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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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: “Channel Energy Based Shortest Path Determination” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-19 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “-- a user equipment, UE, --” (line 7). It is suggested to replace it with “-- a user equipment (UE) --” for more clarity. Claim 19 (line 4) is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “-- a line of sight --” (third line from the bottom). It is suggested to replace it with “-- a line of sight (LOS) --” for more clarity. Claim 19 (third line from the bottom) is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 5 recites, “-- via at the plurality of beams --” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “-- via the plurality of beams --” for more clarity. Claim 8 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Claim 9 recites, “-- for a given beam is determined --” (third line from the bottom). It is suggested to replace it with “-- for the given beam is determined --” for more clarity.
Claim 10 recites, “-- wherein the first energy is determined . . . ; and/or wherein the second energy is determined . . .” (lines 1-6). It is suggested to replace it with “-- at least one of: wherein the first energy is determined . . . ; or wherein the second energy is determined . . .” for more clarity.
Claims 3-18 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the signal characteristics for the shortest path are determined based on signal characteristics of the paths of the group of paths” which fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 reciting “determining, using the identified group of paths, signal characteristics for the shortest path for use in determining a position of the UE” (lines 13-14).
Claims 15-16 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 14, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US Publication No. 2023/0059302 A1)1 in view of Dwivedi et al (US Publication No. 2022/0229143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manolakos discloses, an apparatus [FIGS. 14-15; their related descriptions; ¶0130-0132 and 0141-0142, UE] comprising at least one processor [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0073, processor 210] and at least one memory including computer program code [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0073, memory 211 including software (SW) 212], the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0073, the memory 211 stores the software 212 which may be processor-readable, processor-executable software code containing instructions that are configured to, when executed, cause the processor 210 to perform various functions], cause the apparatus [FIGS. 14-15; their related descriptions; ¶0130-0132 and 0141-0142, UE] at least to perform:
estimating, for a plurality of beams associated with a plurality of signal propagation paths along which signals are determined to have been propagated over a communication channel between a user equipment, UE, and a transmit-receive point, respective contributions to a channel energy of the communication channel [FIG. 15; its related descriptions; ¶0142, determining, based on the multi-port measurements, that a particular effective beam corresponds to an earliest time of arrival from the positioning-signal source (i.e., transmit-receive point) to the UE of a plurality of effective beams associated with the plurality of ports. . . . Determining that the particular effective beam of the plurality of effective beams corresponds to an earliest arrival time may comprise determining an impulse response (i.e., respective contributions to a channel energy) corresponding to each of the effective beams (i.e., a plurality of beams)];
identifying, from the plurality of signal propagation paths associated with the plurality of beams and based on the estimated contributions to the channel energy for the plurality of beams, a group of signal propagation paths associated with a shortest path between the UE and the transmit-receive point [¶0142, . . . analyze peaks of aliased impulse responses (i.e., estimated contributions to the channel energy for the plurality of beams) to determine an earliest-arriving peak and a corresponding effective beam (i.e., a signal propagation path associated with a shortest path); further see ¶0131, the UE 500 is configured to analyze the impulse responses of multiple effective beams of the multi-port PRS to determine which beam arrived first (earliest) and thus had the shortest time of travel from the TRP 300 to the UE 500; further see ¶0132, note that determining, from signal paths corresponding to peaks 1411-1419 (see FIG. 14) associated with the effective beams based on the impulse responses for the effective beams, two peaks 1411, 1414 (which re inside the window 1430) (i.e., a group of signal paths) associated with the earliest path/peak (1414)]; and
determining, using the identified group of paths [¶0132, note that using two peaks 1411, 1414 (which are inside the window 1430), the peak 1411 corresponding to the earliest arrival time is determined and thus most likely effective beam to be LOS], signal characteristics for the shortest path for use in determining a position of the UE [¶0138, the server 400 can use the feedback information to determine a position of the UE 500. For example, the server 400 can use, or determine, the AoD (i.e., signal characteristics) for an LOS beam to the UE 500 as part of a trilateration determination, e.g., using other AoDs for LOS beams from other TRPs 300, and the locations of the TRPs, to determine the location of the UE 500; further see ¶0132-0134, LOS beams and AoDs for the LOS beams are determined for use in determining a position of the UE; note that the UE determines, using the two peaks 1411, 1411 corresponding respective paths, AoD of the peak 1411 corresponding to the earliest arrival time/path, and the AoD of the peak 1411 is for use in determining a position of the UE]; and
determining a likelihood that the shortest path between the UE and the transmit- receive point is a line of sight path [¶0132, the UE 500 may ignore impulse response peaks outside of the window 1430 and find the earliest peak of the effective beams to determine the effective beam with the earliest arrival time (shortest travel time or shortest travel distance as these are equivalent) from the TRP 300 to the UE 500 and thus the most likely effective beam to be LOS between the TRP 300 and the UE 500].
Although Manolakos discloses, “determining a likelihood that the shortest path between the UE and the transmit- receive point is a line of sight path” as set forth above, Manolakos does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations),
wherein the likelihood is determined based on a LOS probability, wherein the LOS probability is determined using the signal characteristics of the shortest path.
However, Dwivedi discloses, wherein the likelihood is determined based on a LOS probability, wherein the LOS probability is determined using the signal characteristics of the shortest path [¶0070, for each TOA measurement, a weight may be calculated based on the measurements in the first through ninth LOS detection methods or a subset of these measurements. The weight may be calculated such that a higher weight corresponds to a larger probability for the TOA to be LOS. In one embodiment the weight can be an estimation of the probability for TOA measurement to be LOS; note that the probability to be LOS is determined using a weight of each TOA].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Dwivedi in the system of Manolakos in order to cause the system to be able to allow to determine accurate line-of-sight information for optimizing radio resource and improving positioning accuracy [e.g., ¶0004 of Dwivedi].
Regarding claim 3, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein the beams are beams of the transmit-receive point [¶0142, determining, based on the multi-port measurements, that a particular effective beam corresponds to an earliest time of arrival from the positioning-signal source to the UE of a plurality of effective beams associated with the plurality of ports; since the effect beams are from the positioning signal source/TRP to the UE, they correspond to beams of the positioning signal source/TRP].
Regarding claim 4, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein the beams are beams of the UE [¶0130, the effective beams are logical reconstructions based on the received energy in the multi-port PRS and not necessarily beams as transmitted by the TRP 300 (i.e., the TRP 300 may not beamform the multi-port PRS); further see ¶0131, applying the steering matrices w to the received PRS to isolate the energy of effective beams yields an impulse response for each effective beam; note that since the effective beams are generated and applied by the UE rather than radiated by the TRP, the disclosed portions of Manolakos correspond to beams of the UE as claimed].
Regarding claim 5, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein measurements of signals propagated via at the plurality of beams are used to determine a subset of the plurality of beams [¶0132, in the example shown in FIG. 14 , the peaks 1412, 1413, 1415-1419 of the effective beams 1311, 1312, 1314 are outside the window 1430 and thus ignored by the UE 500. The peaks 1411, 1414 (of the beams 1312, 1311, respectively) are inside the window 1430, with the peak 1411 corresponding to the effective beam 1312 being earliest in time; note that measured peaks 1412, 1413, 1415-1419 propagated via the effective beams are used to determine the effective beams 1312, 1311 (i.e., a subset of the plurality of beams) corresponding to the peaks 1411 and 1411, and further note that each peak corresponds to a path from the TRP to the UE], and
wherein the group of paths is identified from paths of the plurality of signal propagation paths that are associated with the subset of the plurality of beams and based on the estimated contributions to the channel energy for the beams of the subset [see ¶0132 as above, note that the peaks 1411, 1414 are identified from the paths associated with the beams 1312, 1311 and further note that the peaks 1411, 1414 are identified based on impulse responses for the beams 1312, 1311].
Regarding claim 7, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 5 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein the subset is determined by removing beams from the plurality of beams having a respective determined measurement below a threshold [¶0132 as above, note that the effective beams 1312, 1311 are determined by ignoring other beams outside the window 1430 from all the beams (see FIG. 13), and the the effective beams 1312, 1311 has a respective arrival time below the end of the window 1430].
Regarding claim 8, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein the plurality of signal propagation paths associated with the plurality of beams are identified by parsing signals propagated via at the plurality of beams [¶0131, As shown in FIG. 14, an example graph 1400 of impulse responses for the effective beams 1311, 1312, 1314 includes three peaks for each effective beam, with peaks 1411, 1412, 1413 corresponding to the effective beam 1312, peaks 1414, 1415, 1416 corresponding to the effective beam 1311, and peaks 1417, 1418, 1419 corresponding to the effective beam 1314; note that this is obtaining by processing the signals received over each beam. Resolving a per-beam impulse response into discrete peaks, each attributed to a beam, meets the claimed identification of signal propagation paths by parsing signals propagated via the plurality of beams].
Regarding claim 14, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein the signal characteristics for the shortest path are determined based on signal characteristics of the paths of the group of paths [¶0132 as above, note that the UE determines, using the two peaks 1411, 1411 corresponding respective paths, AoD of the peak 1411 corresponding to the earliest arrival time/path].
Regarding claim 15, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above.
Manolakos discloses, wherein the signal characteristics for the shortest path [¶013-0132, the arrival time characteristics for the effective beam 1312, which is a line of sight beam from the TRP 300 to the UE 500] include a shortest path delay [¶013-0132, includes a time of travel of the effective bam 1312 that is shorter than the times of travels of the effective beams 1311, 1314], and wherein the shortest path delay is determined based on respective path delays of paths from the group of paths [¶013-0132, the earliest arrival time of the effective beam 1312 is determined by finding the earliest peak of the effective beams, the peak 1411 corresponding to the effective beam 1312 being earliest in time among the peaks inside the window 1430, relative to a reference time such as the expected time of arrival 1420 of the peaks 1444. 1414].
Regarding claim 17, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above in claim 1. Manolakos discloses, a user equipment device comprising the apparatus of claim 1 [FIGS. 14-15; their related descriptions; ¶0130-0132 and 0141-0142, note that the UE is an apparatus performs actions described in claim 1].
Regarding claim 18, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above in claim 1. Manolakos discloses, a transmit-receive point [FIGS. 12-13; its related descriptions; ¶0126, TRP 300] for a communications network [FIGS. 12-13; its related descriptions; ¶0126, a communication network including the TRP 300, UE 500 and Server 400] comprising the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, since claim 19 recites similar features without additional features, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Manolakos discloses, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon for performing at least the method of claim 19 [FIG. 2; its related descriptions; ¶0073, the memory 211 stores the software 212 which may be processor-readable, processor-executable software code containing instructions that are configured to, when executed, cause the processor 210 to perform various functions].
Since claim 20 recites similar features without additional features, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US Publication No. 2023/0059302 A1) in view of Dwivedi et al (US Publication No. 2022/0229143 A1) and further in view of Kumar et al (US Publication No. 2020/0137714 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 5 as set forth above.
Although Manolakos discloses, wherein the subset is determined based on a desired number of beams for combining [¶0132, the effective beams 1312, 1311 inside the window 1430 (i.e., subset) is based on the window 1430; further see, “the UE 500 may use the arrival time 1420 of the source RS to establish a window 1430 (e.g., the arrival time 1420 of the source RS plus or minus a threshold time, or plus one threshold time and minus another threshold time)”; note that the subset is determined based on the size of the window 1430 which is associated with a desired number of beams which is based on a threshold time], Manolakos in view of Dwivedi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kumar discloses, wherein a value for the desired number of beams for combining is defined by information received from a location management function [¶0021 and ¶0025, beam support information including a number of beams of supported at each cell provided from a location server] or based on a width associated with the plurality of beams [¶0021 and ¶0025, beam support information including beam width information of the each beam].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kumar to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kumar into the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling selection of an appropriate number of beams to combine while reducing unnecessary measurement and processing overhead, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US Publication No. 2023/0059302 A1) in view of Dwivedi et al (US Publication No. 2022/0229143 A1) and further in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2008/0092194 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Manolakos in view of Dwivedi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kim discloses,
wherein the group of paths is identified from a combined channel [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0045-0048, the mainpath signals are identified from a combined signal produced by the beam combiner 105, wherein two beam output signals are combined using calculated delay time (step 404)] comprising paths of the plurality of signal propagation paths [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0045-0048, comprising the mainpath and multipath signals of the incident angles . . . , wherein signals that becomes mainpath signals in the respective beams have different time delays and the time difference of the mainpath signals is compensated when adding the two output signals (step 404)] that are associated with beams [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0045-0048, that are associated with the two beam output signals selected in step 402] having at least a threshold estimated respective contribution to the channel energy [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0045-0048, having the largest metric among the five beams outputs, SMNRs calculated with respect to the respective beam output signals using channel impulse responses estimated by the correlator 104 (step 401)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kim to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kim into the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling more efficient beams/channels processing by excluding low-contribution paths, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US Publication No. 2023/0059302 A1) in view of Dwivedi et al (US Publication No. 2022/0229143 A1) and further in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2008/0092194 A1) and further in view of Opsh et al (US Publication No. 2015/0237565 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi and Kim discloses, the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above.
Manolakos in view of Dwivedi and Kim does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Opsh discloses, wherein the group of paths is identified as an earliest group of paths from the combined channel having a group energy larger than a noise threshold [¶0051, it is determined whether there is an earlier peak in the channel energy response which are above the mask and noise threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Opsh in the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi and Kim in order to more effectively identify the peak corresponding to the earliest arrival path, since the largest peak of the channel energy response does not necessarily indicate the shortest path [e.g., ¶0023 and 0029 of Opsh].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US Publication No. 2023/0059302 A1) in view of Dwivedi et al (US Publication No. 2022/0229143 A1) and further in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2008/0092194 A1) and further in view of Valadon et al (US Publication No. 2010/0040176 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi and Kim discloses, the apparatus of claim 11 as set forth above.
Manolakos in view of Dwivedi and Kim does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Valadon discloses, wherein the group of paths is identified from the combined channel using a sliding window [abstract, determining, amongst a plurality of groups of continuous tap values within the window, the group containing the largest amount of signal energy and time-shifting the window as necessary to arrange that the group so determined occupies the sub-window; further see ¶0010, the plurality of groups of contiguous tap values that is used in the determination of a maximum signal energy group comprises all possible groups of contiguous tap values of length equal to the sub-window; further see ¶0011, time-shifting of the window to realign the sub-window only occurs if the maximum signal energy group of taps is not already aligned with the sub-window. The invention may operate cyclically, with the presentation in each cycle of raw tap values to span the window, which may have been repositioned in the previous cycle. In each such cycle, there is the potential to evaluate the raw tap values within the window to determine the need for a time shift to the window to align the sub-window with the maximum signal energy group of taps (i.e., sliding window)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Valadon in the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi and Kim in order to produce a refined channel impulse response estimate by passing for further processing only the contents of the sub-window [e.g., ¶0010 and 0011 of Valadon].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al (US Publication No. 2023/0059302 A1) in view of Dwivedi et al (US Publication No. 2022/0229143 A1) and further in view of Sadiq et al (US Publication No. 2019/0372688 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi discloses, the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Manolakos discloses, “wherein the signal characteristics for the shortest path include a shortest path delay, and wherein the shortest path delay is determined based on respective path delays of paths from the group of paths” as set forth above in claim 15, Manolakos in view of Dwivedi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the path delay(s) is/are modified to be path gain(s).
However, Sadiq discloses, wherein the signal characteristics for the shortest path include a shortest path gain [¶0063, the beam carrying RF signals that excites the shortest path or LOS path; further see ¶0087, an RSRP value calculated by weighing earlier taps higher than later taps weighted RSRP].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Sadiq to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Sadiq into the system of Manolakos in view of Dwivedi would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to prioritize the strongest/most direct path for efficient positioning and channel estimation, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sadiq’536 et al (US Publication No. 2019/0364536 A1) [FIG. 5; ¶0069]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Manolakos was an US patent family of WO 2021/167722 A1 which was cited in an IDS.
Prosecution Insights