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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 7/1/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
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)(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.
Claims 23, 25 and 32-33, 35-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A).
Regarding claim 23, Wu discloses an apparatus for a serving network access node, the apparatus comprising means for: providing a first user equipment with access to a network (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5, Paragraph 6], first network device connects to a user equipment or device, serving it as part of a network); signaling, to a first network access node, a request for a first indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the first network access node would likely be affected if the first network access node were to serve the first user equipment (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4] and [Page 3, Paragraph 2], first load information is sent by a network control device (acting as a serving node) to an access network device (acting as a first target node). Load info may include PRB utilization rate, which is a metric that measures load impact on a node); receiving, from the first network access node, the first indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4], first load information is received by a network control device (acting as a serving node) from an access network device (acting as a target node)); and making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received first indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 5], based on the received load information, the network control apparatus determines whether or not the at least one second network apparatus can sustain the load of the cell to be closed).
Regarding claim 25, Wu discloses means for: signaling, to the first network access node, a request for a second indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the first network access node would likely be affected if the first network access node were to serve the first user equipment, wherein the request for the second indication is signaled after the request for the first indication is signaled (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5 Paragraph 4 and Page 3 Paragraph 2, second load information is requested by the network control device (serving node) to the first access network device (target node). Load information may include PRB utilization rate, which is a metric that measures load impact on a node); receiving, from the first network access node, the second indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5 Paragraph 3], network control device receives the requested second load information (indication) from the cells returned by the first access network device (target node)); and making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received second indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5 Paragraphs 4 through 6], after receiving the second load information from the access device (target node), the network control device may move the service in the cell to be closed to the other access network device (a handover)).
Regarding claim 32, Wu discloses an apparatus for a first network node, the apparatus comprising means for: receiving, from a serving network access node serving a first user equipment (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5, Paragraph 7], first network device connects to a user equipment or device, serving it as part of a network), a request for a first indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the first network access node would likely be affected if the first network access node were to serve the first user equipment (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4] and [Page 3, Paragraph 2], first load information is sent by a network control device (acting as a serving node) to an access network device (acting as a first target node). Load info may include PRB utilization rate, which is a metric that measures load performance on the target node), wherein the serving access node is a neighboring node to the first access node (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 2, Paragraph 8 and Page 3, Paragraph 1], network control device (acting as serving node) is installed in a network and is able to directly communicate with both the first and the second access network devices, meaning that they are neighboring); and signaling, to the serving access node, the first indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4] and [Page 3, Paragraph 2], first load information is separately returned to the network control device (acting as a serving node) by an access network device (acting as a target node)).
Regarding claim 33, Wu discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, comprising means for: receiving, from the serving network access node, a request for a second indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the first network access node would likely be affected if the first network access node were to serve the first user equipment, wherein the request for the second indication is signaled after the request for the first indication is signaled (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5, Paragraphs 2 and 3, Page 3, Paragraph 2], second load information request is sent to an access network device. Load info may include PRB utilization rate, which is a load-related parameter that measures node performance).
Regarding claim 35, Wu discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, comprising means for receiving, from the first user equipment, a request to perform a handover from the serving network access node to the first network access node (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5 Paragraph 7, network control device (serving node) instructs, or requests the first access network device (target node) to transmit a first handover command]).
Regarding claim 36, Wu discloses that the first indication comprises at least one of: a physical resource block utilization at least one of: a protocol data unit session level, a Data Resource Bearer level, carrier level, and/or a frequency band level (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4] and [Page 3, Paragraph 2], first load information is sent by a network control device (acting as a serving node) to an access network device (acting as a first target node). Load info may include PRB utilization rate, which is a metric that measures load impact on a node).
Regarding claim 37, Wu discloses that the request for the first indication relates to a single user equipment, and/or wherein the request for the third indication relates to a plurality of user equipment (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5 Paragraph 7, network control device (serving node) instructs, or requests the first access network device (target node) to transmit a first handover command. The first access network device hands over the user equipment from there, showing that the instruction / request is related to the user equipment]).
Regarding claim 40, Wu discloses a method (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 1, Paragraph 1]) for an apparatus for a serving network access node, the method comprising: providing a first user equipment with access to a network (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 5, Paragraph 6], first network device connects to a user equipment or device, serving it as part of a network); signaling, to a first network access node, a request for a first indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the first network access node would likely be affected if the first network access node were to serve the first user equipment (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4] and [Page 3, Paragraph 2], first load information is sent by a network control device (acting as a serving node) to an access network device (acting as a first target node). Load info may include PRB utilization rate, which is a metric that measures load impact on a node); receiving, from the first network access node, the first indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 4], first load information is received by a network control device (acting as a serving node) from an access network device (acting as a first target node)); and making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received first indication (translated from foreign document Wu: [Page 4, Paragraph 5], based on the received load information, the network control apparatus determines whether or not the at least one second network apparatus can sustain the load of the cell to be closed).
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.
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 24, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A) in view of Medjkouh (US 20240236803 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Wu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the means for making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received first indication comprises means for: determining that the first user equipment is configured to initiate a handover from the serving network access node to another network access node when the first user equipment determines that at least one execution condition is fulfilled at the first user equipment; determining whether the first network access node is a suitable network access node to function as said another network access node using said first indication; and when it is determined that the first network access node is a suitable network access node using said first indication, signaling the first user equipment, wherein said signaling to the first user equipment indicates that the first network access node is suitable to function as said another network access node.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Medjkouh discloses means for making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received first indication comprises means for: determining that the first user equipment is configured to initiate a handover from the serving network access node to another network access node when the first user equipment determines that at least one execution condition is fulfilled at the first user equipment ([0078], UE 402 decides to be handed over to a target base station. This decision in made on various factors (execution conditions), for example load predictions sent by the target base stations (target nodes), contextual information from the UE, or history connection data with the target stations); determining whether the first network access node is a suitable network access node to function as said another network access node using said first indication (Fig. 4A, steps 422-424 describe the UE receiving and making a decision on whether or not to handover to the first base station. The decision is based on the load predictions (indications) sent by the target base stations); and when it is determined that the first network access node is a suitable network access node using said first indication, signaling the first user equipment, wherein said signaling to the first user equipment indicates that the first network access node is suitable to function as said another network access node (Fig 4A, step 418 describes a source base station (equivalent to a serving node) receiving a load prediction (indication) from a first base station 406 (equivalent to a first target node. This load indication is later sent to the UE at step 422 so that it can decide which base station to hand itself over to).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the serving node apparatus as described by Wu, with the indication functionality as described by Medjkouh, in order to help ensure that the user equipment can hand itself over to the best possible node by directly communicating with said node on its capabilities.
Regarding claim 29, Wu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching means for: signaling, to a second network access node, a request for a third indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the second network access node would likely be affected if the second network access node were to serve the first user equipment; receiving, from the second network access node, the third indication; and making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received third indication.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Medjkouh discloses means for: signaling, to a second network access node, a request for a third indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of the second network access node would likely be affected if the second network access node were to serve the first user equipment (Fig. 4B, at step 460, source base station 404 (equivalent to a serving node) requests a load prediction at a second target base station 407 (equivalent to a second network access node)); receiving, from the second network access node, the third indication (Fig. 4, at 466, source base station 404 (equivalent to a serving node) receives the load prediction at a second target base station 407 (equivalent to a second network access node)); and making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received third indication (Fig. 4, at 470, source base station 404 decides to hand over to secondary target base station after receiving the load prediction from said secondary target base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the serving access node apparatus, as taught by Wu, with the secondary node load prediction functionalities as taught by Medjkouh, in order to further search for a best possible node that can serve the user equipment.
Regarding claim 30, Wu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing means for: providing the received third indication to the first network access node; and providing the received first indication to the second network access node.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Medjkouh discloses means for: providing the received third indication to the first network access node; and providing the received first indication to the second network access node (Fig. 4A, 418 and 420, serving base station (serving node) exchanges load prediction info bidirectionally with both target nodes 406 and 407).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the serving access node apparatus, as taught by Wu, with the indication signalling functionalities as taught by Medjkouh, in order search for a best possible node that can serve the user equipment by communicating with multiple candidate nodes at once.
Regarding claim 31, Wu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing means for: receiving, from at least one of the first network access node and the second network access node, a load-related decision in relation to the first user equipment.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Medjkouh discloses means for: receiving, from at least one of the first network access node and the second network access node, a load-related decision in relation to the first user equipment (Fig. 4B 464 and 466, the two target base stations (nodes) provide to the source base station (serving node) an acknowledgement of a possible handover with the user equipment along with the respective node’s load prediction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the serving access node apparatus, as taught by Wu, with the secondary node load prediction functionalities as taught by Medjkouh, in order to search for a best possible node that can serve the user equipment by communicating with multiple candidate nodes at once.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A, Wu1) in view of Wu (US 20230013195 A1, Wu2), and further in view of Paladugu (US 20230083669 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Wu1 differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the means for making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received second indication comprises means for: determining that the first user equipment is configured to initiate a handover from the serving network access node to another network access node when the first user equipment determines that at least one execution condition is fulfilled at the first user equipment; determining whether the first network access node is a suitable network access node to function as said another network access node using said second indication; and when it is determined that the first network access node is not a suitable network access node using said second indication, signaling the first user equipment, wherein said signaling to the first user equipment indicates that the first network access node is not suitable to function as said another network access node.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Wu2 teaches the means for making at least one load-related decision for the first user equipment in dependence on the received second indication comprises means for: determining that the first user equipment is configured to initiate a handover from the serving network access node to another network access node when the first user equipment determines that at least one execution condition is fulfilled at the first user equipment ([0098], during handover process, terminal device determines a target cell to handover the UE to, based on multiple conditions, such as cell signal strength, cell channel quality, etc); determining whether the first network access node is a suitable network access node to function as said another network access node using said second indication ([0012] and [0110], UE selects an suitable cell and selects it based on a common timing advance of a target candidate cell in a handover message. This timing advance is included in information given by the target cell in a second indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Wu1 with the suitability checks as taught by Wu2, in order to ensure that a targeted node is a good choice for a serving node to hand over a UE to.
Wu2 differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that when it is determined that the first network access node is not a suitable network access node using said second indication, signaling the first user equipment, wherein said signaling to the first user equipment indicates that the first network access node is not suitable to function as said another network access node.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Paladugu discloses that when it is determined that the first network access node is not a suitable network access node using said second indication, signaling the first user equipment, wherein said signaling to the first user equipment indicates that the first network access node is not suitable to function as said another network access node ([0101] and Fig. 7, a serving cell 704 notifies a UE 702 with a secondary conditional handover command at step 740, after it cancels handover to a potential target cell 706 at step 738).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the node suitability checks of Wu2 with the indications for a non-suitable node, as taught by Paladugu, in order to ensure that a targeted node is a good choice for a serving node to hand over a UE to.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A) in view of Medjkouh (US 20240236803 A1), and further in view of Paladugu (US 20230083669 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Wu and Medjkouh differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that means for, when it is determined that the first network access node is a suitable network access node using said first indication and when it is determined that the first network access node is not a suitable network access node using said second indication, signaling the first user equipment to indicate that the first neighboring access node is no longer suitable to function as said another network access node.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Paladugu teaches means for, when it is determined that the first network access node is a suitable network access node using said first indication and when it is determined that the first network access node is not a suitable network access node using said second indication ([0056] and [0077], measurements are made on both nodes based on signals such as channel state information signals that are indicative of node quality. The UE makes these measurements on candidate target nodes 506 and 508 to better choose between them when deciding to handover later), signaling the first user equipment to indicate that the first neighboring access node is no longer suitable to function as said another network access node ([0101] and Fig. 7, a serving cell 704 notifies a UE 702 with a secondary conditional handover command at step 740, after it cancels handover to a potential target cell 706 at step 738).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus as taught by the combination of Wu and Medjkouh with the indications for a non-suitable node as taught by Paladugu, in order to ensure that a targeted node is a good choice for a serving node to hand over a UE to.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A) in view of Soldati (US 20240196252 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Wu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching means for determining that at least one of a validity time of the first indication has expired, and/or that a measurement report has been received from a user equipment subsequent to the first indication being received, wherein said signaling, to the first network access node, the request for the second indication is performed response to said determining.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Soldati teaches means for determining that at least one of a validity time of the first indication has expired, and/or that a measurement report has been received from a user equipment subsequent to the first indication being received, wherein said signaling, to the first network access node, the request for the second indication is performed response to said determining ([0136], first node checks whether a timer based condition has been fulfilled (validity time expiration), and when it is fulfilled, transmits updated resource utilization status, in response to the determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus as taught by the combination of Wu and Medjkouh with the determining of a validity time expiration as taught by Soldati, in order to obtain updated indication information in response to the expiration of a validity time.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A) in view of Janis (US 20160157243 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Wu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing means for: receiving, from the serving network access node, a third indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of a second network access node would likely be affected if the second network access node were to serve the first user equipment; and making a load-related decision for the first user equipment using the first and/or third indication.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Janis discloses means for: receiving, from the serving network access node, a third indication that indicates how at least one load-related parameter of a second network access node would likely be affected if the second network access node were to serve the first user equipment ([0017] a network entity receives from a serving access node, on behalf of a user equipment, information of communications of at least one access node other than the serving access node. Said information may comprise of load information such as interference conditions of a downlink channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the serving access node apparatus, as taught by Wu, with the load indication and decision as taught by Janis, in order to inform a target node about other potential target nodes and their serving capabilities.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A) in view of Damnjanovic (US 12402049 B2).
Regarding claim 38, Wu differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach that the request for the first indication comprises at least one of: a channel quality indicator estimated based on a trajectory of the first user equipment; an arrival rate of packets at the first user equipment per session of the first user equipment; and/or service and/or slice information related to a service and/or slice provided at the first user equipment.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Damnjanovic discloses that the request for the first indication comprises at least one of: a channel quality indicator estimated based on a trajectory of the first user equipment (Col. 7, Lines 43-53, measurement of cells (nodes) by the UE may include channel quality measurements); an arrival rate of packets at the first user equipment per session of the first user equipment; and/or service and/or slice information related to a service and/or slice provided at the first user equipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the serving access node apparatus, as taught by Wu, with the indication as taught by Damnjanovic, in order to search for a best possible node that can serve the user equipment by assessing performance metrics such as channel quality, as part of the load indication.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (KR 20160092023 A) in view of Damnjanovic (US 12402049 B2), and further in view of Sternberg (US 10986675 B2).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Wu and Damnjanovic differ from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the request for the first indication comprises a temporary identifier of the first user equipment.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Sternberg discloses that the request for the first indication comprises a temporary identifier of the first user equipment (Col. 41 13-25, UE 2007 provides connection to a RAT, including its own temporary identifier during the connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the serving access node apparatus, as taught by the combination of Wu and Damnjanovic, with the temporary UE identifier of Sternberg, in order to ensure that a target node can verify the identity of the network entity it will possibly serve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HUYTAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN HUY DINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights