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 .
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration per 09/23/2026.
IDS is/are considered.
Drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 17-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289).
As to claim 1:
Mofidi discloses:
An electronic device comprising: a transceiver; and a processor (¶0031-0032, ¶0041-0044, a device, for example STA 200) having processor 230 and transceiver 211 and a memory) configured to:
receive signals via the transceiver; (¶0031-32, 0063, 0077, receiving signals via the transceivers, each of which can communicate distinct communication protocols among the listed Wi-fi, LTE, GSM, Zigbee, Bluetooth, WiGig, etc. Namely each distinct protocol transceiver of the many transceivers of the apparatus can communicate signal via channels corresponding to the listed protocols)
decode the signals according to a first communication protocol and on a first channel having a first center frequency and a first bandwidth;
(See at least ¶0062-0063, 0077, receiving a signal, 0062, 0059, 0020-21, 0074, Fig. 4A. decoding a signal via one of the list protocols (Zigbee, Wi-fi etc.), for example, in this case, a signal received a first local wireless protocol channel of ZigBee – a narrowband protocol, or Wi-fi etc. Center frequency and bandwidth are intrinsic to any channel of established protocols. See at least Fig. 4A and B which demonstrates channels in the disclosed embodiment with a center frequency Fc and a bandwidth B)
perform an energy detection operation on a second channel and on a third channel,
(¶0061, 0064-0065, also ¶0073-0074, Fig. 5, and 0078, measuring energy level of a channel of a frequency band at EL1, and another energy level of another channel of a second frequency band at EL2)
wherein the second channel has a second center frequency and a second bandwidth, and wherein the third channel has a third center frequency and a third bandwidth; (Again, center frequency and bandwidth are intrinsic to any channel of established protocols. See at least Fig. 4A and B which demonstrates channels in the disclosed embodiment with a center frequency Fc and a bandwidth B)
and determine that energy detected on the second channel corresponds to a second communication protocol based on the energy detection operation. (See ¶0021, 0066-0069, 0076, 0079, claim 6, determining energy detected, i.e. EL1/EL2 using a threshold. Different threshold is applied for signal of a certain protocol, such as Bluetooth using threshold of 8-10dB, or 802.15.4 using threshold of 2dB)
As to claim 13:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the second channel and the third channel do not overlap. (Mofidi, ¶0061, second frequency band that is non-overlapping with the first frequency band)
As to claim 17:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the second bandwidth and the third bandwidth are equal, and wherein the second center frequency and the third center frequency are different. (See at least ¶0059, 0064-0065, 0074, bandwidths are equal, different center frequencies)
As to claim 18:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the first communication protocol is an IEEE 802.15.4-based communication protocol. (¶0069, “narrow band wireless signals transmitted according to the IEEE 802.15.4 communication protocol may be detected”)
As to claim 19:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 18, wherein the first communication protocol is a Zigbee protocol (¶0069, signals transmitted according to the IEEE 802.15.4 communication protocol may be received . See at least ¶0062-0063, 0077, receiving a signal, 0062, 0059, 0020-21, 0074, Fig. 4A. decoding a signal via one of the list protocols (Zigbee, Wi-fi etc.), for example, in this case, a signal received a first local wireless protocol channel of ZigBee – a narrowband protocol, or Wi-fi etc.) and the second communication protocol is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocol (¶0069, claim 14, Bluetooth signal detected).
As to claim 21:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform the energy detection operation on the second channel, and the energy detection operation on the third channel, in parallel. (Fig. 5, ¶0063-0064,The sampled signal 531 may then be provided to both the first path (path 1) and to the second path (path 2) in parallel)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289) in view of Ly-Gagnon (US 2012/0281638).
As to claim 2:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, and regarding:
the processor is configured to determine that the energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol by determining that the energy detected on the second channel is above a first threshold and by determining that energy detected on the third channel is below a second threshold.
Mofidi already discloses determining energy detection corresponding to a particular protocol using protocol’s unique threshold (See ¶0021, 0066-0069, 0076, 0079). Mofidi differs in that it uses energy offset between two channel vs. a threshold instead of the energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol by determining that the energy detected on the second channel is above a first threshold and by determining that energy detected on the third channel is below a second threshold.
Ly-Gagnon, in the same field of energy detection for interference management, discloses in at least Fig. 3, ¶0021, wherein for each identified channel of a plurality of channels, its energy level and adjacent channel energy is measured and compared against a threshold. For example, determining that a signal detected in a Bluetooth channel (i.e. a second channel) only if the detected energy level is above a threshold, and the adjacent channel (third channel) energy is below a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to combine Ly-Gagnon and Mofidi such that the energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol by determining that the energy detected on the second channel is above a first threshold and by determining that energy detected on the third channel is below a second threshold. Both references address a same problem of false energy detection. Mofidi already provides the framework, i.e. detecting individual energy level of each channels. Ly-Gagnon uses the direct threshold comparison as well as the adjacent channel energy threshold. The implementation of Mofidi with the incorporation of Ly-Gagnon’s above disclosure provides the same benefit of avoiding false detection but with the focus on adjacent channels to allow more granular channel occupation among adjacent channels.
As to claim 3:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, and regarding:
the second channel corresponds to a first advertising channel, and wherein the third channel corresponds to a first data channel.
Mofidi discloses the consideration of EL of an expected band channel and also an offset band channel (¶0069, 0064-0065), however does not refer/assign roles for them, i.e. an advertising channel and data channel.
Ly-Gagnon, in a related field of energy detection for channel management, teaches the missing channel roles. Specifically, in Fig. 3 and associated, ¶0018, claim 4, 17, and 24, wherein Ly-Gagnon discloses Bluetooth devices to hop across 79 channels, and exchange control packets such as inquiry requests/paging over a subsets of those channels, while the remaining are data channels for users. For each of those channel, a subset of adjacent channels are identified and measured (Fig. 3, 0021, see claim 2’s discussion). In Bluetooth protocol, advertising channels are for example channels 37-39, and channels 0-36 are data channels. Therefore, depends on perspective and placement, a second channel corresponds to a first advertising channel, and wherein a third channel corresponds to a first data channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to apply that split to Mofidi’s channel sets. Both Mofidi and Ly-Gagnon detect Bluetooth signals and prevent false detection. This implementation of the channel role split can advantageously allow for distinction prevent false detection for advertisement mistaken from a data channel.
As to claim 9:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on the second channel corresponds to Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) channel 37, and wherein the third channel corresponds to BLE channel 0.
Mofidi already discloses the second channel corresponds to BLE (¶0031)
Ly-Gagnon in a similar field of energy protocol detection discloses Bluetooth devices typically operate by hopping across 79 narrowband (1 MHz). As such, one might assign any preferred channels to be monitored as second and third channel, namely the second channel corresponds to Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) channel 37, and wherein the third channel corresponds to BLE channel 0, in view of needs/design criteria.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that in the system of Mofidi, the second channel corresponds to Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) channel 37, and wherein the third channel corresponds to BLE channel 0. It is a specific personal choice of channels to be monitored rather than an inventive step. The claimed method steps have no bearing or dependency of a specific channel number of BLE. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, it is a rearrangement of specific BLE channel to be monitored among a finite pool of BLE bands.
As to claim 15:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on the second channel and the third channel are adjacent according to the second communication protocol.
Ly-Gagnon, in a related field of energy detection on RF channels, teaches such adjacency in ¶021, 0033, claim 4, wherein the detection unit identifies communication channels adjacent to the control channels and measure their energy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to place Mofidi’s offset band on the adjacent Bluetooth channel. Both references measure energy on a secondary band to decide energy on the first band is a BLE signal. Using adjacent channels as Mofidi’s third channel would strengthen the integrity of determination process as interference is more likely among adjacent channel.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289) in view of Fort (US 2023/0291539).
As to claim 4:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, regarding: the processor is further configured to, in response to determining that energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol: stop decoding the signals according to the first communication protocol; receive, via the transceiver, further signals on a fourth channel that is associated with the second communication protocol, wherein the fourth channel has a fourth center frequency and a fourth bandwidth; and decode the further signals according to the second communication protocol.
Mofidi already discloses in at least ¶0021, 0064-0069, whether a signal in an expected band is present based on EL detection against thresholds, and in response to which, the receiver is to decode data from the signal (¶0062, 0074). Mofidi is silent on stop a decoding of a first protocol, and also does not receive further signals on a fourth channel.
Ford, in a related field of concurrent energy detection for packet transmission detection, teaches that missing stop and the further receiving on a different channel. See ¶0020-0024, 0027, operating on Bluetooth for first period and Zigbee on a second period, and the receiver may switch channels when it switches protocols. When detection of energy level of Bluetooth is positive, the receiver stop switching back and forth between Zigbee and Bluetooth, and tuned to the Bluetooth channel to search, receive and confirm the packet. Similarly, in ¶0040 for the same sequence. Therefore, Fort discloses stopping receiving/decoding of data on one channel once a packet detection is confirmed based on the energy level standard for detection, and receiving the data on the other different channel (i.e. Bluetooth has more than one data/advertising channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to combine the references, wherein Mofidi’s two-band determination as trigger for Fort’s stop. As both references decide which energy on channels is a Bluetooth signal rather than a false positive from a same band, and Fort stops the other protocol (Zigbee) to receive further signals in Bluetooth. This implementation advantageously ensure that the receiver does not miss the (or any) packets it just detected.
As to claim 5:
Mofidi in view of Fort discloses all limitations of claim 4, wherein the fourth bandwidth and the second bandwidth are equal, and wherein the second center frequency and the fourth center frequency are different (See Mofidi, ¶0003, in case the second protocol being Bluetooth, Bluetooth devices typically operate by hopping across 79 narrow bands of width 1 MHz across 2.4 GHz ISM band, thus having different center frequencies, and they have equal width. Furthermore, these very specific channel spread design as claimed are mere design preference/choices and the parameters do not have any bearing to the steps recited, i.e. the steps do not take in account whether the bandwidth are equal or where their center frequencies are at. Thus, it is entirely a choice of design within contemplation of POSITA)
As to claim 6:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, regarding: the processor is further configured to, in response to determining that energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol: stop decoding the signals according to the first communication protocol; and reconfigure a physical layer of the transceiver to receive and decode further signals on a fourth channel having a fourth center frequency and a fourth bandwidth.
Mofidi already discloses in at least ¶0021, 0064-0069, whether a signal in an expected band is present based on EL detection against thresholds, and in response to which, the receiver is to decode data from the signal (¶0062, 0074). Mofidi is silent on stop a decoding of a first protocol, and also does not receive further signals on a fourth channel.
Ford, in a related field of concurrent energy detection for packet transmission detection, teaches that missing stop and the further receiving on a different channel. See ¶0020-0024, 0027, operating on Bluetooth for first period and Zigbee on a second period, and the receiver may switch channels when it switches protocols. When detection of energy level of Bluetooth is positive, the receiver stop switching back and forth between Zigbee and Bluetooth, and tuned to the Bluetooth channel to search, receive and confirm the packet. Similarly, in ¶0040 for the same sequence. Therefore, Fort discloses stopping receiving/decoding of data on one channel once a packet detection is confirmed based on the energy level standard for detection, and receiving the data on the other different channel (i.e. Bluetooth has more than one data/advertising channel). The reconfiguring of physical layer of the transceiver is implied in the changing protocol by the transceiver of Fort, i.e. changes the modulation, bit rate, preamble in accordance with each protocol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to combine the references, wherein Mofidi’s two-band determination as trigger for Fort’s stop. As both references decide which energy on channels is a Bluetooth signal rather than a false positive from a same band, and Fort stops the other protocol (Zigbee) to receive further signals in Bluetooth. This implementation advantageously ensure that the receiver does not miss the (or any) packets it just detected.
As to claim 7:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, regarding: the processor is further configured to, in response to determining that energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol: stop decoding the signals according to the first communication protocol; and receive, via the transceiver, and decode further signals according to a third communication protocol and on a fourth channel that partially or fully overlaps with the third channel.
Mofidi already discloses in at least ¶0021, 0064-0069, whether a signal in an expected band is present based on EL detection against thresholds, and in response to which, the receiver is to decode data from the signal (¶0062, 0074). Mofidi is silent on stopping a decoding of a first protocol, and also does not receive further signals on a fourth channel that partially or fully overlaps with the third channel.
Ford, in a related field of concurrent energy detection for packet transmission detection, teaches that missing stop and the further receiving on a different channel. See ¶0020-0024, 0027, operating on Bluetooth for first period and Zigbee on a second period, and the receiver may switch channels when it switches protocols. When detection of energy level of Bluetooth is positive, the receiver stop switching back and forth between Zigbee and Bluetooth, and tuned to the Bluetooth channel to search, receive and confirm the packet. Similarly, in ¶0040 for the same sequence. Therefore, Fort discloses stopping receiving/decoding of data on one channel once a packet detection is confirmed based on the energy level standard for detection, and receiving the data on the other different channel (i.e. Bluetooth has more than one data/advertising channel).
Regarding: a fourth channel that partially or fully overlaps with the third channel, Ford discloses checking channels of Bluetooth and Zigbee (both of which are supported by Mofidi’s STA). According to standards of Bluetooth and Zigbee, they both share the 2.4 GHz band with several channels overlapping fully or partially. For example, Zigbee channels have partial overlapping with BLE channels which shares band 2402-2480 MHz Also BLE channel 39 and Zigbee 26 are both centered at 2480 Mhz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to combine the references, wherein Mofidi’s two-band determination as trigger for Fort’s stop. As both references decide which energy on channels is a Bluetooth signal rather than a false positive from a same band, and Fort stops the other protocol (Zigbee) to receive further signals in Bluetooth. This implementation advantageously ensure that the receiver does not miss the (or any) packets it just detected.
As to claim 8:
Mofidi in view Fort discloses all limitations of claim 7, wherein the fourth channel has a fourth bandwidth that is bigger than the third bandwidth. (See ¶0021, BLE channels have 1 MHz and up to 2MHz, Wi-Fi is at least 20 MHz, and Zigbee’s standard would have bandwidth channel 11-26 has bandwidth of 2 MHz, thus in case forth channel is of Zigbee or Wi-Fi protocol, it meets the claim language. Furthermore, these very specific channel choices of bandwidth as claimed are mere design preference/choices and the parameters do not have any bearing to the steps recited, i.e. the steps do not take in account whether the bandwidth are relative to each other. Thus, it is entirely a choice of design within contemplation of POSITA.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289) in view of Holtman (US 2016/0203706).
As to claim 10:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is not explicit on the third channel is overlapped by Wi-Fi channel 1.
Mofidi already disclose the STA to be able to communicate in channels across protocols of BLE and Wi-Fi (¶0031), thus rendering any channel choice of Wi-Fi an obvious choice.
Holtman, in a related field of wireless communication, discloses Wi-fi channel 1 is situated at 2.4 GHz band and thus overlapped several channels of both ZigBee as well as BLE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that any third channel of Holtman would overlap with Wi-Fi channel 1, given that Wi-Fi channel has large bandwidth (at least 20 MHz) while other 2.4 GHz protocol like Zigbee and BLE have channels of 2 MHz at the same band, thus well-overlapped each other. Furthermore, these very specific channel choices of bandwidth as claimed are mere design preference/choices and the parameters do not have any bearing to the steps recited, i.e. the steps do not take in account whether the bandwidth are relative to each other. Thus, it is entirely a choice of design within contemplation of POSITA.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289) in view of Varshney et al. (US 2015/0038137).
As to claim 11:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on performing the energy detection operation, the processor is configured to generate a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for the second channel and the third channel.
Varshney, in a related field of energy sensing on RF channels, discloses in at least ¶0020-0021 that energy sensing can be done on basis of RSSI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that energy sensing can be done on basis of RSSI in Mofidi. Mofidi already discloses energy detection on expected channels and nearby channels. Using RSSI to represent energy is rather customary as suggested by Varshney in ¶0021, also with the benefit that RSSI parameters are typically readily available due to its popular use for other RF channel evaluation purposes.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289) in view of Varshney et al. (US 2015/0038137) in view of Ly-Gagnon (US 2012/0281638).
As to claim 12:
Mofidi in view of Varshney discloses all limitations of claim 11, and regarding: the processor is configured to determine that the energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol by determining that the RSSI for the second channel is above a first threshold and by determining that the RSSI for the third channel is below a second threshold.
Mofidi already discloses determining energy detection corresponding to a particular protocol using protocol’s unique threshold (See ¶0021, 0066-0069, 0076, 0079). And Varshney already discloses the energy detected can be represented in RSSI form. Mofidi differs in that it uses energy offset between two channel vs. a threshold instead of the energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol by determining that the energy detected on the second channel is above a first threshold and by determining that energy detected on the third channel is below a second threshold.
Ly-Gagnon, in the same field of energy detection for interference management, discloses in at least Fig. 3, ¶0021, wherein for each identified channel of a plurality of channels, its energy level and adjacent channel energy is measured and compared against a threshold. For example, determining that a signal detected in a Bluetooth channel (i.e. a second channel) only if the detected energy level is above a threshold, and the adjacent channel (third channel) energy is below a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to combine Ly-Gagnon and Mofidi such that the energy detected on the second channel corresponds to the second communication protocol by determining that the energy detected on the second channel is above a first threshold and by determining that energy detected on the third channel is below a second threshold. Both references address a same problem of false energy detection. Mofidi already provides the framework, i.e. detecting individual energy level of each channels. Ly-Gagnon uses the direct threshold comparison as well as the adjacent channel energy threshold. The implementation of Mofidi with the incorporation of Ly-Gagnon’s above disclosure provides the same benefit of avoiding false detection but with the focus on adjacent channels to allow more granular channel occupation among adjacent channels.
Claim(s) 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mofidi et al. (US 2017/0164289).
As claim 16:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein Mofidi renders “the second channel and the third channel are separated by at least one further channel according to the second communication protocol” obvious. While Mofidi is not explicit that the two bands are separated by one or more channel, See at least Abstract, ¶0061, 0065, 0074, Mofidi already discloses the expected band and the offset band do not overlap, preferring a reliable spacing between them. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that having one channel between said two bands is well within Mofidi’s vision, if not preferable as having a channel serving as spacing is a sure way to have the offset band and the expected band are completely separated. Furthermore, placing one channel away does not change the measurement, determination, or calculation of the method test.
In addition, these very specific channel choices as claimed are mere design preference/choices and the parameters do not have any bearing to the steps recited, i.e. the steps do not take in account the spacing between the channels. Thus, it is entirely a choice of design within contemplation of POSITA.
As to claim 20:
Mofidi discloses all limitations of claim 1, regarding: the processor is configured to perform the energy detection operation on the second channel, and the energy detection operation on the third channel, sequentially.
Mofidi teaches the two measurements that are made on the two channel on path 1 and 2 (¶0061-0063, 0078). While Mofidi is silent on the two measurements that are made sequentially, the choice of doing so is obvious to POSITA. The claimed process merely require that the two measurements are made and a determination being made based on them. The order they are made is completely irrelevant to the process. In case of a device with a single radio, this choice of making sequential measurement is significant since it cannot tune to both channels at same time. The implementation is clearly a matter of design choice/preference and in certain situation (single radio), a mandatory choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0173361 - In an aspect, the energy threshold computation for the AED operation can be performed by either of the first RAT modem or the second RAT modem. In an aspect, the respective modem can use the detected energy level determined by the first RAT modem to update an energy detection threshold (e.g., a threshold amount of detected energy in a channel that would cause the second modem to not transmit) such that the results of the AED operation can be a function of the energy level of the messages received by the first RAT modem. In an aspect, the first RAT modem can periodically update the detected energy level value. In such instances, the results of the AED operation can be a function of the first RAT messages received by the first RAT modem during the most recent interval.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights