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 .
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2024/0292309) in view of “Solution for path switch between PC5 and Uu” by CATT in view of SHARIAT et al. (US 2022/0232450).
In reference to claim 1
Dong teaches a first wireless transmit/receive unit (e.g. UE1; par. 0058, 0089) comprising: a processor (e.g. processor 500; par. 0089) configured to:
determine that at least one trigger for performing a path switch from a PC5 communication link to a Uu-based network communication link (e.g. path switch from PC5 path to Uu path; par. 0058) has occurred, wherein the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold (e.g. Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold; par. 0060)
perform Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment with a network node or perform a PDU session modification procedure with the network node to establish or modify a network-based PDU session (e.g. modify/establish PDU session for the Uu communication with a base station of the RAN; par. 0069, 0052); and
send second information to the second WTRU, for communication via the Uu-based network communication link (e.g. UE1 exchanges data of Prose service with UE2 via the Uu communication path; par. 0070).
Dong does not teach the processor configured to send a path switching request to a second WTRU via the PC5 communication link; receive first information from the second WTRU, wherein the first information comprises a path switching response for communication via the Uu-based network communication link; perform the procedure based on receiving the path switch response.
CATT teaches sending a path switching request to a second WTRU via a PC5 communication link (e.g. UE1 sends a path switching request to UE2 via a PC5 communication link; par. 6.X.2.2); receiving first information from a second WTRU, wherein first information comprises a path switching response for communication via an Uu-based network communication link (e.g. UE1 receives a path switching response from UE2 for communication via a Uu communication link; par. 6.X.2.2); performing a procedure based on receiving the path switch response (e.g. UE1 and UE2 performs a procedure based on receives the path switching response from UE2; par. 6.X.2.2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Dong to be configured to send a path switching request to a second WTRU via the PC5 communication link; receive first information from the second WTRU, wherein the first information comprises a path switching response for communication via the Uu-based network communication link; perform the establishment or modification procedure based on receiving the path switch response as suggested by CATT because it would allow the first WTRU to send a message to request a path switch to the second WTRU, the first WTRU to receive a response to the request from the second WTRU, and performing Protocol Data Unit session establishment with a network node or perform a PDU session modification procedure with the network node to establish a network-based PDU session after receiving the response in order to facilitate coordination of communications between the first WTRU and second WTRU when switching from communications on a PC5 link to a Uu communication link due to degradation of link quality on the PC5 link.
The combination of Dong and Catt does not teach the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link.
SHARIAT et al. teaches a PC5 is preferred and a Uu is non-preferred (par. 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the of combination of Dong and Catt to include the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link as suggested by SHARIAT et al. because it would allow the first WTRU to determine a preferred communication link out of the group comprising a PC5 communication link and a Uu-based network communication link to prioritize for communications.
In reference to claim 2, 10
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Dong further teaches the processor is configured to receive a message from a network node indicating that the path switching is allowed or policies for implementing path switching (e.g. UE1 receives communication path policies for implementing path switching from base station of RAN network when UE1 registers to the network; par. 0062-0067, 0111).
In reference to claim 3, 11
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Dong further teaches wherein the at least one trigger comprises the first WTRU being in a location area where path switching is allowed, an indication from an application, or a Uu link quality being above a threshold (e.g. at least one trigger comprises Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold as explained for claim 1; par. 0060).
In reference to claim 5, 13
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Dong further teaches the processor is configured to: receive provisioning information, wherein the provisioning information comprises a path switch capability, one or more path switching policies (e.g. UE1 receives provisioning information comprising path switching policies for implementing path switching from RAN network when UE1 registers to the network; par. 0062-0067, 0111), or a path switching information sharing method; and determine the at least one trigger for performing the paths switch is based on the provisioning information. (e.g. UE1 checks policy and determines trigger comprising both PC5 path and Uu could be used is satisfied for performing path switching; par. 0062-0067)
In reference to claim 6, 14
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Catt further teaches the processor is configured to send the path switch request to the second WTRU based on a determination that one or more triggers have occurred (e.g. UE1 sends a path switching request to UE2 via a PC5 communication link based on determination that one or more triggers have occurred; par. 6.X.2.2) and the path switching request indicates whether the PC5 communication link should be preserved after path switching (e.g. path switching request indicates the PC5 communication link should not be preserved after path switching; PC5 communication link is released after path switching; par. 6.X.2.2).
In reference to claim 9
Dong teaches a method performed by a first wireless transmit/receive unit (e.g. UE1; par. 0058, 0089) the method comprising:
determining that at least one trigger (e.g. Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold; par. 0060) for performing a path switch from a PC5 communication link to a Uu-based network communication link (e.g. path switch from PC4 path to Uu path; par. 0058) has occurred, wherein the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold (e.g. Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold; par. 0060)
performing Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session establishment with a network node or perform a PDU session modification procedure with the network node to establish or modify a network-based PDU session (e.g. modify/establish PDU session for the Uu communication with a base station of the RAN; par. 0069, 0052); and
sending second information to the second WTRU, for communication via the Uu-based network communication link (e.g. UE1 exchanges data of Prose service with UE2 via the Uu communication path; par. 0070).
Dong does not teach sending a path switching request to a second WTRU; receiving first information from the second WTRU, wherein the first information comprises a path switching response for communication via the Uu-based network communication link; performing the procedure based on receiving the path switch response.
CATT teaches sending a path switching request to a second WTRU via a PC5 communication link (e.g. UE1 sends a path switching request to UE2 via a PC5 communication link; par. 6.X.2.2); receiving first information from a second WTRU, wherein first information comprises a path switching response for communication via an Uu-based network communication link (e.g. UE1 receives a path switching response from UE2 for communication via a Uu communication link; par. 6.X.2.2); performing a procedure based on receiving the path switch response (e.g. UE1 and UE2 performs a procedure based on receives the path switching response from UE2; par. 6.X.2.2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the method of Dong to include sending a path switching request to a second WTRU; receiving first information from the second WTRU, wherein the first information comprises a path switching response for communication via the Uu-based network communication link; and performing the establishment or modification procedure based on receiving the path switch response as suggested by CATT because it would allow the first WTRU to send a message to request a path switch to the second WTRU, the first WTRU to receive a response to the request from the second WTRU, and performing Protocol Data Unit session establishment with a network node or perform a PDU session modification procedure with the network node to establish a network-based PDU session after receiving the response in order to facilitate coordination of communications between the first WTRU and second WTRU when switching from communications on a PC5 link to a Uu communication link due to degradation of link quality on the PC5 link.
The combination of Dong and Catt does not teach the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link.
SHARIAT et al. teaches a PC5 is preferred and a Uu is non-preferred (par. 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the of combination of Dong and Catt to include the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link as suggested by SHARIAT et al. because it would allow the first WTRU to determine a preferred communication link out of the group comprising a PC5 communication link and a Uu-based network communication link to prioritize for communications.
- In reference to claim 16, 18
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Dong further teaches the processor is configured to switch traffic or one or more proximity services from the PC5 communication link to the Uu-based network communication link (e.g. processor configured to switch proximity services from PC5 to Uu communication link; par. 0058-0070).
- In reference to claim 19, 20
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Catt further teaches reception of the first information is indicative of the path switching request being accepted. (e.g. reception of path switch response indicative of the path switching request being accepted by the second UE; par. 6.X.2.2).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2024/0292309) in view of “Solution for path switch between PC5 and Uu” by CATT in view of SHARIAT et al. (US 2022/0232450), as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2016/0227451).
In reference to claim 8, 17
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Catt further teaches the path switching request is sent to the second WTRU via the PC5 communication link (e.g. UE1 sends a path switching request to UE2 via a PC5 communication link; par. 6.X.2.2); wherein a path switching response is received from the second WTRU via the PC5 communication link (e.g. UE1 receives a path switching response from UE2 via a PC5 communication link; par. 6.X.2.2); and wherein a message is sent to the second WTRU via the PC5 communication link (e.g. UE1 sends a path switching request to UE2 via a PC5 communication link; par. 6.X.2.2).
The combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. does not teach the message being a path switching acknowledgment.
CHUNG et al. teaches a message being a path switching acknowledgment (par. 0054).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the message of the combination of Dong, Catt and SHARIAT et al. to be a path switching acknowledgment as suggested by CHUNG et al. because it would allow the first WTRU to inform the second WTRU that the first WTRU received the Path Switch Response from the second WTRU in order to facilitate coordination of path switching by the first and second WTRUs.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2024/0292309) in view of “Solution for path switch between PC5 and Uu” by CATT in view of SHARIAT et al. (US 2022/0232450), as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of PALADUGU et al. (US 2023/0247513).
In reference to claim 21-22
The combination of Dong and Catt teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Dong futher teaches determine that a quality of the PC5 communication link is less than the threshold (e.g. Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold; par. 0060-0061) to determine that the at least one trigger for performing the path switch from the PC5 communication link to the Uu-based network communication link has occurred; and determine to switch from the PC5 communication link to the Uu-based network communication link (e.g. switch from PC5 link to Uu link; par. 0060).
The combination of Dong and Catt does not teach receiving an indication indicating the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link.
SHARIAT et al. teaches teach receiving an indication indicating a PC5 is preferred and a Uu is non-preferred (par. 0021-0024).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the of combination of Dong and Catt to include teach receiving an indication indicating the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link as suggested by SHARIAT et al. because it would allow the first WTRU to be notified of a preferred communication link out of the group comprising a PC5 communication link and a Uu-based network communication link to prioritize for communications.
The combination of Dong, Catt, and SHARIAT et al. does not teach a signal strength being less than the threshold.
PALADUGU et al. teaches a signal strength being less than a threshold (par. 0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the of combination of Dong and Catt to include teach a signal strength being less than the threshold as suggested by PALADUGU et al. because it would the WTRU to utilize a measured power level on the PC5 communication link to compare to the threshold to utilize in performing the path switch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1a) The Applicant contends “Dong, CATT, and Shariat, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest "at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that, even though the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link, a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold[,]" as recited by claim 1.
Unique Trigger for Performing a Path Switch
Dong discloses a UE being configured to switch from a PC5 path to a Uu path based on the PC5 link becoming lower than a threshold (Dong, para. [0058]-[0070], FIG. 2). Dong does not teach or suggest a specific path switch trigger that considers how the WTRU should operate when the PC5 path or Uu path is a preferred or non-preferred path. Therefore, Dong does not teach or suggest the unique triggering for performing path switch required by claim 1.
CATT discloses that a UE can be configured to switch to a preferred path (e.g., CATT, section 6.X.2.2.1, step 1), but CATT remains silent with respect to a WTRU being configured with a trigger to switch to a non-preferred path, let alone doing so based on a determination that the link quality of the preferred path is below a threshold. Therefore, CATT does not teach or suggest the unique triggering for performing path switch required by claim 1.
Further, the Office Action concedes that "the combination of Dong and Catt does not teach the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link." (Office Action, p. 5). Therefore, Dong and CATT do not teach or suggest the subject matter that claim 1 requires.
The Office Action relies on Shariat to allegedly cure the deficiencies of Dong and CATT. Applicant disagrees. Shariat likewise does not teach or suggest the unique triggering for performing path switch required by claim 1.
Shariat does not describe any triggers for performing a path switch. Instead, Shariat describes initial path selection policies, which are not the same as a trigger for performing a path switch. In fact, Shariat clearly differentiates the two concepts itself when stating that "path switching schemes where a path (that has already been established) is switched from one mode of communication to another [are]... described in co-pending application GB1914327.0." (Shariat, para. [0005]). Therefore, since Shariat does not describe any triggers for performing a path switch, Shariat cannot be said to teach or suggest that "at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that, even though the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link, a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold," as recited by claim 1. Accordingly, none of the cited references, Dong, CATT, or Shariat, teach or suggest the unique trigger for performing path switch required by claim 1.”
1b) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dong teaches a processor (e.g. processor 500; par. 0089) configured to: determine that at least one trigger for performing a path switch from a PC5 communication link to a Uu-based network communication link (e.g. path switch from PC5 path to Uu path; par. 0058) has occurred, wherein the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold (e.g. Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold; par. 0060). The trigger for performing the path switching for the claimed invention and Dong is a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold. Dong does not teach the PC5 communication link being a preferred communication link. The Examiner relies on SHARIAT et al. to teach a PC5 being a preferred communication link (par. 0021). Since Dong teaches the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold (e.g. Quality of PC5 link between UE1 and UE2 becomes lower than a threshold; par. 0060), modifying Dong such that the PC5 is a preferred communication link as suggested by SHARIAT et al. results in the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that, even though the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link, a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold. That is because the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold and does not take into account if the communication link is a preferred communication link. The combination of Dong, CATT, and Shariat as detailed in the above rejection reads upon claim 1 and the rejection is proper.
2a) The Applicant contends “ Applicant submits that the Office Action erroneously equates a policy for initial path selection, as taught by Shariat, with a trigger for performing a path switch, as required by claim 1.
For background, initial path selection is different than path switching. Initial path
selection is a decision made prior to the establishment of a session with the network. Initial path selection may include how a UE establishes a protocol data unit (PDU) session (e.g., based on routing protocols, timing of when a first packet arrives, etc.) and/or UE route selection policy (URSP) evaluation, for example. Initial path selection may be based on one or more (pre)configured protocols and/or policies. For example, a UE may initially select a PC5 path based on a path selection policy, ProSe application requirements, and/or QoS requirements. The path selection policy (e.g., policy governing initial path selection) may not always align with a path switching policy (e.g., policy governing path switching from an established PDU session to another path).
Path switching is a subsequent decision to move existing, active traffic flow to another path and to maintain connectivity based on one or more real-time network condition(s).
After the initial path is established, the UE may be configured with one or more triggers for performing a path switch. Path switching accounts for session continuity, and as such, may be dynamically updated to account for evolving real-time network condition(s). Therefore, the trigger for performing a path switch may account for different and/or other parameters (e.g., PDU session status) in comparison to the path selection policy. As such, a person of skill in the art would not wholesale use an initial path selection policy for determining a new, unique trigger for performing a path switch.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to create the unique trigger for performing a path switch defined by claim 1 in view of the initial path selection policies taught by Shariat. Additionally, this is supported by the fact that Shariat clearly differentiates the two concepts itself when stating that "path switching schemes where a path (that has already been established) is switched from one mode of communication to another [are]... described in co-pending application GB1914327.0," which notable omits any description of the path switching trigger (e.g., considering how the WTRU should operate when the PC5 path or the Uu path is a preferred or non-preferred path) of claim 1. It is telling that Shariat's related and complimentary application directed to path switching does not teach or suggest that a trigger for performing a path switching could be defined to manage the situation where the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link, let alone where the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the link quality of the PC5 communication link falls below a threshold. This is because it was not contemplated by, nor obvious in view of Shariat at their time of filing either application. “
2b) The Examiner has relied on SHARIAT et al. to teach a PC5 is a preferred communication link and a Uu is non-preferred communication link (par. 0021). The Examiner has not relied on SHARIAT et al. to teach a trigger for performing a path switch. The Examiner has relied on Dong to teach the trigger has explained above. The combination of Dong, CATT, and Shariat as detailed in the above rejection reads upon claim 1 and the rejection is proper.
3a) The Applicant contends “The Motivation to Combine is Flawed
The Office Action alleges it would have been "obvious ... to modify the ...combination of Dong and Catt to include the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link ... because it would allow the first WTRU to determine a preferred communication link out of the group comprising a PC5 communication link and a Uu-based network communication link to prioritize for communications." (Office Action, p. 5). Applicant respectfully disagrees. The alleged combination of references presented by the Office Action relies on Shariat. Shariat is directed to initial path selection and does not describe any triggers for performing a path switch. Since Shariat is only directed to initial path selection policies and not triggers for path switching, Applicant submits that the unique path switch trigger of claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Shariat.
Simply because Shariat describes that the PC5 communication link can be a preferred communication link in the context of an initial path selection policy, does not render it obvious to amend the proposed combination of Dong and CATT to create a trigger for performing a path switch that triggers a path switch from the PC5 communication link to the Uu-based network communication link based on a "determination that, even though the PC5 communication link is the preferred communication link, a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold." (claim 1) Stated simply, the configuration of the PC5 communication link as a preferred link is not new. Rather, claim 1 defines a unique trigger for performing a path switch that manages a unique situation where the link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold, but at the same time the PC5 communication link is the preferred communication link. Shariat's description that the PC5 communication link can be a preferred communication link, specifically in the context of initial path selection and not when defining a trigger for a path switch, in no way provides any teaching or suggestion to amend the proposed combination of Dong and CATT to create the unique trigger for performing a path switch required by claim 1.
Therefore, the examiner has failed to provide a technical rational as to why one skilled in the art, when presented with Dong and CATT, would find it obvious to create the unique trigger for performing path switch, as defined by claim 1 in view of Shariat, which does not describe any triggers for performing a path switch.”
3b) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the of combination of Dong and Catt to include the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link and the Uu-based network communication link is a non-preferred communication link as suggested by SHARIAT et al. because it would allow the first WTRU to determine a preferred communication link out of the group comprising a PC5 communication link and a Uu-based network communication link to prioritize for communications. Thus, the PC5 communication link could be initially selected as the preferred communication link and utilized.
The trigger for performing the path switching for the claimed invention and Dong is a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold. Modifying Dong such that the PC5 is a preferred communication link as suggested by SHARIAT et al. results in the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that, even though the PC5 communication link is a preferred communication link, a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold. That is because the at least one trigger for performing the path switch comprises a determination that a link quality of the PC5 communication link is below a threshold and does not take into account if the communication link is a preferred communication link. The combination of Dong, CATT, and Shariat as detailed in the above rejection reads upon claim 1 and the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466