DETAILED ACTION
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-3 of [0056], “RB-level rate-matching” should be changed to “RB-level rate-matching”.
In link 8 of [0097], a period should be added after “indication”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2: line 3 includes the limitation “the specific function supported by the terminal” and lines 4-5 includes the limitation “the specific function not supported by the terminal”. Both of these limitations appear to have antecedent basis to the limitation “a specific function” in claim 1. However, it is unclear how this single “specific function” can be both supported and not supported by the terminal.
Regarding claim 3: the phrase “by assuming that a parameter related to the specific parameter is a specific parameter” is unclear in the context of the claim. That is, how does a terminal “assume” something? Also, how does this assumption relate to the receiving?
Regarding claims 3-5 and 8-10: the phrase “when the specific function not supported by the terminal is configured” is unclear. That is the scope of a function being “configured” is unclear. What device performs the configure step? Where and how is the function configured?
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “reception unit” and “control unit” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1: claim limitations “reception unit” and “control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as indicated above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions.
In particular, the specification describes these modules in elements 210 and 270 of Figure 4 and the corresponding descriptions in [0035]-[0036] and [0052], for example. These paragraphs describe the function performed by these modules, but do not describe the structure required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f). That is, because the limitations “reception unit” and “control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structure is limited to that described in the specification. However, because the specification does not provide sufficient structure for these modules, the scope of these claim limitations is indefinite.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 7: claim limitations “step of receiving” and “step of performing” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the use of the word “step” is unusual, suggesting a potential intention to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the phrase “step for” is not present in the claims. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Examiner notes that if Applicant does not intend to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), removing the phrase “a step of” at the start of each of the two limitations would overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, as noted above, claim limitations “reception unit” and “control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Further, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification describes the function of these modules, but does not provide the required structural support. Thus, in addition to being indefinite (because the scope of the claim is not clear as articulated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), the claim is similarly rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. That is, the original disclosure does not provide a written description of the structure of the limitations “reception unit” and “control unit”. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Phuyal et al (US 2022/0353734).
Regarding claim 1: Phuyal discloses a terminal comprising:
a reception unit (see elements 252, 254, 256, and 258 of Figure 2, for example) that receives data via a downlink channel scheduled using common downlink control information common to a plurality of terminals in a data delivery to the plurality of terminals (disclosed throughout; see Figure 6A, for example; as indicated in [0085], the UE receives an RRC configuration (605, for example) that indicates a configuration/mode to be used by “UEs 120 located within the cell”; this RRC configuration is thus downlink control information common to a plurality of terminals; further, the multicast/broadcast message 615 is data scheduled via the downlink control information (see [0089], for example, which indicates that the message “uses the format” sent via the RRC configuration) and is part of a data delivery to the plurality of terminal (the message is a multicast/broadcast message sent to at least the first and second UEs)); and
a control unit (see element 280 of Figure 2, for example) that performs a specific operation as an operation for receiving at least one logical channel from among a logical control channel and a logical traffic channel related to the data delivery to the plurality of terminals, depending on whether to support a specific function for receiving the at least one logical channel (disclosed throughout; in the example of Figure 6A, the specific function is RLC-AM; as indicated in [0084], “the first UE 120 may only support (or may be only capable of operating in accordance with) an RLC-UM for multicast/broadcast messages. The second UE 120 may support both (or may be capable of operating in accordance with both) the RLC-UM and the RLC-AM for multicast/broadcast messages”; as noted in [0084], this can be applied to “any feature or capability that is not supported by the first UE”; further, as indicated in [0086], when the configuration is for RLC-AM, the first UE may still receive the messages, but “may ignore or disregard the RRC configuration that indicates the first UE 120 is to operate in accordance with the RLC-AM and may operate in the RLC-UM for multicast/broadcast messages transmitted by the base station 110”; that is, the UEs perform a specific operation related to receiving a logical traffic channel (receiving the downlink multicast/broadcast messages – which are mapped to logical channels as indicated in [0066]-[0068], for example) depending on whether they support the specific function (RLC-AM); that is, the first and second UEs (not supporting and supporting the specific function, respectively), perform the operation (receiving the downlink multicast/broadcast messages) according to whether they support the specific function (RLC-AM)).
Regarding claim 7: Phuyal discloses a radio communication method comprising:
a step of receiving data via a downlink channel scheduled using common downlink control information common to a plurality of terminals in a data delivery to the plurality of terminals (disclosed throughout; see Figure 6A, for example; as indicated in [0085], the UE receives an RRC configuration (605, for example) that indicates a configuration/mode to be used by “UEs 120 located within the cell”; this RRC configuration is thus downlink control information common to a plurality of terminals; further, the multicast/broadcast message 615 is data scheduled via the downlink control information (see [0089], for example, which indicates that the message “uses the format” sent via the RRC configuration) and is part of a data delivery to the plurality of terminal (the message is a multicast/broadcast message sent to at least the first and second UEs)); and
a step of performing a specific operation as an operation for receiving at least one logical channel from among a logical control channel and a logical traffic channel related to the data delivery to the plurality of terminals, depending on whether to support a specific function for receiving the at least one logical channel (disclosed throughout; in the example of Figure 6A, the specific function is RLC-AM; as indicated in [0084], “the first UE 120 may only support (or may be only capable of operating in accordance with) an RLC-UM for multicast/broadcast messages. The second UE 120 may support both (or may be capable of operating in accordance with both) the RLC-UM and the RLC-AM for multicast/broadcast messages”; as noted in [0084], this can be applied to “any feature or capability that is not supported by the first UE”; further, as indicated in [0086], when the configuration is for RLC-AM, the first UE may still receive the messages, but “may ignore or disregard the RRC configuration that indicates the first UE 120 is to operate in accordance with the RLC-AM and may operate in the RLC-UM for multicast/broadcast messages transmitted by the base station 110”; that is, the UEs perform a specific operation related to receiving a logical traffic channel (receiving the downlink multicast/broadcast messages – which are mapped to logical channels as indicated in [0066]-[0068], for example) depending on whether they support the specific function (RLC-AM); that is, the first and second UEs (not supporting and supporting the specific function, respectively), perform the operation (receiving the downlink multicast/broadcast messages) according to whether they support the specific function (RLC-AM)).
Regarding claim 2: Phuyal discloses the limitations that the control unit performs, as the specific operation, an operation for receiving the at least one logical channel using the specific function supported by the terminal without receiving the at least one logical channel using the specific function not supported by the terminal (disclosed throughout; see [0086], for example, which discloses that the first UE performs the specific operation of receiving the downlink channel (which is transmitted using the specific function of RLC-AM) by receiving the at least one logical channel (the downlink multicast/broadcast message) using the specific function supported by the terminal (using RLC-UM, which is supported by the terminal) and without receiving the at least one logical channel using the specific function not supported by the terminal (ignoring or disregarding the elements operating in accordance with RLC-AM (the function not supported by the terminal))).
Regarding claim 3: Phuyal discloses the limitations that when the specific function not supported by the terminal is configured, by assuming that a parameter related to the specific function is a specific parameter, the control unit receives the at least one logical channel as the specific operation (disclosed throughout; in the example of Figure 6A, when the specific function not supported by the terminal (RLC-AM for the first UE) is configured, the first terminal receives the multicast/broadcast message by assuming the parameter related to the function is set to RLC-UM; see [0090], for example, which indicates “based at least in part on a capability of the first UE 120 (such as a capability that the first UE 120 does not support the RLC-AM for multicast/broadcast messages), the first UE 120 may decode the multicast/broadcast message (that uses the format associated with the RLC-AM) to identify information associated with the RLC-UM”).
Regarding claim 4: Phuyal discloses the limitations that when the specific function not supported by the terminal is configured, and when a parameter related to the specific function is not required, the control unit receives the at least one logical channel as the specific operation (disclosed throughout; in the example of Figure 6A, when the specific function not supported by the terminal (RLC-AM for the first UE) is configured, the first terminal receives the multicast/broadcast message when a parameter related to the specific function is not required; for example, as indicated in [0090]-[0091], the UE may ignore or disregard fields (parameters) associated with RLC-AM while decoding and extracting fields related to RLC-UM; as the UE is able to successfully receive the multicast/broadcast information, these ignored/disregarded fields/parameters are interpreted as not required).
Regarding claim 6: Phuyal discloses the limitations that the control unit performs the specific operation as an operation for receiving the logical traffic channel until a change notification for the logical control channel is received (disclosed throughout; see [0093]-[0094], for example, which indicates that the base station may always use a format associated with RLC-AM, but updates the RRC configuration to indicate the particular mode (RLC-UM/AM) to use; when the second UE (which supports both RLC-UM and RLC-AM) operates and the configuration is for RLC-AM, the second UE “may decode the multicast/broadcast message to identify information associated with the RLC-AM” [0093]; when the a configuration changes to be for RLC-UM (a change notification), “the second UE 120 may decode the multicast/broadcast by identifying and extracting information associated with the RLC-UM (such as SI or a SN) from the RLC PDU format associated with the MBS, while ignoring or disregarding information associated with the RLC-AM (such as a polling indicator or segmentation offset information, among other examples)”; that is, the second UE performs the specific operation (receiving the multicast/broadcast messages according to RLC-AM) until a change notification is received, at which time, the second UE receives the messages and information relating to RLC-UM, while ignoring/discarding the RLC-AM information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phuyal et al (US 2022/0353734) in view of Dai et al (US 2025/0071850).
Regarding claims 5 and 8-10: Phuyal discloses the limitation of parent claims 1-4, as indicated above. Phuyal does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 5 and 8-10 that when the specific function not supported by the terminal is configured, the control unit performs a connection procedure for a network and also performs an operation for transmitting an information element on whether to support the specific function to the network as the specific operation. However, Dai discloses analogous art for supporting multicast and broadcast services (especially in a non-connected state) as indicated in [0005], for example. Dai further discloses that when a terminal is operating with a particular configuration in an RRC non-connected state, the configuration may only be valid for a limited amount of time (see the timer in [0011], for example). When the valid time expires, the UE will “enter the RRC connected state to update the MRB configuration information for multicast reception in RRC non-connected state” (see [0011] and [0053], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Phuyal to enable the UE to operate in a non-connected state, but to enter a connected state (perform a connection procedure) to update the network on the non-connected state configuration (perform an operation for transmitting information on whether the specific function is supported for the specific operation). The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the UE to continue a receiving multicast data when it enters a non-connected state as suggested by Dai in [0038], for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai et al (US 2024/0071851) discloses a method for supporting multicast and broadcast services.
Dai et al (US 2024/0188186) discloses a method for DRX operation for multicast and broadcast services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights