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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In Independent claim 20, the claimed features "means for receiving" and "means for transmitting" invoke 112 (f).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because expression “same logical channel” does not define the criteria for being “same”, and characteristics of similarity.
Claim 17 is objected to because expression “early retransmission” does not define the criteria for being “early retransmission” in relation to normal retransmission.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic; Amer et al US 20130003542 A1, hereinafter Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH; Aneesh Narendra et al US 20260095804 A1, hereinafter DESHMUKH.
Regarding claim 1, 19 and 20, Catovic teaches, a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (See Catovic Fig. 1, 100 Wireless Terminal), configured to cause the UE to:
receive a polling configuration for dynamically or semi-statically adjusting a radio link control (RLC) polling procedure Catovic [12] “The controller is further configured to dynamically adjust, independent of the received RLC control information, RLC flow control in response to the RF conditions.”, [13] “In one embodiment, the device can be configured as user equipment… In one embodiment, the controller can be configured to adjust the RLC flow control by adjusting the one or more RLC parameters beyond respective standardized values… The one or more RLC parameters can include one or more of: max reset timers and counters, RLC window sizes, poll timers, reset timers, and status timers.”, teaches receiving a configuration to adjust poll timers (i.e., polling procedure) dynamically); and
transmit a polling request to a network node in accordance with the polling configuration (Inherently taught in Catovic, as dynamically adjusted polling parameter is inherently used for transmitting a polling request, which is well-known part of RLC polling flow).
Catovic does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, DESHMUKH teaches, adjusting a radio link control (RLC) polling procedure in accordance with a predictive model (DESHMUKH [75] “In one or more embodiments, the processor 604 is configured to dynamically modify the RAN configuration based on one or an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based learning model, or a Machine Learning (ML) model stored in the memory 608.”, teaching using a predictive model. Predictive model is interpreted as AI/ML based learning model.; [91] “… polling should happen more frequently…”, further suggesting transmitting a polling request as inherently taught by Catovic (see explanation above)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic to include the features as taught by DESHMUKH above in order to provide a method for Radio Access Network (RAN) adaptations for simplifying RAN processing (DESHMUKH [0001]).
With respect to claim 19, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 20, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding apparatus. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DESHMUKH further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to apply the predictive model to one or more UE characteristics or UE states (DESHMUKH [62], [0071] “In one or more embodiments, the modification of the RAN configuration comprises at least one of enabling or disabling a segmentation process, enabling or disabling a concatenation process, changing configuration parameters related to the timers and counts, or enabling or disabling a security measurement process, enabling or disabling a recovery process, decreasing or increasing a frequency of transmission of a status report, or modifying a size of at least one of a transmission (Tx) window or a receiving (Rx) window.”, teaches DESHMUKH’s AI model applies to UE characteristics).
Regarding claim 3, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2.
DESHMUKH further teaches, wherein the one or more UE characteristics or UE states includes one or more of a memory capacity, a power status, an RLC buffer state, a quantity of retransmissions, a quantity of segmentations, a latency, or a throughput (see the rejection of claim 2 above. Satisfies “one or more” criteria).
Regarding claim 6, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DESHMUKH further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to apply a performance target or a key performance indicator (KPI) configuration as an input to the predictive model (DESHMUKH [70] “Further, the synchronizing between the transmitting system/device and the receiving system/device is based on a specific Quality of Service (QoS) that is required by one or more applications running on the transmitting system/device. In another embodiment, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) module can also be used to take this decision dynamically. The AI can further also help in allowing or detecting if the channel is secure and can disable security for the packet.”, [71], QoS, security etc. can be performance target or KPI).
Regarding claim 11, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic further teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for setting one or more polling parameters (Catovic [13], [55] see RLC parameters adjusting rules).
Regarding claim 12, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DESHMUKH further teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: collect data; and update the predictive model to include the data (DESHMUKH [75] “The AI model or the ML model is trained using historical data to determine optimal configurations for different scenarios as mentioned above. The training may be done using techniques such as regression analysis or clustering algorithms, etc. The AI model or the ML model may be used to predict the optimal configurations for new data based on the patterns learned.”).
Regarding claim 16, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic further teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for limiting adjustment of the RLC polling procedure to one or more of a specific logical channel, a specific RLC entity, a specific quality of service (QoS) flow, one or more parameter limits, or one or more ranges of acceptable parameters (Catovic [11] “The one or more RLC parameters can include one or more of: max reset timers and counters, RLC window sizes, poll timers, reset timers, and status timers.”, teaches limiting parameters. Satisfies “one or more” criteria).
Regarding claim 18, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DESHMUKH further teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for performing a fallback polling procedure instead of adjusting the RLC polling procedure (DESHMUKH [0066] “In one or more embodiments, based on a result of the comparison, the processor 604 is further configured to determine whether a current condition of the transmission channel is reliable or unreliable for the transmission of the plurality of data packets… Further, if the data packet loss ratio is more than the first threshold value, the processor 604 is configured to fallback to default configuration to RAN.”).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai; Yao-Hua et al US 20240039623 A1, hereinafter Cai.
Regarding claim 4, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Cai teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for including a single polling bit in an RLC header to indicate a polling request (Cai [5], [25] “The polling is the one bit indication from the transmitting side of the AM RLC entity to the receiving side of AM RLC entity to request a STATUS report which contains the RLC feedback information (ACK/NACK).”, [29] “the UE triggers polling by including the poll bit in the RLC data PDU.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by Cai above in order to provide a method for enhancing radio link control (RLC) in Internet of Things (IoT) non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Cai [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Cai teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for multiple polling bits, each of the multiple polling bits being associated with one or more polling criteria, wherein the one or more polling criteria include one or more of a quantity of unacknowledged packet data units (PDUs) relative to a PDU threshold, a quantity of unacknowledged bytes relative to a byte threshold, an expiration of a poll retransmission timer, a buffering of packets associated with a latency sensitive flow relative to a latency threshold, or a likelihood of a negative acknowledgement of a latency sensitive packet or flow (The claim is interpreted as configuring a polling bit associated with a polling criteria, thus, giving multiple polling bits associated with multiple criteria. (Cai [5] “In another embodiment, the fast polling is triggered when a number of unacknowledged AM RLC packet data unit (PDU) is greater than a PDU threshold or when a number of unacknowledged byte is greater than a byte threshold. In one embodiment, the PDU threshold is preconfigured, predefined, or dynamically determined by the UE, and/or the byte threshold is preconfigured, predefined, or dynamically determined by the UE.”, [25] “The polling is the one bit indication from the transmitting side of the AM RLC entity to the receiving side of AM RLC entity to request a STATUS report which contains the RLC feedback information (ACK/NACK).”, teaching one of the criteria for polling bit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by Cai above in order to provide a method for enhancing radio link control (RLC) in Internet of Things (IoT) non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Cai [0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH and Cai, as applied to the rejection of claim 4 above, and further in view of Martin; Brian et al US 20250226922 A1, hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 5, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH and Cai, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 4.
Catovic and DESHMUKH and Cai do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Martin teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for including the single polling bit in a same logical channel for a transport block (Martin [0179] “In one embodiment, a given RLC bearer may be associated with multiple logical channel identifiers (LCIDs), where the different logical channels are associated with first transmissions, retransmissions, status reports, or PDUs that have the polling bit set.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH and Cai to include the features as taught by Martin above in order to provide a method for throughput performance improvement for non-terrestrial networks (Martin [0002]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of ZHANG, JINFANG et al WO 2025213964 A1, priority April 7, 2024 (see page 1, “INVENTION-TITLE”), hereinafter ZHANG, and yet further in view of Yoshimura, Takeshi et al US 20020126675 A1, hereinafter Yoshimura,
Regarding claim 8, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to transmit a polling indication, wherein the polling indication includes a quantity of packets from one or more different quality of service (QoS) flows that are buffered for retransmission (ZHANG page 3, lines 11-12 “As an embodiment, the PDU_WITHOUT_POLL determines whether to send a polling indication again by accumulating the number of PDUs sent since the last polling indication was sent.”; page 10, lines 16-17 “The L2 layer 355 in the user plane 350 also includes the SDAP (Service Data Adaptation Protocol) sublayer 356, which is responsible for mapping QoS (Quality of Service) flows and data radio bearers (DRBs) to support service diversity.”, suggests packets belong to QoS flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by ZHANG above in order to provide a method for transmission at the RLC (Radio Link Control) protocol layer in wireless communication designing effective RLC functions for services with different transmission requirements (ZHANG page 2, lines 13-14).
Catovic and DESHMUKH and ZHANG do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshimura teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive a QoS indicator indicating a retransmission order associated with the packets from the one or more different QoS flows (Yoshimura claim 13 “a receiver-side retransmission control part for applying a receiver-side retransmission control process in each QoS class to the data unit that belongs to one of the QoS classes specified for data type packets and is one of the received data units; … the receiver-side retransmission control part generates a retransmission request control signal to indicate a data unit requested to be retransmitted to another packet transmitting/receiving apparatus communicating with the packet transmitting/receiving apparatus, …”, teaches packet transmitting receiving a request for retransmission of a data unit of a QoS class (i.e., QoS flow) indicating the data unit (i.e., retransmission order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH and ZHANG to include the features as taught by ZHANG above in order to provide a method for dividing a normal transmission packet into a plurality of data units each having a shorter data length, and scheduling transmission order of those data units (Yoshimura [0002]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH and ZHANG and Yoshimura, as applied to the rejection of claim 8 above, and further in view of Kuo; Ping-Heng et al US 20250385757 A1, hereinafter Kuo,
Regarding claim 9, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH and ZHANG and Yoshimura, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 8.
Catovic and DESHMUKH and ZHANG and Yoshimura do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kuo teaches, wherein the polling indication indicates a timer value for one or more packets (Kuo [161] “selecting a timer value for a poll retransmit timer; and generating a signal to include an indication of the timer value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH and ZHANG and Yoshimura to include the features as taught by Kuo above in order to provide a method for adaptive selection or control of a poll retransmit timer or timer value (Kuo Abstract).
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Esswie; Ali et al US 20240187877 A1, hereinafter Esswie.
Regarding claim 13, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Esswie teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to transmit, to the network node, a status report associated with performance of the predictive model (Esswie [0050] “Embodiments disclosed herein may comprise dynamically managing AI/ML models at different user equipment devices by the network RAN nodes, and may comprise defining and compiling model-specific performance metrics, dynamic reporting of AI/ML learning model performance metrics,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by Esswie above in order to provide a method of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RADIO FUNCTION MODEL MANAGEMENT IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK (Esswie Title).
Regarding claim 14, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Esswie teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to monitor a performance of the predictive model in accordance with one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) (Esswie [0050] “Embodiments disclosed herein may comprise dynamically managing AI/ML models at different user equipment devices by the network RAN nodes, and may comprise defining and compiling model-specific performance metrics,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by Esswie above in order to provide a method of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RADIO FUNCTION MODEL MANAGEMENT IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK (Esswie Title).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee; Chi-Chen et al US 20170064768 A1, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to transmit, to the network node, a polling capability indicating a UE capability for dynamically or semi-statically adjusting the RLC polling procedure in accordance with the predictive model (Lee [0034] “FIG. 3 illustrates one embodiment of dynamic PDCP status report polling for LWA in accordance with embodiments of the current invention.”, [0037] “a UE reports its … polling capability to the network.”, similar technique can be used for RLC status report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by Lee above in order to provide a solution of dynamic status report polling is sought to enhance LWA scheduling efficiency (Lee [0006]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of LIU; Xing et al US 20200169359 A1, hereinafter LIU.
Regarding claim 17, Catovic, in view of DESHMUKH, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Catovic and DESHMUKH do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, LIU teaches, wherein the polling configuration includes one or more rules for counting early retransmission toward a radio link failure threshold (LIU [98] “At this time, the retransmission counter is initialized, for example, initialized to 0, and incremented by 1 for each time of subsequent retransmission until a preset threshold is reached, triggering radio link failure (RLF)”). method and a communications apparatus to improve a case in which radio link reestablishment is incorrectly triggered (LIU [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Catovic and DESHMUKH to include the features as taught by LIU above in order to provide a counting method and a communications apparatus to improve a case in which radio link reestablishment is incorrectly triggered (LIU [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pani; Diana US 20080212561 A1, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENHANCING RLC FOR FLEXIBLE RLC PDU SIZE.
KANAMARLAPUDI; Sitaramanjaneyulu US 20210242972 A1, TECHNIQUES FOR POLL BIT TRIGGER ENHANCEMENT IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.
Kuo; Ping-Heng US 20250310035 A1, TECHNOLOGIES FOR RADIO LINK CONTROL POLL TRIGGERING.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights