Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 10/09/2024.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 19-20 and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 13-15, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 23 has been newly added.
Claims 1-18,21 and 23 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 10/09/2024, has been entered and considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024, 07/28/2025, and 09/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mu et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0155657), the prior art discloses that the terminal includes a first type of terminal and a second type of terminal; see ¶ 42. The first type of terminal may be a terminal with a relatively low capability, such as a Redcap terminal, and the second type of terminal may be a terminal with a relatively high capability, such as a normal terminal; see ¶ 42. The first threshold may be determined according to a bandwidth supported by the first type of terminal; see ¶ 42. The capability of the first type of terminal is lower than the capability of the second type of terminal; see ¶ 42. For example, a terminal bandwidth of the first type of terminal is smaller than a terminal bandwidth of the second type of terminal; see ¶ 42.
Abraham et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0017795), the prior art discloses a methodology of allocating user channels for packet data services in a wireless communications network, a first type channel having a given data rate and a second type channel having a lower data rate, including the steps of determining an estimated bandwidth requirement for the packet data services, switching a user to the second channel type from said first channel type if said estimated bandwidth requirement is below a first threshold, and switching a user to the first channel type from said second channel type if the estimated bandwidth requirement is greater than a second threshold; see ¶ 6.
Xin et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0029110), the prior art discloses that the network device may first determine, based on the upper bandwidth limit of the network device and the working status of each client, a shared bandwidth threshold used to determine whether to adjust the upper bandwidth limit, for each first-type client whose bandwidth is less than the shared bandwidth threshold, determine a bandwidth of the client as a level-2 bandwidth allocation value of the client, and for each second-type client whose bandwidth is greater than or equal to the shared bandwidth threshold, determine a quotient obtained by dividing a remaining unallocated bandwidth value by a quantity of second-type clients as a level-2 bandwidth allocation value of the client, where the remaining unallocated bandwidth value is a difference between the upper bandwidth limit of the network device and a total bandwidth of all first-type clients; see ¶ 13.
Zhao et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0314823), the prior art discloses broadcasting random access channel (RACH) configuration information, comprising a proportion parameter of available RACH occasion (RO) resources for different RedCap UE types, of RedCap UEs in a cell through a broadcast message in such a manner that a RedCap UE of the RedCap UEs is configured to transmit, based on the proportion parameter and a RedCap UE type of the different RedCap UE types, Msg1 to a base station by using RO resources corresponding to the RedCap UE type; and identifying the RedCap UE type of the RedCap UE based on the RO resources used by the RedCap UE to transmit the Msg1; see ¶ 6.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(I) recites:
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
MPEP §2111.05 recites:
USPTO personnel must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Since a claim must be read as a whole, USPTO personnel may not disregard claim limitations that include printed matter. See Id. at 1384, 217 USPQ at 403; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981). The first step of the printed matter analysis is the determination that the limitation in question is in fact directed toward printed matter. "Our past cases establish a necessary condition for falling into the category of printed matter: a limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information." See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848, 117 USPQ2d 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight." Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268. If a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does exist, the examiner should give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 117 USPQ2d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added) “A method for information transmission; performed by a base station, and the method comprising:
receiving bandwidth capability information reported by a first type of reduced capability user equipment (UE),
(A) wherein the bandwidth capability information is configured to indicate at least a first bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE,
(B) the first bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a first bandwidth threshold, the first bandwidth threshold is less than a second bandwidth threshold supported by a second type of reduced capability UE, and
(C) the first bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a data channel.
Limitations A and C indicate what would be the result of using the processing capability, i.e. what the capability is intended to do, or how its intended to used. However the scope of claim 1 doesn’t perform any actual operation or processing with the received data. As result, those limitations only introduce an intended step or result of the receiving step, but does not positively recite those operations, as result they will be given not patentable weight.
Regarding limitation B, the limitation recites “the first bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a first bandwidth threshold, the first bandwidth threshold is less than a second bandwidth threshold supported by a second type of reduced capability UE”. These limitations only introduce the value within the field of the first bandwidth processing capability. A received communication including a certain value introduces only printed matter into the scope of the claim, that printed matter must have a functional relationship with the intended system as a whole, however in claim 1, there is no use or operation that utilizes the value of the first bandwidth processing capability, the scope of claim 1, only receives a reception of the value and the value being between the first and second threshold. As result, the claimed “first bandwidth processing capability” is printed matter and given no patentable weight.
The examiner encourages applicant to claim the operations of the base station so that the intended operations are positively recited so that the receive capability information is utilized by the intended system to perform the intended result.
Claim 21 contains the same limitations from the perspective of a communication device, rather than a method. The limitations are given not patentable weight under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 10 and 23 recite the same limitation from the perspective of the transmitting UE. Once again, the identified limitations are being given no patentable weight under the same rationale as explained for claims 1 and 21.
Claim 2, 3, 11, and 12 recite additional intended uses of received bandwidth capability information. They are given no patentable weight because they also introduce an intended use or result of the received data, but do not positively recite those steps or results.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 recite additional values within the received message, they are interpreted as printer matter under the same rationale as described of limitation B of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-18, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, the claim recites:
(A) receiving bandwidth capability information reported by a first type of reduced capability user equipment (UE),
(B) wherein the bandwidth capability information is configured to indicate at least a first bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE,
(C) the first bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a first bandwidth threshold, the first bandwidth threshold is less than a second bandwidth threshold supported by a second type of reduced capability UE, and
(D) the first bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a data channel.
Based on the context of the claim, the limitation B, the C limitation, and the D limitation are ambiguous. Even though the preamble is directed to the base station the limitations are written in such a way that it is unclear whether required to be performed as part of the claimed method.
In addition, based on the context of the claim the limitation B is ambiguous. The plain meaning of configuring consists of modifying an entity to perform a particular operation. The base station receives “the bandwidth capability information” from the reduced capability UE, and process it to determine “the first bandwidth processing capability”. However, “the bandwidth capability information” never modify the base station or “the first bandwidth processing capability” in order to perform a particular operation.
In addition, based on the context of the claim the limitation C is ambiguous. The limitation C presents a comparison of the value (e.g. first bandwidth processing capability) to a threshold. However, the limitation fails to explicitly describe the action performed when the value satisfies the threshold. Therefore, it is ambiguous what action is performed based on the outcome of the comparison. Examiner suggests amending the claim to explicitly associate the condition with the result. For example, “If the first bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a first bandwidth threshold and the first bandwidth threshold is less than a second bandwidth threshold, the data channel is allocated a maximum bandwidth; wherein the second bandwidth threshold supported by a second type of reduced capability UE”.
In addition, based on the context of the claim the limitation D is ambiguous. The plain meaning of configuring consists of modifying an entity to perform a particular operation. The base station determines “the first bandwidth processing capability” from the “the bandwidth capability information” received. However, “the first bandwidth processing capability” never modify the base station or the “maximum bandwidth allocated” in order to perform a particular operation. Furthermore, the limitation describe that the determination of the maximum bandwidth allocated is performed by the first type of reduced capability UE in contradiction of the preamble.
As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the bandwidth capability information is further configured to indicate a second bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE,
(A) wherein the second bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a third bandwidth threshold, and the second bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth received and/or transmitted by the first type of reduced capability UE”. Based on the context of the claim the limitation A is ambiguous. Even though the preamble is directed to the base station the limitation is written in such a way that it is unclear whether the limitation A is required to be performed as part of the claimed method. Also, the claim inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and has not resolved the deficiencies. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the bandwidth capability information is further configured to indicate at least one of:
(A) a third bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE, wherein the third bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold, or the third bandwidth processing capability is greater than the first bandwidth threshold and less than or equal to a third bandwidth threshold; and the third bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a control channel;
(B) a fourth bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE, wherein the fourth bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold, or the fourth bandwidth processing capability is greater than the first bandwidth threshold and less than or equal to the third bandwidth threshold; and the fourth bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a reference signal; or
(C) a fifth bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE, wherein the fifth bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold, or the fifth bandwidth processing capability is greater than the first bandwidth threshold and less than or equal to the third bandwidth threshold; and the fifth bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block (SSB). Based on the context of the claim the limitation A, B, and C are ambiguous. Even though the preamble is directed to the base station the limitations are written in such a way that it is unclear whether the limitations are required to be performed as part of the claimed method. Also, the claim inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and has not resolved the deficiencies. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The method of claim 2,
(A) wherein the third bandwidth threshold is greater than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold”. Based on the context of the claim the limitation A is ambiguous. The limitation A presents a comparison of the value (e.g. third bandwidth processing capability) to a threshold. However, the limitation fails to explicitly describe the action performed when the value satisfies the threshold. Therefore, it is ambiguous what action is performed based on the outcome of the comparison. Also, the claim inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and has not resolved the deficiencies. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The method of claim 2,
(A) wherein the third bandwidth threshold is greater than or equal to the second bandwidth threshold”. Based on the context of the claim the limitation A is ambiguous. The limitation A presents a comparison of the value (e.g. third bandwidth processing capability) to a threshold. However, the limitation fails to explicitly describe the action performed when the value satisfies the threshold. Therefore, it is ambiguous what action is performed based on the outcome of the comparison. Also, the claim inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and has not resolved the deficiencies. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 6-8, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parents claim above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “The method of claim 6, wherein the resource configuration information is configured to indicate a bandwidth part (BWP) configured to the first type of reduced capability UE,
(A) wherein the BWP has a bandwidth less than or equal to a third bandwidth threshold”. Based on the context of the claim the limitation A is ambiguous. The limitation A presents a comparison of the value (e.g. bandwidth) to a threshold. However, the limitation fails to explicitly describe the action performed when the value satisfies the threshold. Therefore, it is ambiguous what action is performed based on the outcome of the comparison. Also, the claim inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and has not resolved the deficiencies. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 10-18 and 23, the claims 10-18 and 23 contain the same limitations from the perspective of a user equipment, rather than a base station. Therefore, the limitations are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1-9 and 21.
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 1-6, 10-15, 21, and 23 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi et al. (Publication No. US 2015/0181603, hereinafter referred to as Wakabayashi).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Wakabayashi discloses a method for information transmission performed by a base station, the method comprising:
receiving bandwidth capability information reported by a first type of reduced capability user equipment (UE), wherein the bandwidth capability information is configured to indicate at least a first bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE (A user equipment (UE) report the UE capability, wherein the UE capability RF bandwidth capability; see figure 12B step 0 & column 15 lines 12-13. Furthermore, the UE can be a reduce capability UE; see column 16 lines 34-37.),
the first bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a first bandwidth threshold, the first bandwidth threshold is less than a second bandwidth threshold supported by a second type of reduced capability UE, and the first bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a data channel (This limitations are being given no patentable weight as explained under the claim interpretation and 112(b) rejection.).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, this claim is being given no patentable weight as explained under the claim interpretation and 112(b) rejection. Furthermore, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “at least”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “first bandwidth”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, this claim is being given no patentable weight as explained under the claim interpretation and 112(b) rejection. Furthermore, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “at least”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “first bandwidth”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, this claim is being given no patentable weight as explained under the claim interpretation and 112(b) rejection. Furthermore, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “at least”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “first bandwidth”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, this claim is being given no patentable weight as explained under the claim interpretation and 112(b) rejection. Furthermore, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “at least”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “first bandwidth”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Wakabayashi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring, based on the bandwidth capability information, a transmission resource for the first type of reduced capability UE; and transmitting to the first type of reduced capability UE resource configuration information indicating the transmission resource (The receive, from the base station, a frequency configuration; see figure 12B step 2.).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Wakabayashi discloses a method for information transmission performed by a base station, the method comprising:
reporting bandwidth capability information reported by a first type of reduced capability user equipment (UE), wherein the bandwidth capability information is configured to indicate at least a first bandwidth processing capability of the first type of reduced capability UE (A user equipment (UE) report the UE capability, wherein the UE capability RF bandwidth capability; see figure 12B step 0 & column 15 lines 12-13. Furthermore, the UE can be a reduce capability UE; see column 16 lines 34-37.),
the first bandwidth processing capability is less than or equal to a first bandwidth threshold, the first bandwidth threshold is less than a second bandwidth threshold supported by a second type of reduced capability UE, and the first bandwidth processing capability is configured to determine a maximum bandwidth allocated, by the first type of reduced capability UE, to a data channel (This limitations are being given no patentable weight as explained under the claim interpretation and 112(b) rejection.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al. (Publication No. US 2015/0181603, hereinafter referred to as Wakabayashi in view of Lei et al. (Publication No. US 20220104109, hereinafter referred as Lei).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Wakabayashi discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the resource configuration information is configured to indicate at least one of:
a frequency spectrum resource of the data channel (The receive, from the base station, a frequency configuration; see figure 12B step 2.);
a frequency spectrum resource of a control channel, wherein a maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the control channel is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold, or the maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the control channel is greater than the first bandwidth threshold and less than or equal to a third bandwidth threshold;
a frequency spectrum resource of a reference signal, wherein a maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the reference signal is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold, or the maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the reference signal is greater than the first bandwidth threshold and less than or equal to the third bandwidth threshold; or
a frequency spectrum resource of a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block (SSB), wherein a maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the SSB is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold, or the maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the SSB is greater than the first bandwidth threshold and less than or equal to the third bandwidth threshold.
Wakabayashi fails to disclose that wherein a maximum bandwidth of the frequency spectrum resource of the data channel is less than or equal to the first bandwidth threshold. However, in analogous art, Lei discloses receiving first system information from a base station, the first system information being for reduced-capability UEs including UEs with a bandwidth capability below a threshold; see ¶ 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi with threshold of Lei in order to avoid congestion or wastes of resources by limiting the maximum amount of bandwidth allocated to the reduced capability UE.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “at least one of”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “frequency spectrum …, wherein a maximum bandwidth”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Wakabayashi discloses he method of claim 6, but fails to explicitly discloses that the resource configuration information is configured to indicate a bandwidth part (BWP) configured to the first type of reduced capability UE, wherein the BWP has a bandwidth less than or equal to a third bandwidth threshold. However, in analogous art, Lei discloses receiving first system information from a base station, the first system information being for reduced-capability UEs including UEs with a bandwidth capability; see ¶ 6. Furthermore, an indication of one or more downlink BWP configurations associated with reduced-capability UEs for receiving the first system information, one or more uplink BWP configurations associated with reduced-capability UEs for transmitting requests for the additional system information; see ¶ 25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wakabayashi with threshold of Lei in order to avoid congestion or wastes of resources by limiting the maximum amount of bandwidth allocated to the reduced capability UE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights