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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR CONDITIONAL HANDOVER USING TIME WINDOW
The use of the terms WiFi, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized entirely wherever each appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
None of the instant claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 26, 29-32, 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The wireless device does not comprise any structural components to perform any functional limitations.
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) 1-2, 4-8, 16, 26, 29-32, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VIVO: “Discussion on CHO related aspects for NTN” (provided by Applicant), hereinafter “VIVO”.
As to claims 1, 4-6, 16 see similar rejections to claims 26, 29-31, 37 respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 2, VIVO further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conditions comprises: a time-based trigger condition associated with the at least one time window during which the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell can be performed (page 2, The UE shall execute CHO to that candidate cell during the time duration, if all other configured CHO execution conditions will apply); and a signal strength or signal quality threshold to be met for the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell to be performed (page 2, “For CHO, joint configuration of location and RSRP as well as time and RSRP triggers are supported”).
As to claims 7-8, see similar rejections to claim 32. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 26, VIVO discloses a wireless device (page 1, UE), configured for conditional handover to at least one candidate target cell (page 1, UE is allowed to execute CHO to the candidate target cell), the wireless device adapted to: determining at least one of: a plurality of conditions associated with the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has been fulfilled (page 2, The UE shall execute CHO to that candidate cell during the time duration, if all other configured CHO execution conditions will apply), at least one condition associated with the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has not been fulfilled, an execution of the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell has failed within at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell (clause 2.1, pages 2-3, “CHO time trigger is defined as time duration [t1, t2] associated for each CHO candidate cell” and “when the UE starts CHO within the [t1, t2] duration, but fails to complete CHO before t2 expires, what should the UE do towards the ongoing CHO (e.g. terminating the ongoing random access, new failure event defined or others)?”), and an execution of the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell succeeded within at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell; and based on an outcome of the determining step and a configuration of the wireless device, performing at least one action (clause 2.1, page 3, “terminating the ongoing random access” or, alternatively, “the UE cannot initiate CHO on a candidate cell, if the t2 associated with that candidate cell has been passed” i.e. action is the prohibition of initiating CHO).
As to claim 29, VIVO further discloses the wireless device of claim 26, wherein the wireless device is configured with a plurality of candidate target cells, and wherein each one of the candidate target cells is associated with one of a plurality of time windows (page 4, Proposal 3, “the time-based CHO trigger event, i.e. [t1, t2], of each candidate cell should also be considered” i.e. each cell has a window of [t1, t2] and since there are many cells, there are many windows).
As to claim 30, VIVO further discloses the wireless device of claim 26, wherein the wireless device is configured with a plurality of candidate target cells, and wherein at least two of the candidate target cells are associated with a same time window (page 4, Proposal 3, “the time-based CHO trigger event, i.e. [t1, t2], of each candidate cell should also be considered” ; page 3, “define this [t1, t2] duration”, i.e. it may be the same for all cells).
As to claim 31, VIVO further discloses the wireless device of claim 26, wherein: the wireless device determines that the plurality of conditions associated with the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has been fulfilled (page 2, The UE shall execute CHO to that candidate cell during the time duration, if all other configured CHO execution conditions will apply), and when performing the at least one action, the wireless device is adapted to: cease to monitor at least one other candidate target cell for a fulfillment of the at least one condition, and/or attempt to execute the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell for which the plurality of conditions was fulfilled (page 2, The UE shall execute CHO to that candidate cell during the time duration, if all other configured CHO execution conditions will apply).
As to claim 32, VIVO further discloses the wireless device of claim 31, wherein the wireless device is adapted to: determine that the attempt to execute the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has failed (clause 2.1, pages 2-3, “CHO time trigger is defined as time duration [t1, t2] associated for each CHO candidate cell” and “when the UE starts CHO within the [t1, t2] duration, but fails to complete CHO before t2 expires”), and perform at least one of: initiate a connection re-establishment to the at least one candidate target cell when the time window has not expired for the at least one candidate target cell for which the attempt to execute the conditional handover failed (pages 3-4, time-based CHO trigger event, i.e. [t1,t2], of each candidate cell should also be considered, when the UE decides whether it can apply the CHO configuration of the selected cell during RRC connection re-establishment); and resume or continue to monitor of at least one other candidate target cell for a fulfillment of at least one condition.
As to claim 37, VIVO further discloses the wireless device of claim 26, wherein the plurality of conditions are associated with at least a first conditional handover configuration associated with the at least one candidate target cell (page 2, The UE shall execute CHO to that candidate cell during the time duration, if all other configured CHO execution conditions will apply), and wherein when performing the at least one action (clause 2.1, page 3, “terminating the ongoing random access” or, alternatively, “the UE cannot initiate CHO on a candidate cell, if the t2 associated with that candidate cell has been passed” i.e. action is the prohibition of initiating CHO) the wireless device is adapted to perform at least one of: remaining in or returning to a connected state in a source cell; monitoring for a fulfillment of at least one condition associated with at least a second conditional handover configuration for which a time window has not expired (page 3, during RRC connection re-establishment, if the selected cell is a CHO candidate cell and if NW configures the UE to try CHO after failure, then the UE has one more chance to attempt CHO execution on the selected cell); monitoring for a fulfillment of at least one non-time based condition associated with at least a third conditional handover configuration; and maintaining a conditional handover configuration after the time window for executing the conditional handover has passed and/or reusing the conditional handover configuration to execute a non-conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 14, 18-21, 23-25, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIVO: “Discussion on CHO related aspects for NTN” (provided by Applicant), hereinafter “VIVO” in view of 20200351744 A1 to LATHEEF et al. (provided by Applicant) hereinafter Latheef.
As to claims 9, 14, see similar rejections to claims 35-36, respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 18, VIVO discloses a method by a network node operating as a source network node during a conditional handover of a wireless device to at least one candidate target cell (page 2, NW can provide the time range of each candidate target cell…NW allows the UE to perform CHO on the candidate cell), the method comprising: transmitting, to the wireless device, at least one conditional handover configuration for configuring the wireless device (page 2, NW can provide the time range of each candidate target cell…NW allows the UE to perform CHO on the candidate cell) based on determining by the wireless device at least one of: at least one condition associated with the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has not been fulfilled, and an execution of the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell has failed within at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell.
VIVO does not expressly disclose configuring the wireless device to transmit information to the network node.
Latheef discloses at fig. 6, paras. 0002, 0007, 0205-0210, sending a measurement report to a source cell upon RLF declaration of a cell selection attempt in context of a conditional handover from source cell to a candidate target cell of many target cells (i.e. configuring the wireless device to transmit information to the network node).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO. The suggestion/motivation would have been to execute a CHO in a wireless network (Latheef, para. 0007). Including the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Latheef.
As to claim 19, VIVO does not expressly disclose the method of claim 18, comprising receiving, from the wireless device, information indicating at least one of: the at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell has expired; all time windows associated with all of the candidate target cells has expired; at least one condition associated with the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has not been fulfilled, the execution of the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell has failed within the at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell, and the at least one action has been performed by the wireless device based on the at least one conditional handover configuration; and a measurement result for the at least one candidate target cell.
Latheef discloses at fig. 6, paras. 0002, 0007, 0205-0210, sending a measurement report to a source cell upon RLF declaration of a cell selection attempt in context of a conditional handover from source cell to a candidate target cell of many target cells (i.e. comprising receiving, from the wireless device, information indicating at least one of: at least one condition associated with the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell has not been fulfilled, the execution of the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell has failed within the at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell, and the at least one action has been performed by the wireless device based on the at least one conditional handover configuration; measurement result for the at least one candidate target cell.).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO. The suggestion/motivation would have been to execute a CHO in a wireless network (Latheef, para. 0007). Including the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Latheef.
As to claim 20, VIVO does not expressly disclose the method of claim 19, comprising: configuring the wireless device to transmit a message based on a type of the source cell and/or based on a serving cell stop time transmitted from the serving cell to the wireless device, and wherein the message comprises the information indicating that the at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell or that all time windows associated with all of the candidate target cells has expired.
Latheef discloses at fig. 6, paras. 0002, 0007, 0205-0210, sending a measurement report to a source cell upon RLF declaration of a cell selection [para. 0115, the condition for measurement used to add the CHO candidate) [0116] b) the validity timer i.e., a timer upon the expiry of which the UE (100) releases the CHO configuration (i.e., the source node manages the plurality of the CHO candidates but may not always succeed in releasing the at least one CHO candidate of the plurality of CHO candidates)], i.e. wherein the message comprises the information indicating that the at least one time window associated with the at least one candidate target cell…has expired] attempt in context of a conditional handover from source cell to a candidate target cell of many target cells (i.e. configuring the wireless device to transmit a message based on a type of the source cell).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO. The suggestion/motivation would have been to execute a CHO in a wireless network (Latheef, para. 0007). Including the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Latheef.
As to claim 21, VIVO and Latheef further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of conditions comprises: a time-based trigger condition associated with the at least one time window during which the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell can be performed (VIVO, page 2, The UE shall execute CHO to that candidate cell during the time duration, if all other configured CHO execution conditions will apply); and a signal strength or signal quality threshold to be met for the conditional handover to the at least one candidate target cell to be performed (VIVO, page 2, “For CHO, joint configuration of location and RSRP as well as time and RSRP triggers are supported”). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 18 applies.
As to claim 23, VIVO and Latheef further disclose the method of claim 18, wherein the wireless device is configured with a plurality of candidate target cells, and wherein each one of the candidate target cells is associated with one of a plurality of time windows (VIVO, page 4, Proposal 3, “the time-based CHO trigger event, i.e. [t1, t2], of each candidate cell should also be considered” i.e. each cell has a window of [t1, t2] and since there are many cells, there are many windows). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 18 applies.
As to claim 24, VIVO and Latheef further disclose the method of claim 18, wherein the wireless device is configured with a plurality of candidate target cells, and wherein at least two of the candidate target cells are associated with a same time window (VIVO, page 4, Proposal 3, “the time-based CHO trigger event, i.e. [t1, t2], of each candidate cell should also be considered” ; page 3, “define this [t1, t2] duration”, i.e. it may be the same for all cells). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 18 applies.
As to claim 25, VIVO and Latheef further disclose the method of claim 18, wherein the at least one conditional handover configuration configures the wireless device to perform the following actions when the plurality of conditions associated with the conditional handover have been fulfilled with respect to the plurality of the candidate target cells (VIVO, page 2, UE shall execute the CHO to a candidate cell): select a particular one of the plurality of candidate target cells based on at least one of: a signal strength or signal quality of each of the plurality of candidate target cells for which the plurality of conditions were fulfilled (VIVO, page 2, “For CHO, joint configuration of location and RSRP as well as time and RSRP triggers are supported”); a remaining serving time of each of the plurality of candidate target cells for which the plurality of conditions were fulfilled (VIVO, page 4, Proposal 3, “the time-based CHO trigger event, i.e. [t1, t2], of each candidate cell should also be considered” ; page 3, “define this [t1, t2] duration”; page 3, time offset to indicate the valid time range allowing UE to trigger CHO on the associated candidate cell); and a priority level and/or priority value assigned to each of the plurality of candidate target cells for which the plurality of conditions were fulfilled (VIVO, page 2, “For idle mode reselection, based on configuration NTN UE can prioritise TN over NTN”), and attempt to execute the conditional handover of the wireless device to the particular one of the plurality of candidate target cells (VIVO, page 1, CHO execution). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 18 applies.
As to claim 35, VIVO does not expressly disclose the wireless device of claim 26, wherein when performing the at least one action, the wireless device is configured to transmit at least one message to a network node, the at least one message indicating at least one of: the time window has expired without the plurality of conditions having been fulfilled and/or without a successful execution of the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell; the time window for each of a plurality of candidate target cell has expired without the plurality of conditions having been fulfilled and/or without a successful execution of the conditional handover of the wireless device to any of the plurality of candidate target cells; and a measurement result for the at least one candidate target cell.
Latheef discloses at fig. 6, paras. 0002, 0007, 0205-0210, sending a measurement report to a source cell upon RLF declaration of a cell selection attempt in context of a conditional handover from source cell to a candidate target cell of many target cells (i.e. wherein when performing the at least one action, the wireless device is configured to transmit at least one message to a network node, the at least one message indicating at least one of: without a successful execution of the conditional handover of the wireless device to the at least one candidate target cell; and a measurement result for the at least one candidate target cell.).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO. The suggestion/motivation would have been to execute a CHO in a wireless network (Latheef, para. 0007). Including the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Latheef.
As to claim 36, VIVO does not expressly disclose the wireless device of claim 35, wherein the network node comprises a source network node associated with a source cell, and wherein the wireless device is adapted to transmit the at least one message to the source network node based on a type of the source cell and/or a serving cell stop time obtained from system information in the serving cell.
Latheef discloses at fig. 6, paras. 0002, 0007, 0205-0210, sending a measurement report to a source cell upon RLF declaration of a cell selection attempt in context of a conditional handover from source cell to a candidate target cell of many target cells (i.e. wherein the network node comprises a source network node associated with a source cell, and wherein the wireless device is adapted to transmit the at least one message to the source network node based on a type of the source cell).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO. The suggestion/motivation would have been to execute a CHO in a wireless network (Latheef, para. 0007). Including the RLF declaration of Latheef into the invention of VIVO was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Latheef.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250150926 A1 discloses at para. 0037: According to some aspects, the additional condition 127 can be a time condition indicating a starting time T1 and an ending time T2 to perform the handover operation during a time range from T1 to T2. Accordingly, the conditional handover may not be carried out before T1, which represents the earliest point in time when UE 101 can perform CHO to the target cell. Similarly, the conditional handover may not be carried out after T2, which represents the end of the time window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights