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 action is responsive to the Application filed on 06/03/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 13 and 19 are independent claims.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-12 are drawn to a method, claims 13-18 are drawn to a device and claim 19-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of matter; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 13 and 19 are nonverbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: A measurement method, comprising: determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information;
performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement; and
sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device,
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, mental process, organizing human activity and information processing/ data manipulation/ knowledge management. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
determining, […] measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, reviewing performance information and determining what information is needed to evaluate that performance. A person could conceptually perform that type of observation/evaluation/judgement mentally or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
A measurement method, comprising:
[…] by a first communication device, […], as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device, as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
A measurement method, comprising:
[…] by a first communication device, […], as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device, as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 13
Claim 13 recites: A first communication device, comprising: a memory storing a computer program; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer program to perform operations comprising:
determining measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information;
performing target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement; and
sending first information to a second communication device,
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, mental process, organizing human activity and information processing/ data manipulation/ knowledge management. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 13 recites in part:
determining measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, reviewing performance information and determining what information is needed to evaluate that performance. A person could conceptually perform that type of observation/evaluation/judgement mentally or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 13 recites in part:
A first communication device, comprising: a memory storing a computer program; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer program to perform operations comprising, as drafted, recites generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
performing target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
sending first information to a second communication device, as drafted as additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 13 recites in part:
A first communication device, comprising: a memory storing a computer program; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer program to perform operations comprising, as drafted, recites generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
performing target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
sending first information to a second communication device, as drafted as additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 19
Claim 19 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor of, causes the processor to perform operations comprising:
determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information;
performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement; and
sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device,
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, mental process, organizing human activity and information processing/ data manipulation/ knowledge management. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 19 recites in part:
determining, […] measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process. For example, reviewing performance information and determining what information is needed to evaluate that performance. A person could conceptually perform that type of observation/evaluation/judgement mentally or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 19 recites in part:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor of, causes the processor to perform operations comprising, as drafted, recites generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
[…] by a first communication device, […], as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device, as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 19 recites in part:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor of, causes the processor to perform operations comprising, as drafted, recites generic computing components . Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
[…] by a first communication device, […], as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement, as drafted, amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “artificial intelligence model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device, as drafted, as an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, gathering information). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-12 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 14-18 which are dependent on claim 13 and claim 20 which is dependent on claim 19, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Claims 2, 14 and 20 are dependent on claims 1, 13 and 19 respectively, incorporates the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. The additional limitation reciting that “the first information further comprises the measurement information” merely specifies additional information to be included in the information transmitted to the second communication device.
Claims 3 and 15 are dependent on claims 1 and 13 respectively, incorporates the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. The additional imitation merely defines the information used in performing the recited evaluation by identifying an object based on received information and evaluating the identified object constitutes an observation or evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind and therefore fall within the mental-process grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 4 and 16 are dependent on claims 3 and 15 respectively, and doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this merely includes generic computer components and therefore doesn’t break away from the reason for the identified abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 17 are dependent on claims 4 and 16 respectively and include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claims 6 and 18 are dependent on claims 4 and 16 and include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 3 and include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 2 and doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this merely includes generic computer components and therefore doesn’t break away from the reason for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and doesn’t provide integration into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because this merely includes generic computer components and therefore doesn’t break away from the reason for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 3, include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, include additional elements recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Patent No. 10,505,616 B1), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Uesaka et al. (Pub No.: 20200336158 A1), hereinafter referred to as Uesaka.
With respect to claim 1, Chen disclose:
A measurement method, comprising: determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information (In Col. 19, lines 6–22, Chen disclose an iterative process for optimizing antenna beam weights based on UE measurements and network performance. The system creates an initial set of antenna beam weights and sends them to the calls. The base stations (BSS) transmit signal using those beam weights. The BSS receive measurements from the UEs and report those measurements to an agent. The agent calculates the number of connected Us associated with each antenna-weight set. The agent selects the best-performing antenna weights based on the number of connected Us. In Col. 19-20, lines 59–9, Chen discloses the performance metric used to make a subsequent determination. The system evaluates whether the performance metric satisfies a convergence condition.)
Performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement (In Col. 27, lines 44–62, Chen discloses a deep neural network configured to select the best beam. It feeds preprocessed consecutive measurement results into the deep neural network, and the DNA produces an output identifying the best beam. The measurement information can include RsrI, RSRI, SIN, UE identification, and UE location information.)
Wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result (In Fig. 37 and Col. 32, lines 33–41, Chen disclosed the control center receives the measurement results from the UE.)
With respect to claim 1, Chen do not explicitly disclose:
Sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device
However, it is known by Uesaka to disclose:
Sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device (In paragraph [0093 & 0096], Uesaka discloses transmitting, via a first communication device 101, information to a second communication device 102 (e.g., base station), wherein the UE communicates with and transmits information to the base station. )
Chen in view of Uesaka are analogous pieces of art both are in the same general field of wireless/cellular communication and address adapting wireless-device operations based on information concerning radio conditions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen , with an apparatus and method configured to select a first beam for each BS, send selected beams for each BS, receive measurement information of a first beam from UEs via BSs, preprocess the measurement results, use a neural network as taught by Chen, with a first communication device and second communication device as taught by Uesaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the network coverage by taking the interference from other cells into account (See (Col. 18, lines 60-61) of Chen.)
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose the elements of claim 1. In addition, Chen disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises the measurement information (In Col. 19, lines 11–14, Chen discloses the BS receives in step 1208 the UE measurement and reports the measurements to the agent.)
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose the elements of claim 1. In addition, Chen disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the first communication device, a transmission resource for the first information based on resource allocation information of the third communication device, wherein the transmission resource comprises at least one of the following: time resource information; frequency resource information; antenna port information; or beam indication information (The examiner selects beam indication information (In Col. 21, lines 40–61, Chen discloses the deep neural network as an indicator for the best beam.))
With respect to claim 13, Chen disclose:
A first communication device, comprising: a memory storing a computer program (In Col. 9, lines 42-53, Chen disclose the processor 252 executes instructions that may be loaded into a memory 256. The processor 252 may include any suitable number(s) and type(s) of processors or other devices.)
A processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer program to perform operations comprising: determining measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information (In Col. 19, lines 6–22, Chen disclose an iterative process for optimizing antenna beam weights based on UE measurements and network performance. The system creates an initial set of antenna beam weights and sends them to the calls. The base stations (BSS) transmit signal using those beam weights. The BSS receive measurements from the UEs and report those measurements to an agent. The agent calculates the number of connected Us associated with each antenna-weight set. The agent selects the best-performing antenna weights based on the number of connected Us. In Col. 19-20, lines 59–9, Chen discloses the performance metric used to make a subsequent determination. The system evaluates whether the performance metric satisfies a convergence condition.)
Performing target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement (In Col. 27, lines 44–62, Chen discloses a deep neural network configured to select the best beam. It feeds preprocessed consecutive measurement results into the deep neural network, and the DNA produces an output identifying the best beam. The measurement information can include RsrI, RSRI, SIN, UE identification, and UE location information.)
Wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result (In Fig. 37 and Col. 32, lines 33–41, Chen disclosed the control center receives the measurement results from the UE.)
With respect to claim 13, Chen do not explicitly disclose:
Sending first information to a second communication device, wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result
However, it is known by Uesaka to disclose:
Sending first information to a second communication device, wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result (In paragraph [0093 & 0096], Uesaka discloses transmitting, via a first communication device 101, information to a second communication device 102 (e.g., base station), wherein the UE communicates with and transmits information to the base station. )
Chen in view of Uesaka are analogous pieces of art both are in the same general field of wireless/cellular communication and address adapting wireless-device operations based on information concerning radio conditions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen , with an apparatus and method configured to select a first beam for each BS, send selected beams for each BS, receive measurement information of a first beam from UEs via BSs, preprocess the measurement results, use a neural network as taught by Chen, with a first communication device and second communication device as taught by Uesaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the network coverage by taking the interference from other cells into account (See (Col. 18, lines 60-61) of Chen.)
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose the elements of claim 13. In addition, Chen disclose:
The first communication device according to claim 13, wherein the first information further comprises the measurement information (In Col. 19, lines 11–14, Chen discloses the BS receives in step 1208 the UE measurement and reports the measurements to the agent.)
With respect to claim 19, Chen disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor of, causes the processor to perform operations comprising: determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information (In Col. 9, lines 42-53, Chen disclose the processor 252 executes instructions that may be loaded into a memory 256. The processor 252 may include any suitable number(s) and type(s) of processors or other devices. In Col. 19, lines 6–22, Chen disclose an iterative process for optimizing antenna beam weights based on UE measurements and network performance. The system creates an initial set of antenna beam weights and sends them to the calls. The base stations (BSS) transmit signal using those beam weights. The BSS receive measurements from the UEs and report those measurements to an agent. The agent calculates the number of connected Us associated with each antenna-weight set. The agent selects the best-performing antenna weights based on the number of connected Us. In Col. 19-20, lines 59–9, Chen discloses the performance metric used to make a subsequent determination. The system evaluates whether the performance metric satisfies a convergence condition.)
Performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model, and obtaining a target measurement result for the target measurement (In Col. 27, lines 44–62, Chen discloses a deep neural network configured to select the best beam. It feeds preprocessed consecutive measurement results into the deep neural network, and the DNA produces an output identifying the best beam. The measurement information can include RsrI, RSRI, SIN, UE identification, and UE location information.)
Wherein the first information comprises the target measurement result (In Fig. 37 and Col. 32, lines 33–41, Chen disclosed the control center receives the measurement results from the UE.)
With respect to claim 19, Chen do not explicitly disclose:
Sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device
However, it is known by Uesaka to disclose:
Sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device (In paragraph [0093 & 0096], Uesaka discloses transmitting, via a first communication device 101, information to a second communication device 102 (e.g., base station), wherein the UE communicates with and transmits information to the base station. )
Chen in view of Uesaka are analogous pieces of art both are in the same general field of wireless/cellular communication and address adapting wireless-device operations based on information concerning radio conditions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen , with an apparatus and method configured to select a first beam for each BS, send selected beams for each BS, receive measurement information of a first beam from UEs via BSs, preprocess the measurement results, use a neural network as taught by Chen, with a first communication device and second communication device as taught by Uesaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the network coverage by taking the interference from other cells into account (See (Col. 18, lines 60-61) of Chen.)
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose the elements of claim 19. In addition, Chen disclose:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 19, wherein the first information further comprises the measurement information (In Col. 19, lines 11–14, Chen discloses the BS receives in step 1208 the UE measurement and reports the measurements to the agent.)
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka and further in view of Yang et al. (US Patent No. 10,397,973 B2), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose elements of claim 1. Chen in view of Uesaka does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement information comprises at least one of the following: first indication information for indicating a model type of the target artificial intelligence model
Second indication information for indicating validity of the target artificial intelligence model
Third indication information for indicating at least one measurement object
wherein the target measurement comprises: measurement for the at least one measurement object
fourth indication information for indicating measurement timestamp information for the target measurement
Fifth indication information for indicating the performance indication information
Sixth indication information for indicating a measurement type of the target measurement
Seventh indication information for indicating a quantization manner for the target measurement result
However, Yang disclose the limitation:
Third indication information for indicating at least one measurement object (The examiner selects: Third indication information for indicating at least one measurement object. In Col. 6, lines 41–44, Yang discloses the measurement configuration. IE may include measurement object information. The measurement object information is information about an object which is to be measured by the UE.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka to include Yang, with a method for performing measurement by a user equipment (UE) as taught by Yang. The motivation for doing so would have been to indicate a neighbor cell of a RAT which is different from that of a serving cell (See (Col. 6, line 54) of Yang).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose elements of claim 13. Chen in view of Uesaka does not disclose:
The first communication device according to claim 13, wherein the measurement information comprises at least one of the following: first indication information for indicating a model type of the target artificial intelligence model
Second indication information for indicating validity of the target artificial intelligence model
Third indication information for indicating at least one measurement object
Wherein the target measurement comprises: measurement for the at least one measurement object
Fourth indication information for indicating measurement timestamp information for the target measurement
Fifth indication information for indicating the performance indication information; sixth indication information for indicating a measurement type of the target measurement
Seventh indication information for indicating a quantization manner for the target measurement result
However, Yang disclose the limitation:
Third indication information for indicating at least one measurement object (The examiner selects: Third indication information for indicating at least one measurement object. In Col. 6, lines 41–44, Yang discloses the measurement configuration. IE may include measurement object information. The measurement object information is information about an object which is to be measured by the UE.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka to include Yang, with a method for performing measurement by a user equipment (UE) as taught by Yang. The motivation for doing so would have been to indicate a neighbor cell of a RAT which is different from that of a serving cell (See (Col. 6, line 54) of Yang).
Claims 4, 6, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka, Yang and further in view of Gao et al. (Pub No.: 20190349125 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gao.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang disclose elements of claim 3. Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 3, wherein the measurement type comprises at least one of the following: periodic measurement, semi-periodic measurement, or aperiodic measurement
However, Gao disclose the limitation (In paragraph [0021], Gao discloses that CSI measurement/reporting may comprise at least one periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic operation, wherein periodic CSI is periodically performed according to a configured periodicity, semi-persistent CSI operates according to a configured periodicity following dynamic activation, and aperiodic CSI is dynamically triggered as a single-shot operation)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang to include Gao, with activation and deactivation of semi-persistent Channel State Information (CSI) reporting by a wireless device as taught by Gao. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the performance of OTT services provided to the UE 2014 using the OTT connection (See [0190] of Gao.)
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang and Gao disclose elements of claim 4. In addition, Gao disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 4, wherein the performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model comprises at least one of the following: performing the target measurement based on a first measurement period of the periodic measurement when the measurement type comprises periodic measurement (Examiner selects: In paragraph [0021], Gao discloses that CSI measurement/reporting may comprise at least one periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic operation, wherein periodic CSI is periodically performed according to a configured periodicity, semi-persistent CSI operates according to a configured periodicity following dynamic activation, and aperiodic CSI is dynamically triggered as a single-shot operation)
performing the target measurement based on error measurement window information of the periodic measurement when the measurement type comprises periodic measurement, wherein the error measurement window information comprises a start/end time position of a window or window duration information
performing the target measurement based on a second measurement period of the semi-periodic measurement when the measurement type comprises semi-periodic measurement
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Uesaka disclose elements of claim 2. Chen in view of Uesaka does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 2, wherein the sending, by the first communication device, first information to a second communication device comprises: determining, by the first communication device, a reporting manner and timestamp information for reporting; and sending, by the first communication device, the first information to the second communication device based on the reporting manner and the timestamp information for reporting, wherein the reporting manner comprises: periodic reporting; semi-periodic reporting; and aperiodic reporting
However, Gao disclose the limitation (In paragraph [0021], Gao discloses that CSI measurement/reporting may comprise at least one periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic operation, wherein periodic CSI is periodically performed according to a configured periodicity, semi-persistent CSI operates according to a configured periodicity following dynamic activation, and aperiodic CSI is dynamically triggered as a single-shot operation.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka to include Gao, with activation and deactivation of semi-persistent Channel State Information (CSI) reporting by a wireless device as taught by Gao. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the performance of OTT services provided to the UE 2014 using the OTT connection (See [0190] of Gao.)
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang disclose elements of claim 15. Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang does not disclose:
The first communication device according to claim 15, wherein the measurement type comprises at least one of the following: periodic measurement, semi-periodic measurement, or aperiodic measurement
However, Gao disclose the limitation (In paragraph [0021], Gao discloses that CSI measurement/reporting may comprise at least one periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic operation, wherein periodic CSI is periodically performed according to a configured periodicity, semi-persistent CSI operates according to a configured periodicity following dynamic activation, and aperiodic CSI is dynamically triggered as a single-shot operation)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang to include Gao, with activation and deactivation of semi-persistent Channel State Information (CSI) reporting by a wireless device as taught by Gao. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the performance of OTT services provided to the UE 2014 using the OTT connection (See [0190] of Gao.)
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang and Gao disclose elements of claim 16. In addition, Gao disclose:
The first communication device according to claim 16, wherein the performing, by the first communication device, target measurement based on the measurement information by using a target artificial intelligence model comprises at least one of the following: Performing the target measurement based on a first measurement period of the periodic measurement when the measurement type comprises periodic measurement (Examiner selects: In paragraph [0021], Gao discloses that CSI measurement/reporting may comprise at least one periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic operation, wherein periodic CSI is periodically performed according to a configured periodicity, semi-persistent CSI operates according to a configured periodicity following dynamic activation, and aperiodic CSI is dynamically triggered as a single-shot operation)
performing the target measurement based on error measurement window information of the periodic measurement when the measurement type comprises periodic measurement, wherein the error measurement window information comprises a start/end time position of a window or window duration information
Performing the target measurement based on a second measurement period of the semi-periodic measurement when the measurement type comprises semi-periodic measurement
Performing the target measurement based on a burst measurement indication when the measurement type comprises semi-periodic measurement or aperiodic measurement
Proactively performing, by the first communication device, the target measurement when a reporting manner comprises semi-periodic reporting or aperiodic reporting
Claims 5 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao and further in view of Skeirik et al. (US Patent No. 5212765 A), hereinafter referred to as Skeirik.
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao disclose elements of claim 4. Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 4, wherein the measurement timestamp information comprises a training period of the target artificial intelligence model
However, Skeirik disclose the limitation (In Cols. 9-10, lines 60-7, Sheik discloses that training input data are stored with associated timestamps, and those timestamps indicate the relative time at which the training input data were obtained.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao to include a historical database is used and the neural network monitors for changes in a timestamp of the training input data as taught by Skeirik. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality control in manufacturing processes (See (Col. 13, lines 46-48) of Skeirik.)
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao disclose elements of claim 16. Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao does not disclose:
The first communication device according to claim 16, wherein the measurement timestamp information comprises a training period of the target artificial intelligence model
However, Skeirik disclose the limitation (In Cols. 9-10, lines 60-7, Sheik discloses that training input data are stored with associated timestamps, and those timestamps indicate the relative time at which the training input data were obtained.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Gao to include a historical database is used and the neural network monitors for changes in a timestamp of the training input data as taught by Skeirik. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve quality control in manufacturing processes (See (Col. 13, lines 46-48) of Skeirik.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka, Yang and further in view of Zhao et al. (Pub No.: 20120244905 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang disclose elements of claim 3. Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 3, wherein the determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information comprises at least one of the following: determining that the target measurement in the measurement information comprises instantaneous measurement, when the first communication device determines that the performance indication information comprises instantaneous performance indication information
Determining that the target measurement in the measurement information comprises statistical measurement, when the first communication device determines that the performance indication information comprises performance indication information obtained through statistics for a plurality of continuous measurement time points or a plurality of continuous measurement positions
However, Zhao disclose the limitation:
The measurement method according to claim 3, wherein the determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information comprises at least one of the following: determining that the target measurement in the measurement information comprises instantaneous measurement, when the first communication device determines that the performance indication information comprises instantaneous performance indication information (In paragraph [0138], Zhao discloses determining an instantaneous measurement as the applicable measurement type, wherein the UE obtains an instantaneous measurement quantity from a current measurement value received from the physical layer, as distinguished from a statistical measurement quantity derived from multiple measurement results.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang to include Zhao, with the UE can report the measurement information of multiple carriers as taught by Zhao. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the data transmit rate of user (See[0005] of Zhao.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka, Yang, Zhao and further in view of Bhattacharyya et al. (Pub No.: 20200285983 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bhattacharyya.
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang and Zhao disclose elements of claim 3. Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang and Zhao does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 7, wherein: the instantaneous performance indication information comprises at least one of the following: model instantaneous error, distance performance instantaneous indicator, or communication performance instantaneous indicator, wherein the target measurement result comprises an instantaneous result of the instantaneous measurement
the performance indication information obtained through statistics at the plurality of continuous measurement time points or the plurality of continuous measurement positions comprises at least one of the following
model statistical error, distance performance statistical indicator, or communication performance statistical indicator, wherein the target measurement result comprises a statistical result of the statistical measurement
However, Bhattacharyya disclose the limitation:
Model statistical error, distance performance statistical indicator, or communication performance statistical indicator, wherein the target measurement result comprises a statistical result of the statistical measurement (In paragraph [0113], Bhattacharyya discloses a model statistical error, wherein the reference determines prediction error associated with a predictive statistical model and generates error statistics comprising a mean training error and a standard deviation of the training error. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang, Zhao to include Bhattacharyya, with defining the predictive statistical model from a transmitter to a receiver as taught by Bhattacharyya. The motivation for doing so would have been to model accuracy (See [0231] of Bhattacharyya.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka, Gao and further in view of Han et al. (US Patent No. 9848353 A), hereinafter referred to as Han.
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang and Zhao disclose elements of claim 9. Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang and Zhao does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 9, wherein the sending, by the first communication device, the first information to the second communication device based on the reporting manner and the timestamp information for reporting comprises at least one of the following: when the reporting manner comprises periodic reporting, sending the first information to the second communication device based on a first reporting period of the periodic reporting
When the reporting manner comprises semi-periodic reporting, sending the first information to the second communication device based on a second reporting period of the semi-periodic reporting;
When the reporting manner comprises semi-periodic reporting, sending the first information to the second communication device based on a second reporting period of the semi-periodic reporting;
When the reporting manner comprises semi-periodic reporting or aperiodic reporting, sending the first information to the second communication device based on a burst reporting indication
When the reporting manner comprises semi-periodic reporting or aperiodic reporting, proactively sending, by the first communication device, the first information to the second communication device
However, Han disclose the limitation:
Examiner select: The measurement method according to claim 9, wherein the sending, by the first communication device, the first information to the second communication device based on the reporting manner and the timestamp information for reporting comprises at least one of the following: when the reporting manner comprises periodic reporting, sending the first information to the second communication device based on a first reporting period of the periodic reporting (In Col. 15, lines 1–15, Han discloses a UE periodically transmitting CSI reports to an end according to a configured reporting periodicity/reporting period (Npd).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka, Gao to include Han, with user equipment (UE) operable to report periodic channel state information, determining a reporting period as taught by Han. The motivation for doing so would have been report higher priority than CQI reporting (See (Col. 8, lines 30-40) of Han.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Uesaka, Yang and further in view of GHANTA et al. (US Patent No. 9848353 A), hereinafter referred to as GHANTA.
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang disclose elements of claim 3. Chen in view of Uesaka and Yang does not disclose:
The measurement method according to claim 3, wherein the determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information comprises: determining, by the first communication device, a comparison result between performance of the target artificial intelligence model and a performance threshold
Determining, by the first communication device, validity indication information of the target artificial intelligence model based on the comparison result
However, GHANTA disclose the limitation:
The measurement method according to claim 3, wherein the determining, by a first communication device, measurement information required for target measurement specific to performance indication information comprises: determining, by the first communication device, a comparison result between performance of the target artificial intelligence model and a performance threshold (In paragraph [0083], GHANTA discloses that predictive performance of the first ML model is measured by the distance/error between the predicted value and the true label. It then states that a threshold is set on that error value.)
Determining, by the first communication device, validity indication information of the target artificial intelligence model based on the comparison result (In paragraph [0090], GHANTA discloses determining validity indication information of the artificial intelligence model based on the comparison result, wherein the reference determines whether the machine-learning model passes or fails a predefined performance criterion based on the comparison of the model's prediction error to a threshold.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Chen in view of Uesaka, Yang to include GHANTA, with a primary validation module that is configured to validate a first machine learning model to generate an error data set as taught by GHANTA. The motivation for doing so would have been improve machine learning systems by training a first or primary machine learning model for a first/primary machine learning algorithm using a training data set (See [0037] of GHANTA.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVEL HONORE whose telephone number is (703)756-1179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
EVEL HONORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2142
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights