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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/2/2025 and 1/30/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,028,796 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because take an example of comparing claims 21 and 39 of the pending application and claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,028,796 B2:
Pending Application No. 18/736,111
U.S. Patent No. US 12,028,796 B2
Claim 21: A method comprising:
Claim 1: A method of operating a wireless local area network (WLAN) device, comprising:
operating a wireless local area network (WLAN) device on a first channel of a plurality of channels;
operating the WLAN device on a first dynamic frequency selection (DFS) channel of a plurality of DFS channels;
scanning, by the WLAN device, the first DFS channel for presence of a radar signal from a radar;
receiving aiding information indicating that the first channel is used by a radar, the aiding information including a digital signature and a geo-tagged radar zone of the radar;
receiving, by the WLAN device, aiding information obtained by one or more WLAN devices capable of scanning the DFS channels, wherein the aiding information indicates that the first DFS channel is used by the radar, and wherein the aiding information received by the WLAN device comprises a broadcast WLAN action frame received, while overlapping one or more radar signals from the radar, from a second WLAN device over the first DFS channel and outside a radar interference range of the radar to avoid interference of the WLAN action frame with an operation of the radar, the aiding information indicating the first DFS channel is used by the radar and including a geo-tagged radar zone of the radar;
identifying a digital signature included in the broadcast WLAN action frame;
authenticating, using the digital signature, the aiding information;
authenticating, using the digital signature, the aiding information;
determining, based on the aiding information, that the WLAN device is approaching the geo-tagged radar zone of the radar responsive to authenticating the aiding information; and
determining, based on the aiding information, that the WLAN device is approaching the geo-tagged radar zone of the radar responsive to authenticating the aiding information; and
changing operating the WLAN device from using the first channel to a second channel of the plurality of channels responsive to authenticating the aiding information and the aiding information indicating the first channel being used by the radar.
changing operating the WLAN device from using the first DFS channel to a second DFS channel of the plurality of DFS channels in response to authenticating the aiding information and the aiding information indicating the first DFS channel being used by the radar.
Claim 39: A communication device, comprising:
Claim 15: A communication device, comprising:
a processing device configured to:
a processing device configured to:
generate aiding information indicating that a first channel of a plurality of channels is used by a radar, the aiding information including a digital signature and a geo-tagged radar zone of the radar; and
generate information on a geo-tagged radar zone comprising a geographical area in which an operating radar operates, and one or more dynamic frequency selection (DFS) channels being used by the operating radar at the geographical area; and
broadcast the aiding information to cause a WLAN device approaching the geo-tagged radar zone to authenticate the aiding information using the digital signature and steer clear of the first channel used by the radar responsive to authenticating the aiding information.
broadcast, while overlapping one or more radar signals from the radar, WLAN action frame including the generated information over a first DFS channel and outside a radar interference range of the operating radar to avoid interference of the WLAN action frame with an operation of the operating radar, the WLAN action frames causing a WLAN device approaching the geo-tagged radar zone to authenticate the WLAN action frame using a digital signature included in the WLAN action frame and steer clear of the DFS channels used by the operating radar responsive to authenticating the WLAN action frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 27, 30, 36, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro et al. (US 2018/0167822 A1) hereinafter Cordeiro in view of Yi et al. (US 2018/0192422 A1) hereinafter Yi.
Regarding claim 21, Cordeiro teaches a method comprising: operating a wireless local area network (WLAN) device on a first channel of a plurality of channels (wireless local area network (WLAN) including devices; para. 12 and Fig. 1, devices (STAs 103 and AP 102) operating on multiple standards / channels; para. [14-15, 18-19]); receiving aiding information indicating that the first channel is used by a radar, the aiding information including a digital signature and a geo-tagged radar zone of the radar (STA receives beacon including Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) site, authentication message, AP in vicinity of RAS site, channels that are restricted [used by radar]; para. [30-32, 76, 79], determining geographic location [geo-tagged] using authentication message; para. [62-64, 67, 84-89, 92]); authenticating, using the digital signature, the aiding information (authentication message in beacon indicating AP in vicinity of RAS site; para. 32); determining, based on the aiding information, that the WLAN device is approaching the geo-tagged radar zone of the radar responsive to authenticating the aiding information (based on location information, determine STA within threshold distance away from restricted RAS area while moving; para. [34-39, 41, 51, 75, 77], moving and update as soon as STA is outside the area [at least suggesting “approaching”]; para. 39).
While Cordeiro discloses restricting / allowing / regulating / controlling / resuming communication, Cordeiro does not explicitly disclose changing operating the WLAN device from using the first channel to a second channel of the plurality of channels responsive to authenticating the aiding information and the aiding information indicating the first channel being used by the radar.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yi teaches changing operating the WLAN device from using the first channel to a second channel of the plurality of channels responsive to authenticating the aiding information and the aiding information indicating the first channel being used by the radar (clients perform channel switch based on information in beacon; para. 17, use of dynamic frequency selection (DFS) channels; para. 25, beacons include channel with radar; para. [26, 38], communication using authentication [at least suggesting authenticating beacon]; para. [28, 36]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yi to the system of Cordeiro, where Cordeiro’s frequency reuse (para. [18, 20]) along with Yi’s efficient use of spectrum (para. 02-03) improves the system by enabling spectrum efficiency with reduced interference.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Cordeiro and Yi teaches the previous limitation of claim 21.
Cordeiro further teaches wherein the aiding information further indicates one or more channels of the plurality of channels being used by the radar (STA receives beacon including RAS site, channels that are restricted [used by radar]; para. [30-32, 76, 79], RAS includes radar site location; para. [76, 79]) and one or more alternative channels available for WLAN operation (beacon includes information which channels that may be used / available; para. 30-32).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21, including WLAN interface (wireless local area network (WLAN) including devices; para. 12 and Fig. 1, interface 720; para. 55 and Fig. 7: Cordeiro); processing device (processor 508 / 702; para. [45, 50, 53-58] and Figs. [5, 7]: Cordeiro).
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27.
Regarding claim 39, Cordeiro teaches a communication device (wireless local area network (WLAN) including devices; para. 12 and Fig. 1, devices including AP 102 (and STA 103) operating on multiple standards / channels; para. [14-15, 18-19]), comprising: a processing device (processor 508 / 702; para. [42, 45, 50, 53-58] and Figs. [5, 7]) configured to: generate aiding information indicating that a first channel of a plurality of channels is used by a radar, the aiding information including a digital signature and a geo-tagged radar zone of the radar (AP transmits [generates] beacon to STA including Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) site, authentication message [at least suggesting digital signature], AP in vicinity of RAS site, channels that are restricted [used by radar]; para. [30-32, 76, 79], determining geographic location [geo-tagged] using authentication message; para. [62-64, 67, 84-89, 92]); and broadcast the aiding information (AP transmits [broadcasts] beacon; para. [30-32, 76, 79]) to cause a WLAN device approaching the geo-tagged radar zone (based on location information, determine STA within threshold distance away from restricted RAS area while moving; para. [34-39, 41, 51, 75, 77], moving and update as soon as STA is outside the area [at least suggesting “approaching”]; para. 39) to authenticate the aiding information using the digital signature (authentication message in beacon indicating AP in vicinity of RAS site; para. 32).
While Cordeiro discloses restricting / allowing / regulating / controlling / resuming communication, Cordeiro does not explicitly disclose steer clear of the first channel used by the radar responsive to authenticating the aiding information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yi teaches steer clear of the first channel used by the radar responsive to authenticating the aiding information (clients perform channel switch based on information in beacon; para. 17, use of dynamic frequency selection (DFS) channels; para. 25, beacons include channel with radar; para. [26, 38], communication using authentication [at least suggesting authenticating beacon]; para. [28, 36]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yi to the system of Cordeiro, where Cordeiro’s frequency reuse (para. [18, 20]) along with Yi’s efficient use of spectrum (para. 02-03) improves the system by enabling spectrum efficiency with reduced interference.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Cordeiro and Yi teaches the previous limitation of claim 39.
While Cordeiro discloses restricting / allowing / regulating / controlling / resuming communication, Cordeiro does not explicitly disclose wherein the aiding information causes the WLAN device to steer clear of the first channel used by the radar by switching from using the first channel of the plurality of channels used by the radar to using a second channel of the plurality of channels that is not being used by the radar.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yi further teaches wherein the aiding information causes the WLAN device to steer clear of the first channel used by the radar by switching from using the first channel of the plurality of channels used by the radar to using a second channel of the plurality of channels that is not being used by the radar (clients perform channel switch based on information in beacon; para. 17, use of dynamic frequency selection (DFS) channels; para. 25, beacons include channel with radar; para. [26, 38], communication using authentication [at least suggesting authenticating beacon]; para. [28, 36], use of available channels free of radar and using whitelists; para. [26-28, 38, 40, 42, 46-49, 52, 54]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yi to the modified system of Cordeiro and Yi, where Cordeiro and Yi’s modified system along with Yi’s efficient use of spectrum (para. 02-03) improves the system by enabling spectrum efficiency with reduced interference.
Claim(s) 22-25, 31-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro in view of Yi, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US 2014/0378179 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Cordeiro and Yi teaches the previous limitation of claim 21.
While the combination of Cordeiro and Yi discloses receiving data from database, cellular network, location-tagged spectral information, and scanning channels, the combination of Cordeiro and Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the aiding information further comprises: receiving the aiding information from a crowd-sourced database over a cellular network, wherein the crowd-sourced database contains a plurality of geo-tagged radar zones detected by a plurality of WLAN devices capable of scanning the plurality of channels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagai teaches wherein receiving the aiding information further comprises: receiving the aiding information from a crowd-sourced database over a cellular network (interference data 13 from external database received via wide-area radio 5 including 3G, LTE, PHS; para. 33 and Fig. 1, interference data 13 updated based on detected channels for sharing with other apparatuses having same function as terminal 1 [thus, crowd-sourced as other terminals also update database]; para. 60), wherein the crowd-sourced database contains a plurality of geo-tagged radar zones detected by a plurality of WLAN devices capable of scanning the plurality of channels (interference data includes detection position / detection coordinates; para. 47, detection position / detection coordinates indicates position where radar detected; para. 48 lines 05-08, searching for another frequency channel; para. 10, sharing with other terminals having same function; para. 39 lines 25-29 where “having same function” indicates other terminals also perform scanning of channels and sharing interference data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Nagai to the modified system of Cordeiro and Yi, where Cordeiro and Yi’s modified system along with Nagai’s avoidance and reduction of interference with other systems (para. 21-22) improves efficiency of the system by reducing interference.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai teaches the previous limitation of claim 22.
The combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the plurality of geo-tagged radar zones comprises a geographical area in which an operating radar has been detected by one of the plurality of WLAN devices capable of scanning the plurality of channels, and one or more channels of the plurality of channels detected as being used by the operating radar at the geographical area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagai further teaches wherein one of the plurality of geo-tagged radar zones comprises a geographical area in which an operating radar has been detected (interference data includes detection position / detection coordinates; para. 47, detection position / detection coordinates indicates position where radar detected; para. 48 lines 05-08) by one of the plurality of WLAN devices capable of scanning the plurality of channels (interference data 13 from external database received via wide-area radio 5 including 3G, LTE, PHS; para. 33 and Fig. 1, interference data 13 updated based on detected channels for sharing with other apparatuses having same function as terminal 1 (thus, crowd-sourced as other terminals also update database); para. 60), and one or more channels of the plurality of channels detected as being used by the operating radar at the geographical area (detection position / detection coordinates indicates position where radar detected; para. 48, interference data includes frequency band and position; para. 47 and Figs. 1 and Figs. 3A-3B, radio communication unit 16 of device 1 using frequency band for communication using wireless LAN and DFS bands; para. [09, 45-46], searching channels for radar and switching channels (thus, indicating first channel of a plurality of channels); para. [21, 34, 50, 58]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Nagai to the modified system of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai, where Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai’s modified system along with Nagai’s avoidance and reduction of interference with other systems (para. 21-22) improves efficiency of the system by reducing interference.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai teaches the previous limitation of claim 23.
The combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai does not explicitly disclose transmitting by the WLAN device to the crowd-sourced database a geographical position of the WLAN device, and wherein the aiding information comprises a geo-tagged radar zone of the plurality of geo-tagged radar zones.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagai further teaches transmitting by the WLAN device to the crowd-sourced database a geographical position of the WLAN device (terminal transmits to upload interference data to share between terminals; para. 39 lines 25-29, para. 60 and 69, interference data includes position of terminal; para. 48 lines 5-8), and wherein the aiding information comprises a geo-tagged radar zone of the plurality of geo-tagged radar zones (terminal receives interference data for checking; para. 46, interference data includes detection position / detection coordinates; para. 47, detection position / detection coordinates indicates position where radar detected; para. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Nagai to the modified system of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai, where Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai’s modified system along with Nagai’s avoidance and reduction of interference with other systems (para. 21-22) improves efficiency of the system by reducing interference.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai teaches the previous limitation of claim 24.
Cordeiro further teaches wherein the geographical area of the geo-tagged radar zone indicates that the operating radar is in a vicinity of the geographical position of the WLAN device (STA receives beacon including RAS site, AP in vicinity [and thus at least suggesting WLAN device also in vicinity] of RAS site; para. 30-32, RAS includes radar site location; para. [76, 79], determining geographic location [geo-tagged] using authentication message; para. [62-64, 67, 84-89, 92]).
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 22.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 24.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 25.
Claim(s) 26 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro in view of Yi, in view of Nagai and further in view of Green et al. (US 2017/0094651 A1) hereinafter Green.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai teaches the previous limitation of claim 23.
While the combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai discloses interference and overlapping channels including predicting overlapping channels, the combination of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai does not explicitly disclose wherein the aiding information further indicates that the first channel overlaps with the one or more channels detected as being used by the operating radar at one of the plurality of geo-tagged radar zones.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Green teaches wherein the aiding information further indicates that the first channel overlaps with the one or more channels detected as being used by the operating radar at one of the plurality of geo-tagged radar zones (channel availability checks (CAC); para. 49, scan current channel; para. 51, advisory data to UE indicates channels which include radar; para. 53, when determining channel status, data indicates blacklist channel when radar is detected at a particular location at a certain frequency / channel; para. 57 lines 20-25, CAC uses flag as channel available or radar detected on channel; para. 49 where flag indicates overlap or not, Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Green to the modified system of Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai, where Cordeiro, Yi, and Nagai’s modified system along with Green's blacklist channels with geographical information (para. 57) improves efficiency of the system by avoiding monitoring of channels in areas with known radar.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Claim(s) 28-29 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro in view of Yi, and further in view of Green.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Cordeiro and Yi teaches the previous limitation of claim 27.
The combination of Cordeiro and Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein the aiding information further indicates that the first channel overlaps with the one or more channels of the plurality of channels being used by the radar.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Green teaches wherein the aiding information further indicates that the first channel overlaps with the one or more channels of the plurality of channels being used by the radar (channel availability checks (CAC); para. 49, scan current channel; para. 51, advisory data to UE indicates channels which include radar; para. 53, when determining channel status, data indicates blacklist channel when radar is detected at a particular location at a certain frequency / channel; para. 57 lines 20-25, CAC uses flag as channel available or radar detected on channel; para. 49 where flag indicates overlap or not, Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Green to the modified system of Cordeiro and Yi, where Cordeiro and Yi’s modified system along with Green's blacklist channels with geographical information (para. 57) improves efficiency of the system by avoiding monitoring of channels in areas with known radar.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Cordeiro and Yi teaches the previous limitation of claim 27.
The combination of Cordeiro and Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein the second channel is selected from one of the one or more alternative channels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Green teaches wherein the second channel is selected from one of the one or more alternative channels (channel status such as Table 1 provided to devices; para. 73, channel status includes channel recommendations to select from for communication; para. 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Green to the modified system of Cordeiro and Yi, where Cordeiro and Yi’s modified system along with Green's blacklist channels with geographical information (para. 57) improves efficiency of the system by avoiding monitoring of channels in areas with known radar.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Solondz (US 2015/0223069 A1) discloses tune control for shared access system.
Gong et al. (US 2016/0292696 A1) discloses authentication systems and methods for generating flight regulations.
Manz (US 7,283,045 B1) discloses a system and method for semi-distributed event warning notification for individual entities, and computer program product therefor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights