejection; however, Kim fails to disclose a computer-readable medium storing code. This feature is disclosed by Walk where the method can be implemented in software stored on computer readable media. The combination of Kim and Walk would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to functionally and conveniently implement the communication method onto existing computer infrastructure.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Park et al. (US 20230268981 A1); Disclosed, in various embodiments, are a method by which a non-terrestrial network (NTN) transmits a downlink signal on the basis of polarization information in a wireless communication system, and an apparatus for same. The method comprises the steps of generating a sequence related to the downlink signal; and transmitting the downlink signal including the sequence, wherein the sequence is sequence initialized on the basis of a parameter related to the polarization information.
Calcev et al. (US 20210239783 A1); A method performed by a first device includes communicating, with a second device, a LOS determination request including a dual polarization procedure indicator indicating a dual polarization procedure is used in LOS characterization of a transmission between the first device and the second device, measuring a first signal on a first resource of a channel, and measuring a second signal on a second resource of the channel, with the first and second signals comprising a single bit sequence with orthogonal polarizations and are multiplexed in a frequency domain or a code domain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights