DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on October 25, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Notes
3. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Preliminary Amendment
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the preliminary amendment, dated October 25, 2024. Claims 3-6, 11, and 12 have been canceled; claims 16-25 are new.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 13-25 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
6. Claims 7-10, 13, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, it recites, “The UE of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive a second configuration a network, and
wherein the second configuration includes one of: information for enabling the UL data discarding function; and a configuration regarding the timer.”
In multiplexing/telecommunication technical area, a network is a collection of interconnected communication nodes/devices, links, and associated resources that enables the transmission, reception, and routing of information between communication nodes/devices.
The examiner rejects the usage of “receive a second configuration a network” indicated in italics in the first wherein clause, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, it recites, “The UE of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive a discarding command corresponding to the DRB via a network.”
It depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites, “A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured cause the UE to:
determine whether to start a timer associated with at least one of an uplink (UL) data discarding function or a configured grant (CG) prohibiting function or a scheduling request (SR) prohibiting function of the UE;
start the timer, in response to determining to start the timer; and
perform at least one of:
discarding UL data for a data radio bearer (DRB) to be transmitted when the timer is running;
prohibiting a transmission on a logical channel (LCH) associated with one or more sets of CGs or associated with one or more sets of SR resources configured for the UE when the timer is running; or
prohibiting a trigger of a scheduling request (SR) for the LCH associated with the one or more sets of CGs or associated with the one or more sets of SR resources when the timer is running.”
Claim 1 includes the term “perform at least one of,” as indicated in italics, it leads to some optional elements, e.g., “a data radio bearer (DRB)” indicated in italics.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the optional element does not narrow the claim because it can always be omitted. In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Consequently, claim 8 is rejected since there is a lack of antecedent basis for the usage of the term “the DRB,” as indicated in italics above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, it recites, “The UE of Claim 1, wherein, to determine whether to start the timer, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
determine whether data on a first DRB is too late to be transmitted within a delay budget; and
in response to determining that the data on the first DRB is too late to be transmitted within the delay budget, to determine to start the timer.”
The term "too late" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "too late" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the claim is found to be indefinite.
Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, it recites, “A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured cause the UE to:
determine whether a discarding command corresponding to a data radio bearer (DRB) is received; and
in response to determining that the discarding command for activating a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discarding operation of a DRB configured with PDCP discarding operation is received from the network activate of the PDCP discarding operation of the DRB.”
The examiner rejects the claim, since there is a lack of antecedent basis for the usage of the term “the network” indicated in italics in its ending sentence.
Regarding claim 19, it recites, “The UE of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
indicate activation of the PDCP discarding operation of the DRB to upper layers when the MAC CE of a command for activating the PDCP discarding operation of a DRB configured with the PDCP discarding operation is received from a network node.”
The term "upper layers" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "upper layers" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the claim is found to be indefinite.
Same rational applies to the usage of the term “upper layers” in claim 20 line 3.
Claims 17, 18, and 21 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
9. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 15-17, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cirik et al. (US 2021/0345424).
Regarding claim 1, Cirik et al. teach the user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: wireless device 110 depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “user equipment (UE)” in the instant application), comprising
at least one memory (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: memory 315 in wireless device 110 depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “one memory” in the instant application); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: processor 314 in wireless device 110 depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “one processor” in the instant application) coupled with the at least one memory and configured cause the UE to:
determine whether to start a timer associated with at least one of an uplink (UL) data discarding function or a configured grant (CG) prohibiting function or a scheduling request (SR) prohibiting function of the UE (paragraphs [0271] lines 1-14 & [0553] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: the SR configuration/function, e.g., indicating a SR prohibit timer for the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a scheduling request (SR) prohibiting function of the UE;”
in fact, determining whether to start a time regards to the SR configuration/function, e.g., indicating a SR prohibit timer for the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determine whether to start a timer associated with at least one of an uplink (UL) data discarding function or a configured grant (CG) prohibiting function or a scheduling request (SR) prohibiting function of the UE” in the instant application);
start the timer, in response to determining to start the timer (paragraph [0271] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: starting the timer regards to determining/indicating the start of SR prohibit timer in the prior art teaches the limitation of “start the timer, in response to determining to start the timer” in the instant application); and
perform at least one of:
discarding UL data for a data radio bearer (DRB) to be transmitted when the timer is running;
prohibiting a transmission on a logical channel (LCH) associated with one or more sets of CGs or associated with one or more sets of SR resources configured for the UE when the timer is running; or
prohibiting a trigger of a scheduling request (SR) for the LCH associated with the one or more sets of CGs or associated with the one or more sets of SR resources when the timer is running (paragraph [0566] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: the logical channel associated with the configured grants in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a logical channel (LCH) associated with one or more sets of CGs;”
in fact, determining/prohibiting the logical channel transmission associated with the configured grant, e.g., in not time aligned or not suitable for transmission via configured grant resources in the prior art teaches the limitation of “prohibiting a transmission on a logical channel (LCH) associated with one or more sets of CGs or associated with one or more sets of SR resources configured for the UE when the timer is running” in the instant application;
consequently, the cited teaches the limitation of “perform at least one of:
discarding UL data for a data radio bearer (DRB) to be transmitted when the timer is running;
prohibiting a transmission on a logical channel (LCH) associated with one or more sets of CGs or associated with one or more sets of SR resources configured for the UE when the timer is running; or
prohibiting a trigger of a scheduling request (SR) for the LCH associated with the one or more sets of CGs or associated with the one or more sets of SR resources when the timer is running” as well).
Regarding claim 2, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein, to determine whether to start the timer, the processor of the UE is further configured cause the UE to:
determine whether a discarding command corresponding to the DRB or a prohibiting command corresponding to the LCH is received (paragraphs [0558] lines 1-12 & [0566] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: the configuration parameter/indication, e.g., the prohibit timer, for the corresponding logical channel in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a prohibiting command corresponding to the LCH;”
in fact, determining if receiving the configuration parameter/indication, e.g., the prohibit timer, for the corresponding logical channel in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determine whether a discarding command corresponding to the DRB or a prohibiting command corresponding to the LCH is received” in the instant application); and
in response to determining that the discarding command or the prohibiting command is received, determine to start the timer (paragraph [0558] lines 1-12; Examiner’s Notes: starting the prohibit timer according to the determination in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in response to determining that the discarding command or the prohibiting command is received, determine to start the timer” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive a second configuration a network (paragraph [0566] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: the wireless device receiving a configuration parameter/indication in the prior art teaches the limitation of “cause the UE to receive a second configuration a network” in the instant application), and
wherein the second configuration includes one of: information for enabling the UL data discarding function; and a configuration regarding the timer (paragraph [0558] lines 1-12; Examiner’s Notes: the configuration for the prohibit timer in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a configuration regarding the timer;”
in fact, the cited paragraph teaches the limitation of “wherein the second configuration includes one of: information for enabling the UL data discarding function; and a configuration regarding the timer” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to receive a discarding command corresponding to the DRB via a network (paragraph [0197] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: the wireless device receiving the discard information/configuration for the data radio bearer in the prior art teaches the limitation of “cause the UE to receive a discarding command corresponding to the DRB via a network” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 9, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein the discarding command includes at least one of:
identity (ID) information of the DRB;
ID information of a slice in a frame to be transmitted when the timer is running;
a start time instance of the timer;
a length of the timer;
a scale factor associated with the length of the timer; or
a period associated with the scale factor (paragraph [0271] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: the timer value in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a length of the timer;”
in fact, the cited paragraph teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
in response to the discarding command including the ID information of the DRB, discard one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP} service data units (SDUs) along with one or more PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) on the DRB; or
in response to the discarding command including the ID information of the slice, to discard one or more PDCP SDUs on a DRB to which the slice belongs (paragraph [0197] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: discarding PDCP SDUs along with PDCP PDU on the data radio bearer according to discarding indication/information on the DRB in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in response to the discarding command including the ID information of the DRB, discard one or more packet data convergence protocol (PDCP} service data units (SDUs) along with one or more PDCP protocol data units (PDUs) on the DRB” in the instant application;
in fact, the cited paragraph teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 15, Cirik et al. teach the network node for wireless communication (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: base station 1 120A depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “network node” in the instant application), comprising:
at least one memory (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: memory 322A in base station 1 120A depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “one memory” in the instant application); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: processor 321A in base station 1 120A depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “one processor” in the instant application) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network node to:
receive a capability supporting at least one of uplink (UL) data discarding or configured grant (CG) prohibiting or scheduling request (SR) prohibiting of a user equipment (UE) (paragraphs [0553] lines 1-11 & [0566] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: the SR prohibit timer for the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “scheduling request (SR) prohibiting of a user;”
in fact, receiving the availability/capability information regards to the SR prohibit timer for the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a capability supporting at least one of uplink (UL) data discarding or configured grant (CG) prohibiting or scheduling request (SR) prohibiting of a user equipment (UE)” in the instant application); and
transmit, to the UE, a first configuration for enabling at least one of a UL data discarding function or a CG prohibiting function of the UE (paragraph [0566] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting, to wireless device 110, the configuration for prohibiting configured grant of the wireless device 110 as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the UE, a first configuration for enabling at least one of a UL data discarding function or a CG prohibiting function of the UE” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 16, Cirik et al. teach the user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: wireless device 110 depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “user equipment (UE)” in the instant application), comprising
at least one memory (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: memory 315 in wireless device 110 depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “one memory” in the instant application); and
at least one processor (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: processor 314 in wireless device 110 depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “one processor” in the instant application) coupled with the at least one memory and configured cause the UE to:
determine whether a discarding command corresponding to a data radio bearer (DRB) is received (paragraph [0197] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: determining if receiving the discard information/configuration for the data radio bearer in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determine whether a discarding command corresponding to a data radio bearer (DRB) is received” in the instant application); and
in response to determining that the discarding command for activating a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discarding operation of a DRB configured with PDCP discarding operation is received from the network activate of the PDCP discarding operation of the DRB (paragraph [0197] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: discarding the PDCP on the data radio bearer according to receiving the determination of discarding indication/information on the DRB in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in response to determining that the discarding command for activating a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discarding operation of a DRB configured with PDCP discarding operation is received from the network activate of the PDCP discarding operation of the DRB” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 17, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein the discarding command is received via a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (paragraph [0200] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: receiving the controlling/discarding command via a MAC CE in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Regarding claim 22, Cirik et al. teach the method performed by a network node (paragraph [0214] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: base station 1 120A depicted in FIG. 3 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “network node” in the instant application), the method comprising:
receiving a capability supporting at least one of uplink (UL) data discarding or configured grant (CG) prohibiting or scheduling request (SR) prohibiting of a user equipment (UE) (paragraphs [0553] lines 1-11 & [0566] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: the SR prohibit timer for the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “scheduling request (SR) prohibiting of a user;”
in fact, receiving the availability/capability information regards to the SR prohibit timer for the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving a capability supporting at least one of uplink (UL) data discarding or configured grant (CG) prohibiting or scheduling request (SR) prohibiting of a user equipment (UE)” in the instant application); and
transmitting, to the UE, a first configuration for enabling at least one of a UL data discarding function or a CG prohibiting function of the UE (paragraph [0566] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting, to wireless device 110, the configuration for prohibiting configured grant of the wireless device 110 as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting, to the UE, a first configuration for enabling at least one of a UL data discarding function or a CG prohibiting function of the UE” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 23, Cirik et al. teach the method, further comprising: transmitting a discarding command corresponding to a data radio bearer (DRB) to the UE (paragraph [0197] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting the discard information/configuration for the data radio bearer to the wireless device 110, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting a discarding command corresponding to a data radio bearer (DRB) to the UE” in the instant application),
indicating whether to activate or deactivate a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discarding operation of the DRB (paragraph [0197] lines 27-41; Examiner’s Notes: indicating if activating or discarding/deactivating the PDCP discarding on the data radio bearer in the prior art teaches the limitation of “indicating whether to activate or deactivate a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discarding operation of the DRB” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 24, Cirik et al. further teach the method, wherein the discarding command is received via a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (paragraph [0200] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: receiving the controlling/discarding command via a MAC CE in the prior art teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik et al. (US 2021/0345424) in view of Chen et al. (US 2024/0284255).
Regarding claim 13, Cirik et al. teach the UE without explicitly teaching determining whether data on a first DRB is too late to be transmitted within a delay budget.
Chen et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining whether data on a first DRB is too late to be transmitted within a delay budget (paragraph [0062] lines 1-23; Examiner’s Notes: the transmission latency regards to the DRB in the prior art teaches the limitation of “to be transmitted within a delay budget;”
in fact, determining if the data transmission is within the transmission latency regards to the DRB in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining whether data on a first DRB is too late to be transmitted within a delay budget” in the instant application), and
in response to determining that the data on the first DRB is too late to be transmitted within the delay budget, determining to start the timer (paragraph [0062] lines 1-23; Examiner’s Notes: starting the timer according to the determination of the data transmission is not within the transmission latency regards to the DRB in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in response to determining that the data on the first DRB is too late to be transmitted within the delay budget, determining to start the timer” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Chen et al. in the system of Cirik et al.
The motivation for determining whether data on a first DRB is too late to be transmitted within a delay budget, is to further enhance the mechanism of data transmission, including in a case that a terminal meets a preset discarding condition, discarding, by the terminal, a target data unit based on at least one of a priority of the target data unit and a corresponding requirement, where the target data unit includes a first data unit and a data unit associated with the first data unit, to reduce invalid data transmission, improve system resource utilization, and reduce a transmission delay of a data packet.
Regarding claim 14, Cirik et al. further teach the UE, wherein, to discard the UL data to be transmitted when the timer is running, the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to:
discard the data on the first DRB when the timer is running; or
discard data on a second DRB correlated to the first DRB when the timer is running (paragraph [0197] lines 1-41; Examiner’s Notes: the wireless device discarding the data on the data radio bearer when the timer is on/running in the prior art teaches the limitation of “discard data on a second DRB correlated to the first DRB when the timer is running” in the instant application;
in fact, the cited paragraph teaches this limitation in the instant application).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claims 18-21, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein the MAC CE includes a field of a bitmap, and wherein each bit of the bitmap indicates an activation status or deactivation status of the PDCP discarding operation of DRB i, where i is an ascending order of a DRB ID among DRBs configured with the PDCP discarding operation and with one or more radio link control (RLC) entities associated with the MAC CE” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
13. Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 22, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 25, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein the MAC CE includes a field of a bitmap, and wherein each bit of the bitmap indicates an activation status or deactivation status of the PDCP discarding operation of DRB i, where i is an ascending order of a DRB ID among DRBs configured with the PDCP discarding operation and with one or more radio link control (RLC) entities associated with the MAC CE” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Etemad et al. (US 9,572,063) is cited to show the radio resource control (RRC) signaling for configuring the user equipment to obtain and report channel state information for the downlink channels so that a target user equipment experiences enhanced signal reception and reduced interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y LEE can be reached on (571) 270-3936. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights