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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 07/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 07/19/2024 and 01/30/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been considered and placed in the application file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell,” commonly recited in claims 1-24; and transmit “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and transmit “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on the cell,” commonly recited in claims 15-20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1-14, the claims commonly recite the limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell.” Nevertheless, there is no support for such limitations described in the body of the specification of the instant application. In the specification and references to FIGs. 14-15, there are features of “UE is provided with a PDCCH configuration,” and “UE is provided with SBFD configuration(s) for TRP A and for TRP B.” The feature “UE is provided with a PDDCH configuration” appears to be described to correspond to the claim limitation of “receiving (i) a first set of parameters for reception of first PDCCHs associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots,” and “receiving (i) a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots.” Nevertheless, there is no description of corresponding between the feature “UE is provided with SBFD configuration(s) for TRP A and for TRP B” to correspond to the claim limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” in the specification of the instant application. As a result, it is concluded that from the described feature of “UE is provided with SBFD configuration(s) for TRP A and for TRP B” the claimed limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” cannot be unambiguously derived to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 15-20, the claims commonly recite the limitations of transmit “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and transmit “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell.” Nevertheless, there is no support for such limitations described in the specification of the instant application. In the specification and referenced to FIGs. 14-15, there are features of “UE is provided with a PDCCH configuration,” and “UE is provided with SBFD configuration(s) for TRP A and for TRP B.” The feature “UE is provided with a PDDCH configuration” appears to be described to correspond to the claim limitations of “transmit (i) a first set of parameters for reception of first PDCCHs associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots,” and “transmit (i) a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots.” Nevertheless, there is no description of corresponding between the feature “UE is provided with SBFD configuration(s) for TRP A and for TRP B” to correspond to the claim limitations of transmit “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and transmit “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” in the specification of the instant application. As a result, it is concluded that from the described feature of “UE is provided with SBFD configuration(s) for TRP A and for TRP B,” the claimed limitations of transmit “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and transmit “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” cannot be unambiguously derived to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For examining purpose hereinbelow, the claims are treated accordingly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1-14, the claims commonly recite the limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell.” Nevertheless, it is unclear why the first TCI state configuration on a cell and the second state configuration on the cell are received but they are not being used for doing anything in the claims. Moreover, it is unclear what are the metes and bounds of a claim invention the Applicant seeks to protect in the recitations.
As per claims 15-20, the claims commonly recite the limitations of transmit “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and transmit “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell.” Nevertheless, it is unclear why the first TCI state configuration on a cell and the second state configuration on the cell are transmitted but they are not being used for doing anything in the claims. Moreover, it is unclear what are the metes and bounds of a claim invention that the Applicant seeks to protect in the recitations.
Therefore, the claims are deemed indefinite and they are examined as understood hereinbelow.
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. 18/417,966 in view of Lo et al. (US 2024/0276517) (hereinafter “Lo”).
Instant Application Claim 1 Claims
‘966 Application Claim 1 Claims
A method for a user equipment (UE) to receive physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs), the method comprising:
A method for a user equipment (UE) to receive physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs), the method comprising:
receiving (i) a first set of parameters for reception of first PDCCHs associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots
receiving a first set of parameters for reception of first PDCCHs associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots on a cell;
receiving (i) a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots
receiving a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots on the cell;
receiving a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format, wherein the DCI format includes a field indicating skipping receptions of the second PDCCHs; and
receiving a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format, wherein the DCI format includes a field indicating skipping receptions of the second PDCCHs; and
skipping, based on the field, receptions of the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion that is after reception of the first PDCCH and before an end of a time duration,
skipping, based on the field, receptions of the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion that is after reception of the first PDCCH and before an end of a time duration,
wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell.
wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 1 of the ‘966 application anticipates all recitations of claim 1 of the instant application with the reservation of the above discussed paragraph 112 issues. Alternatively, claims 1 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 1 of the ‘966 application. There is a mere difference between the claims depicted in the strike-through words. And the difference is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims with additional limitations to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
Alternatively, let’s say the claim limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” are fully support in the specification of the instant application and claim 1 of the ‘966 application fails to further recite such limitations.
Nevertheless, the limitations failed to further recite in claim 1 of the ‘966 application are well-known in the art and taught by Lo.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Lo teaches methods for uplink transmission/reception comprising, among other things, the limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” (Lo; para [0305]: “The UE receives a downlink control information (DCI) … indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state is associated with the first SRS resource set … .”) and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” Lo; para [0305]: “The UE receives a downlink control information (DCI) … indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state is associated with the first SRS resource set and a second TCI state is associated with the second SRS resource set … .”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Lo’s teaching into claim 1 of the ‘966 application to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in providing maximum power in a multi-panel transmission scheme (Lo; para [0004] and thereinafter).
The dependent claims 2-7 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims 2-7 of '966 application in view of Lo for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Instant Application Claim 8 Claims
‘966 Application Claim 8 Claims
A user equipment (UE), comprising:
A user equipment (UE), comprising:
a processor; and
a transceiver configured to:
a transceiver operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to:
receive (i) a first set of parameters for reception of first physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots
receive a first set of parameters for reception of first physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots on a cell;
receive (i) a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots
receive a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots on the cell;
receive a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format, wherein the DCI format includes a field indicating skipping receptions of the second PDCCHs; and
receive a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format, wherein the DCI format includes a field indicating skipping receptions of the second PDCCHs; and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine to skip, based on the field, receptions of the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion that is after reception of the first PDCCH and before an end of a time duration,
skip, based on the field, receptions of the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion that is after reception of the first PDCCH and before an end of a time duration,
wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell.
wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 8 of the ‘966 application anticipates all recitations of claim 8 of the instant application with the reservation of the above discussed paragraph 112 issues. Alternatively, claims 8 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 8 of the ‘966 application. There is a mere difference between the claims depicted in the strike-through words. And the difference is deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims with additional limitations to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
Alternatively, let’s say the claim limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” are fully support in the specification of the instant application and claim 8 of the ‘966 application fails to further recite such limitations.
Nevertheless, the limitations failed to further recite in claim 8 of the ‘966 application are well-known in the art and taught by Lo.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Lo teaches methods for uplink transmission/reception comprising, among other things, the limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” (Lo; para [0305]: “The UE receives a downlink control information (DCI) … indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state is associated with the first SRS resource set … .”) and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” Lo; para [0305]: “The UE receives a downlink control information (DCI) … indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state is associated with the first SRS resource set and a second TCI state is associated with the second SRS resource set … .”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Lo’s teaching into claim 8 of the ‘966 application to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in providing maximum power in a multi-panel transmission scheme (Lo; para [0004] and thereinafter).
The dependent claims 9-14 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims 9-14 of '966 application in view of Lo for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Instant Application Claim 15 Claims
‘966 Application Claim 15 Claims
A base station (BS), comprising:
A base station (BS), comprising:
a processor; and
a processor; and
a transceiver operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to:
a transceiver operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to:
transmit (i) a first set of parameters for reception of first physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots
transmit a first set of parameters for reception of first physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) associated with a first subset of slots from a set of slots on a cell;
transmit (i) a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots
transmit a second set of parameters for reception of second PDCCHs associated with a second subset of slots from the set of slots on the cell;
transmit a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format,
transmit a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format; and
wherein the DCI format includes a field indicating skipping receptions of the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion that is after transmission of the first PDCCH and before an end of a time duration,
transmit the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion, receptions of which is skipped, that is after transmission of the first PDCCH and before an end of the time duration;
wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell.
wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell.
Rationales:
From the above claim comparison, one can see that claim 15 of the ‘966 application anticipates all recitations of claim 15 of the instant application with the reservation of the above discussed paragraph 112 issues. Alternatively, claims 15 of the instant application claims variously and essentially similar limitations as those in claim 15 of the ‘966 application. There are differences between the claims depicted in the strike-through words and the bolded words. And the differences are deemed obvious to those skilled in the art of claim drafting to draft claims with additional limitations as depicted in the strike-through words or using difference wording but meaning is the same as depicted in the bolded words to seek a well-rounded protection for a disclose invention.
Alternatively, let’s say the claim limitations of transmit “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” and transmit “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” are fully support in the specification of the instant application and claim 15 of the ‘966 application fails to further recite such limitations.
Nevertheless, the limitations failed to further recite in claim 15 of the ‘966 application are well-known in the art and taught by Lo.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Lo teaches methods for uplink transmission/reception comprising, among other things, the limitations of receiving “(ii) a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state configuration on a cell,” (Lo; para [0305]: “The UE receives a downlink control information (DCI) … indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state is associated with the first SRS resource set … .”) and receiving “(ii) a second TCI state configuration on a cell” Lo; para [0305]: “The UE receives a downlink control information (DCI) … indicates that a first transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state is associated with the first SRS resource set and a second TCI state is associated with the second SRS resource set … .”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Lo’s teaching into claim 15 of the ‘966 application to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in providing maximum power in a multi-panel transmission scheme (Lo; para [0004] and thereinafter).
The dependent claims 16-20 are included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Specifically, the claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims 16-20 of '966 application in view of Lo for the same rationale as applied to their parent claim as above discussed.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is not art applied to determine the allowability of the claims at this moment due to the above raised issued. Nevertheless, should a response to this Office Action overcome all of the above raised issues, the instant application shall be placed in a favorable condition for allowance because there claims appear to recite a claim invention comprising, among other limitations, novel and unobvious limitations of “receiving a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format, wherein the DCI format includes a field indicating skipping receptions of the second PDCCHs; and skipping, based on the field, receptions of the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion that is after reception of the first PDCCH and before an end of a time duration, wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell,” as recited in groups claims 1-14; and “transmit a first PDCCH from the first PDCCHs that provides a downlink control information (DCI) format; and transmit the second PDCCHs in a slot from the second subset of slots at a first occasion, receptions of which is skipped, that is after transmission of the first PDCCH and before an end of the time duration; wherein the first subset of slots does not include time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell, and wherein the second subset of slots includes time-domain resources indicated for simultaneous transmission and reception on the cell,” as recited in group claims 15-20, structurally and functionally interconnected in a manner as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lo et al. (US 2024/0276517).
Zhou et al. (US 11,818,733).
Lin et al. (US 2020/0029315).
Lee et al. (US 12,273,888).
Kim et al. (US 2020/0323026).
Seo et al. (US 12,022,487).
Zhou et al. (US 2022/0303960).
Lin et al. (US 2022/0295401).
Khoshkholgh Dashtaki et al. (US 2024/0155643).
Nimbalker et al. (US 2024/0298334).
Rudolf et al. (US 2024/0196241).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights