DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 6/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 15 are the base independent claims.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files the Remark: see page 14.
Applicant describes the cited references that were mapped to the claim limitations under the Rejection. Such that, Applicant concludes “none of these descriptions are the same as: 1) implementing an analysis sequence comprising at least one testing protocol to follow a performance issue with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and 2) determining a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL based on the performance issue with the modem connection of the DSL. Specifically, Zahedi does not appear to describe following an issues from a DSL to determine an issue associated with the copper wire connection at all. Support for the claimed features may be found at least at paragraphs [0042-0043] of the specification.”
PNG
media_image1.png
815
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of Applicant’s disclosure (the portion is reproduced above), Examiner respectfully clarifies that the claimed testing protocol at best can compare a performance counter to a KPI, then analyze an anomalous performance event or a performance issue with the DSL. In comparison, Zahedi describes an example process in fig. 4 (reproduced below). Zahedi also in par [0063-64], at least describes a process for collecting current physical line characteristics for each of the DSL lines and comparing the current physical line characteristics to the baseline. Examiner further clarifies that Zahedi’s example follows a step-by-step instruction to identify a defect of the DSL, hence it reads following an issue through a DSL layer stack. Therefore, the reference clearly maps to the claimed limitation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, Examiner clarifies that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see MPEP § 2145 VI).
PNG
media_image2.png
734
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,040,847. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of examined application, see below.
Instant Application
US Patent 12,040,847
1. A testing device operable to measure and analyze at least one performance counter and to determine an issue with a digital subscriber line (DSL), the testing device comprising:
1. A testing device operable to measure and analyze performance counters and to determine an issue with a digital subscriber line (DSL), the testing device comprising:
a display; a transceiver; a first measurement circuit to measure and analyze modem-based measurements associated with the DSL; a second measurement circuit to measure and analyze copper wire-based measurements associated with the DSL; and a processor to: access at least one threshold associated with the at least one performance counter;
a display; a battery module; a transceiver; a physical connector; a first measurement circuit to measure and analyze modem-based measurements associated with the DSL; a second measurement circuit to measure and analyze copper wire-based measurements associated with the DSL; and a processor to: access thresholds associated with the performance counters;
detect an anomalous performance event based on the at least one performance counter and the at least one threshold associated with the at least one performance counter; enable an analysis mode to determine the issue with the DSL and to generate a recommendation to address the issue with the DSL, including implementing an analysis sequence comprising at least one testing protocol to follow an issue associated with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and
detect an anomalous performance event based on the performance counters and the thresholds; and enable an analysis mode to determine the issue with the DSL and to generate a recommendation to address the issue with the DSL, wherein enabling the analysis mode includes implementing an analysis sequence comprising one or more testing protocols to: follow an issue associated with a modem-based connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack; determine a performance counter for a copper wire connection of the DSL related to the issue associated with the modem-based connection, wherein the performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL is included in the performance counters; and
determine a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL.
determine a corresponding performance issue with the copper wire connection of the DSL utilizing the performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irenze et al (US 2010/0150318) in view of Zahedi et al (US 2017/0180549) and/or Mohseni et al (US 2018/0027113).
Regarding claim 1, Irenze discloses a testing device (fig. 2; e.g. test set 204) operable to measure and analyze at least one performance counter and to determine an issue with a digital subscriber line (DSL), the testing device comprising:
a display; a transceiver (par 45-46 & fig. 3A; test set 300 may include display 302, connector 306, status LED indicator 308 for battery; also par 48, test set may perform various communication tests, thus obviously a transceiver);
a first measurement circuit to measure and analyze modem-based measurements associated with the DSL (par 48; e.g. technician who is sent to a customer premise may utilize the test set 300 of FIG. 3 to emulate the ADSL modem 412); and
a processor (fig. 2 & par 40; processing unit 222) to: access at least one threshold (par 49; in one embodiment, thresholds in the test) associated with at least one performance counter (par 45, par 49; e.g. test result);
detect an anomalous performance event based on the at least one performance counter and the at least one threshold associated with the at least one performance counter (par 49, par 54; pass/fail is detected based on the tests); and
enable, upon detection of the anomalous performance event (par 44; e.g. Depending upon the failure, a technician or operator at the service centers 234 may correct a provisioning error associated with the customer or talk the technician through various troubleshooting corrections that), an analysis mode (par 42; e.g. execute the test set; also par 63) to determine the issue with the DSL and to generate a recommendation to address the issue with the DSL (par 63 & fig. 13A; in another embodiment, possible cause and recommended sections are indicated; also see par 65, fig. 27 & par 83-84).
Reference does not explicitly disclose:
a second measurement circuit to measure and analyze copper wire-based measurements associated with the DSL;
implementing an analysis sequence comprising at least one testing protocol to follow a performance issue with the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and determine a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL based on the performance issue with the modem connection of the DSL.
However, it is obvious in view of Zahedi because Zahedi discloses:
a second measurement circuit to measure and analyze copper wire-based measurements associated with the DSL (fig. 3 & par 57; e.g. the fault detection server 170 may perform various algorithms to identify cable-level faults in a copper plant of a DSL system including wet cables detection algorithms);
implementing an analysis sequence comprising at least one testing protocol to follow a performance issue with the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and determine a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL (fig. 4 & par 58-80; e.g. instructions run on a processing device to perform various operations such as interfacing functions, measuring, analyzing…in such embodiments e.g. if a problem exists for the majority of the lines in the common cable identified based on the short-interval period analyzed then the cable will be flagged as a wet cable; also par 136) based on the performance issue with the modem connection of the DSL (par 39; e.g. processing logic tags any DSL line for which variation in the respective DSL line's characteristics exceeds a corresponding threshold; wherein the DSL line reads on a modem connection, also par 41; processing logic identifies the common cable as being a wet cable based on the quantity of tagged DSL lines in the common cable; wherein a wet cable reads on a copper wire; also see par 34).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Zahedi with the electronic system of Irenze. One is motivated as such to identify a problematic cable to better optimize DSL communications (Zahedi, par 6).
Regarding claim 9, Irenze discloses a method for measuring and analyzing performance counters and determining a performance issue with a digital subscriber line (DSL), the method comprising:
measuring and analyzing measurement data associated with the performance counters (fig. 27 & par 83-84; e.g. measuring operation parameters; also par 44; e.g. test result measured);
accessing thresholds associated with the performance counters (par 49; in one embodiment, thresholds in the test);
detecting an anomalous performance event based on the performance counters and the thresholds (par 49, par 54; pass/fail is detected based on the tests); and
enabling an analysis mode of a testing device (par 42; e.g. execute the test set), including: determining the performance issue with the DSL based on the analyzing of the feature data; implementing, upon detection of the anomalous performance event, an analysis sequence (par 44; e.g. depending upon the failure, a technician or operator at the service centers 234 may correct a provisioning error associated with the customer or talk the technician through various troubleshooting corrections that) and generating a recommendation to address the performance issue with the DSL (par 63 & fig. 13A; in another embodiment, possible cause and recommended sections are indicated; also see par 65, fig. 27 & par 83-84).
Reference does not explicitly disclose:
generating a data graph utilizing the measurement data; determining one or more features of the data graph; analyzing feature data associated with the one or more features of the data graph;
implementing at least one testing protocol to follow an issue associated with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and determining a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL utilizing a performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL.
However, it is obvious in view of Mohseni because Mohseni discloses:
generating a data graph utilizing the measurement data; determining one or more features of the data graph; analyzing feature data associated with the one or more features of the data graph (fig. 3 & par 37, par 49; e.g. plotting the Difference (D) for distance (d) then it can be observed that the smaller the number then the further out the fault is from the end of the DSL loop and at the end of the line. Therefore, if the value is larger than a given threshold then the fault is nearer to the CO whereas a smaller number is indicative that the fault is nearer to the NID or customer premises).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Mohseni with the electronic system of Irenze. One is motivated as such to improve fault detection and localization for the DSL line (Mohseni, par 43).
The combination dose not explicitly disclose:
implementing an analysis sequence including implementing at least one testing protocol to follow an issue associated with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and determining a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL utilizing a performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL.
However, it is obvious in view of Zahedi because Zahedi discloses:
implementing an analysis sequence including implementing at least one testing protocol to follow an issue associated with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack; and determining a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL utilizing a performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL (fig. 4 & par 58-80; e.g. instructions run on a processing device to perform various operations such as interfacing functions, measuring, analyzing…in such embodiments e.g. if a problem exists for the majority of the lines in the common cable identified based on the short-interval period analyzed then the cable will be flagged as a wet cable; also par 136; or par 34, 39 and 41).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Zahedi with the electronic system of Irenze and Mohseni. One is motivated as such to identify a problematic cable to better optimize DSL communications (Zahedi, par 6).
Regarding claim 15, Irenze discloses a testing device (fig. 2; e.g. test set 204) operable to measure and analyze at least one performance counter and to determine an issue with a digital subscriber line (DSL), the testing device comprising:
a battery module; a transceiver; a physical connector (par 45-46 & fig. 3A; test set 300 may include display 302, connector 306, status LED indicator 308 for battery; also par 48, test set may perform various communication tests, thus obviously a transceiver);
a first measurement circuit to measure and analyze modem-based measurements associated with the DSL (par 48; e.g. technician who is sent to a customer premise may utilize the test set 300 of FIG. 3 to emulate the ADSL modem 412); and
a processor (fig. 2 & par 40; processing unit 222) to: access the modem-based measurements based on at least one threshold (par 49; in one embodiment, thresholds in the test) associated with the at least one performance counter (par 45, par 49; e.g. test result);
detect an anomalous performance event based on the at least one performance counter and the at least one threshold (par 49, par 54; pass/fail is detected based on the tests); and
determine, upon detection of the anomalous performance event (par 44; e.g. Depending upon the failure, a technician or operator at the service centers 234 may correct a provisioning error associated with the customer or talk the technician through various troubleshooting corrections that), the issue with the DSL (par 49, par 54; pass/fail is detected based on the tests; also par 82, 84, e.g. the test parameters are values that are used to determine whether a communications line is functioning properly at a customer premise based on the test results).
Reference does not explicitly disclose:
a second measurement circuit to measure and analyze copper wire-based measurements associated with the DSL;
implementing an analysis sequence having at least one testing protocol to follow a performance issue with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack and determine a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL based on the performance issue with the modem connection of the DSL.
However, it is obvious in view of Zahedi because Zahedi discloses:
a second measurement circuit to measure and analyze copper wire-based measurements associated with the DSL (fig. 3 & par 57; e.g. the fault detection server 170 may perform various algorithms to identify cable-level faults in a copper plant of a DSL system including wet cables detection algorithms);
implementing an analysis sequence having at least one testing protocol to follow an issue associated with a modem connection of the DSL through a DSL layer stack and determine a corresponding performance issue with a copper wire connection of the DSL (fig. 4 & par 58-80; e.g. instructions run on a processing device to perform various operations such as interfacing functions, measuring, analyzing…in such embodiments e.g. if a problem exists for the majority of the lines in the common cable identified based on the short-interval period analyzed then the cable will be flagged as a wet cable; also par 136) based on the performance issue with the modem connection of the DSL (par 39; e.g. processing logic tags any DSL line for which variation in the respective DSL line's characteristics exceeds a corresponding threshold; wherein the DSL line reads on a modem connection, also par 41; processing logic identifies the common cable as being a wet cable based on the quantity of tagged DSL lines in the common cable; wherein a wet cable reads on a copper wire; also see par 34).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Zahedi with the electronic system of Irenze. One is motivated as such to identify a problematic cable to better optimize DSL communications (Zahedi, par 6).
Regarding claim 2, Irenze discloses:
wherein the processor is further to initialize the testing device (par 50; e.g. the test server 202 may initiate downloading any of the testing information to the test set 300).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Irenze discloses:
wherein the thresholds include user-based thresholds and analysis-based thresholds (par 49; e.g. The thresholds in the tests may be empirically determined except for signal quality (i.e., noise margin) where industry standard values may be used; hence based on user input or set by a standard value).
Regarding claim 5, Irenze discloses:
the at least one testing protocol includes a testing protocol related to asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL), a testing protocol related to very high-speed digital subscriber line (VDSL), and a testing protocol related to G.fast protocol (par 48; e.g. ADSL sync test).
Regarding claim 6, Irenze discloses:
wherein the processor is further to analyze measurement data associated with the at least one performance counter (par 43, 46; e.g. test data).
Regarding claim 7, Irenze discloses:
implement a testing protocol to generate a testing protocol result (par 82; e.g. test results are collected from the test sets that are test sets used by technicians for testing communications lines at customer premises); and
compare a key performance indicator (KPI) to the testing protocol result (par 82; e.g. the test parameters are values that are used to determine whether a communications line is functioning properly at a customer premise based on the test results).
Regarding claim 8, Zahedi discloses:
the processor is further to determine an associated performance counter associated with a copper line connection (par 70-71; e.g. observed values of other cables; also par 123).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Zahedi discloses:
determining the performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL related to the issue associated with the modem connection, wherein the performance counter for the copper wire connection of the DSL is included in the at least one performance counter (par 70-71; e.g. observed values of other cables; also par 123).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Mohseni discloses:
wherein the anomalous performance event is related to one of a modem line of the DSL and the modem connection of the DSL (par 46; to determine if the DELT testing returns no result because there is no reply from a modem due to the modem being faulty or not in synchronization or because, alternatively, there is a fault on the DSL line).
Regarding claim 19, Irenze discloses:
wherein the processor is further to provide a notification element to indicate the anomalous performance event (par 65; e.g. a textual notification).
Claims 4, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irenze et al (US 2010/0150318) in view of Zahedi et al (US 2017/0180549) and/or Mohseni et al (US 2018/0027113) and further in view of Lv et al (US 2008/0292021).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 17, the combination discloses the subject matter of claims 1, 9 and 15, without explicitly discloses:
wherein the performance counters include one or more of upstream and downstream cyclical redundancy check (CRC), upstream and downstream forward error correction (FEC), upstream and downstream errored seconds (ES), upstream and downstream uncorrected retransmissions (RTX-UC}, upstream and downstream severely errored seconds (SES), upstream and downstream unavailable seconds (UAS), upstream and downstream loss of frame (LOF), upstream and downstream loss of signal (LOS) and upstream and downstream loss of margin (LOM).
However, Lv discloses:
In par 41 & Table 1, the operation parameters relating to code error include ES, SES, UAS, and UncorrectBlks, and the operation parameters relating to loss of line include LOLS, SSC, and SFC. In addition, persistent low STNM may also cause loss of line. Therefore, the operation parameters relating to loss of line may also include SNRM.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Lv with the electronic system of Irenze, Zahedi and Mohseni. One is motivated as such to acquiring DSL parameters and a line management system (Lv, par 15).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irenze et al (US 2010/0150318) in view of Zahedi et al (US 2017/0180549) and/or Mohseni et al (US 2018/0027113) and further in view of Delaby et al (US 2023/0035180).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the subject matter of claim 9, without explicitly discloses:
wherein the measurement data includes modem-based measurements and copper wire-based measurements.
However, Delaby discloses:
wherein the measurement data includes modem-based measurements and copper wire-based measurements (par 2 and par 70; e.g. the channel frequency response is a measurement performed by a modem).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Delaby with the electronic system of Irenze, Zahedi and Mohseni. One is motivated as such to analyze QoS of the electrical wires (Delaby, par 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses the subject matter of claim 9, without explicitly discloses:
wherein the one or more features of the data graph include one or more of a dip in the data graph, a curve in the data graph or a length in the data graph.
However, Delaby discloses:
wherein the one or more features of the data graph include one or more of a dip in the data graph, a curve in the data graph or a length in the data graph (fig. 4 & par 113, e.g. a measured QLN curve and a measured HLOG curve for the upstream bands of a DSL line affected by an impairment are shown. the QLN curve 402 exhibits similar patterns, i.e., dips, at the same locations as the dips observed in the channel frequency response curve 401 caused by a "bridge tap" impairment).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication component configured for the electronic system of Delaby with the electronic system of Irenze, Zahedi and Mohseni. One is motivated as such to analyze QoS of the electrical wires (Delaby, par 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights