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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an application filed on 12/31/2024, wherein claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Indian Application No. 202321043265, filed on June 28, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 recite “response to the receiving” but should read “in response to the receiving”.
Claims 4 and 11 recite “obtaining coverage information offered by the sites at each of site status” which is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 8 recites “corresponding to corresponding to”. The duplicated “corresponding to” should be deleted.
Claim 8 recites “based on the on the plurality”. The duplicated “on the” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and claim 16 via incorporation by reference, are directed to mental processes. At a high level, the claims recite storing network information, receiving selections concerning view, site status and technology, and generating a map visualization based on the information and selections. These limitations describe evaluating network information according to selected criteria and determining what information to present, which are acts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Such activities are mental processes and are recognized as a type of abstract idea. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 16 are directed to a judicial exception – mental processes.
The claims do not integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 – source, user interface, processor, processing engine and map visualization – merely provide technological tools for storing, receiving, processing, and displaying the selected network information. The claims do not recite an improvement to technology. For claim 16, the connection request, acknowledgement, and data transmission likewise do not recite an improvement to technology; they merely provide the data to the system that generates the claimed network view. Accordingly, the independent claims do not integrate judicial exception into a practical application.
When the abstract idea is considered both individually and in combination with the additional claim elements, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They perform ordinary functions of storing, receiving, processing, transmitting and displaying information, without reciting an unconventional technological improvement or implementation. Accordingly, the claims fail to provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 further limit the network information being evaluated or displayed, or the timing and updating of that information, but do not add a technological improvement or inventive concept.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite “response to the receiving”. It is unclear whether this “response” is in relation to the receiving of a view selection, the receiving of a site status input, or both. Therefore, claims 1 and 15 are rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-7 are dependent from claim 1 and therefore contain the same indefinite language. As a result, they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16 incorporates the limitations of claim 1 by reference and therefore contains the same indefinite language. As a result, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 4 initially states that “the site status is at least one of” four listed statuses, but then requires obtaining coverage information “at each of site status”. It is unclear whether the claim requires obtaining coverage information for every listed site status, for each site status selected through the site status input, or for each site according to its individual status. Claim 4 is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “wherein for the coverage layer view, the method further comprising” but then requires “generating the site layer view comprising the cells in the map” and concludes with “wherein faulty sites are highlighted in the coverage layer view provided in the map”. It is unclear whether claim 4 requires generation of a site layer view, generation of a coverage layer view, generation of both views, or generation of a site layer overlaid on a coverage layer map. Claim 4 is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 4, and therefore contains the same indefinite language. As a result, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are dependent from claims 1 and 11 and therefore contain the same indefinite language. As a result, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 11.
Claims 6 and 13 recite “the site types” which lacks antecedent basis. Claims 6 and 13 are therefore rendered indefinite.
Claims 7 and 14 are dependent from claims 6 and 13 and therefore contain the same indefinite language. As a result, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 6 and 13.
Claim 16 is directed to a user equipment (UE) but further recites that “the coupling comprises the steps of: receiving … sending … and transmitting”. Thus, the claims recites both an apparatus and method steps of using/operating the apparatus. As a result, it is unclear whether claim 16 is directed to the UE or to a method of operating the UE. Claim 16 is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim 16 also recites “the system (108) is configured for performing of generating a real-time view in terms of a site layer view and coverage layer view for a network as claimed in method of claim 1”. It is unclear whether this language incorporates all the limitations of claim 1 into claim 16, or merely identifies an intended use of system 108. Claim 16 is therefore rendered indefinite.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kateley et al. (US 2013/0157688), hereinafter Kateley, in view of Gupta et al. (US 2022/0417757), hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding claim 1, Kateley discloses a method (300) of generating a real-time view in terms of a site layer view and coverage layer view for a network, the method comprising:
storing by at least one source (160), a plurality of information corresponding to sites and coverage associated with the network (Kateley, [0048], [0052], [0005]: database 110 and aggregation/integration system 112 together provide a spatial data integration and storage system 114 that stores network configuration data relating to sites, site build data that tracks the status of new and existing sites (information corresponding to sites), and RAN performance data with geolocation data defining variation in performance over a spatial region of coverage of the RAN (information corresponding to coverage));
receiving, through a user interface (152, 206), a view selection for generating the site layer view or the coverage layer view (Kateley, [0074], [0104]: user interface procedure receives a spatial user selection of geographic scope (view selection) for a map that shows spatial variation in RAN network coverage quality (coverage layer view) and optionally displays RAN element sites (site layer view));
receiving, through the user interface (152, 206), a site status input (Kateley, [0052], [0071]: site build database tracks the status of new and existing sites; each stored item corresponds to an attribute; [0075], [0076]: user interface procedure receives user selection data for desired attributes (site status input), and permits an attribute defined dynamic expression filter (site status input));
response to the receiving, providing through the user interface (152, 206), a technology selection option, wherein the technology selection option comprises a 4th generation (4G) mobile network and wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) (Kateley, [0102]: user interface region enables the user to select a connection type (technology selection option); [0110]: the techniques are applicable to 4G and WiFi);
receiving, through the user interface (152, 206), a technology selection input from the technology selection option (Kateley, [0102]: user interface region enables the user to select a connection type (technology selection option)); and
generating, through the user interface (152, 206), at least one output in a form of a map visualization based on the plurality of information, the view selection, the site status input, and the technology selection input (Kateley, [0077]: through the user interface procedure, resolving the spatial query into attributes (site status input) and spatial elements (view selection), retrieving corresponding spatial data values (plurality of information) from database 110, and visualizing the retrieved data in accordance with the defined representations and dynamic filter (site status input) as an overlay on a 2D or 3D map; [0078]: options for amending the parameters of the visualization are provided by user controls; [0102]: the map user interface region permits selection of “connection type” (technology selection input) and “display attributes” (site status input)).
Kateley does not explicitly disclose a 5th generation (5G) mobile network, a sixth generation (6G) mobile network.
However, Gupta discloses
providing through the user interface (152, 206), a technology selection option, wherein the technology selection option comprises a 4th generation (4G) mobile network, a 5th generation (5G) mobile network, a sixth generation (6G) mobile network, and wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) (Gupta, [0093]: RBPN management service generates user interfaces that allow customers to place orders for radio-based private networks; [0118]: the request specifies a network type of 4G, 5G, 6G or Wi-Fi);
receiving, through the user interface (152, 206), a technology selection input from the technology selection option (Gupta, [0093]: RBPN management service generates user interfaces that allow customers to place orders for radio-based private networks; [0118]: the request specifies a network type of 4G, 5G, 6G or Wi-Fi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley and Gupta before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a user interface which allows a user to select a “connection type” for network performance visualization as taught by Kateley, to include selectable network types of 4G, 5G, 6G and Wi-Fi as taught by Gupta. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the same network management and visualization interface to analyze and display performance for different wireless technologies in a heterogeneous network.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Kateley discloses a system (108) for generating a real-time network view of a network (Kateley, Fig. 1: system 100), said system (108) comprising: … a processing engine (208) configured to generate a user interface (152, 206) (Kateley, [0060]: Java-based web/application servers 120 provide UI components, map visualization objects, spatial visualization, etc.; [0074]: user interface procedure opens a 2D or 3D map).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Kateley discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer- readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method (300) of generating a real-time view in terms of a site layer view and coverage layer view for a network (Kateley, [0032]).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kateley in view of Gupta, further in view of Solanki et al. (US 2023/0419330), hereinafter Solanki.
Regarding claim 2, Kateley and Gupta do not explicitly disclose further comprising providing, through the user interface, a site type option in response to receiving the technology selection input, for displaying a site type, wherein the site type is one of a macro cell site and a small cell site.
However, Solanki discloses further comprising providing, through the user interface, a site type option in response to receiving the technology selection input, for displaying a site type, wherein the site type is one of a macro cell site and a small cell site (Solanki, Fig. 3, [0029]: in the Technology data field 312, the user selects the wireless broadband communication (technology selection input); in the Site Type data field 314, the user selects Macro site, indoor small cell, outdoor small cell, etc.; [Solanki [0030] also teaches the known GUI practice of making later selectable options depend upon previously selected network characteristics]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta and Solanki before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a technology selection user interface as taught by Kateley and Gupta, to include a site type selection with macro and small cell site types as taught by Solanki because different site types provide different coverage characteristics. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow operator to select a site type appropriate for the coverage requirements of a particular site.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kateley in view of Gupta, further in view of Hotchkiss et al. (US 2023/0020832), hereinafter Hotchkiss.
Regarding claim 3, Kateley discloses wherein for the site layer view, the method further comprising:
obtaining information on site location (Kateley, [0020]: RAN performance data (i.e., for the site layer view) include the location of base station; [0054]: accepting cell location/configuration data relating to cell physical characteristics); and
generating the site layer view comprising the cells in a map (Kateley, [0074]: opening a 2D/3D map that displays RAN element sites (cells)).
Kateley does not explicitly disclose and orientation of cells; wherein the method comprising highlighting faulty sites in the site layer view.
However, Gupta discloses
obtaining information on site location (Gupta, [0098]: defines site 438 by an address or latitude/longitude coordinates) and orientation of cells (Gupta, [0107]: stores antenna configuration settings including azimuth, vertical or horizontal orientation, beam tilt, height; [0027]: antennas focus signals in a particular direction or azimuthal range);
generating the site layer view comprising the cells in a map (Gupta, [0101]: providing a cellular topology comprising an arrangement of cells according to cell location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley and Gupta before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a mapped RAN site visualization as taught by Kateley, to include cell location and antenna orientation information as taught by Gupta. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the visualization to reflect the physical configuration and directional characteristics of the cells, thereby facilitation network planning and optimization.
Furthermore, the combination of Kateley and Gupta does not explicitly disclose wherein the method comprising highlighting faulty sites in the site layer view.
However, Hotchkiss discloses wherein the method comprising highlighting faulty sites in the site layer view (Hotchkiss, [0229]: distinguishes online, offline, alarm state and congestion locations; [0157]: represents not online access points as red hexagons while green signifies an access point is online and functioning correctly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta and Hotchkiss before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the site/cell visualization as taught by Kateley and Gupta, to include visual health status indications as taught by Hotchkiss. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable faulty network elements to be readily distinguished from properly functioning network elements, thereby facilitating identification and troubleshooting of network faults.
Regarding claim 4, Kateley discloses generating the site layer view comprising the cells in a map (Kateley, [0074]: opening a 2D/3D map that displays RAN element sites (cells)).
Kateley and Gupta do not explicitly disclose wherein the site status is at least one of indicative of sites taking traffic, indicative of sites not taking traffic, indicative of sites under construction, and indicative of sites planned for futuristic coverage, wherein for the coverage layer view, the method further comprising: obtaining coverage information offered by the sites at each of site status; and, wherein faulty sites are highlighted in the coverage layer view provided in the map.
However, Hotchkiss discloses wherein the site status is at least one of indicative of sites taking traffic, indicative of sites not taking traffic, indicative of sites under construction, and indicative of sites planned for futuristic coverage, wherein for the coverage layer view (Hotchkiss, [0227]-[0229]: distinguishes active/online cellular pod locations (sites taking traffic) from offline cellular pod locations (sites not taking traffic)), the method further comprising:
obtaining coverage information offered by the sites at each of site status (Hotchkiss, [0212], [0230]: obtaining cellular and RSRP performance information associated with base stations, towers and network locations; [0227]-[0229]: identifying the operational status of those cellular locations); and
wherein faulty sites are highlighted in the coverage layer view provided in the map (Hotchkiss, [0157]: representing non-online access points as red while green indicates online and correctly functioning access points; [0229]: distinguishing offline and alarm state locations using different map icons (highlighting)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta and Hotchkiss before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the site/cell visualization as taught by Kateley and Gupta, to include visual operational status indications as taught by Hotchkiss. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable faulty or offline network locations to be readily distinguished from properly functioning locations, thereby facilitating network fault identification and troubleshooting.
Regarding claim 5, Kateley discloses further comprising providing at least one Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the map, and wherein the KPIs comprising Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) and throughput (Kateley, [0003]: geographically visualizing KPIs on maps; [0104]: providing 2D spatial visualization of RAN performance KPIs including throughput, signal strength/RSCP and interference level/Eclo).
Kateley and Gupta do not explicitly disclose Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR).
However, Hotchkiss discloses providing at least one Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the map, and wherein the KPIs comprising Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR), and throughput (Hotchkiss, [0005]: graphically presenting RSRP and SINR parameters; [0253]-[0258]: presenting network performance metrics comprising RSRP Distribution, SINR Distribution, and Downlink Throughput Distribution; [0229]: providing a dashboard map with graphs/charts showing network metrics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta and Hotchkiss before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the KPI visualization as taught by Kateley and Gupta, to include RSRP, SINR and throughput metrics as taught by Hotchkiss. Since Kateley already visualizes network performance KPIs geographically on maps, the motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional radio quality and data performance information useful for network performance analysis and troubleshooting.
Regarding claims 10-12, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claim 3-5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kateley in view of Gupta and Hotchkiss, further in view of Singh et al. (US 2024/0202186), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 6, Kateley, Gupta and Hotchkiss do not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving input to generate the coverage layer views at defined schedules, and the KPIs to be generated with the coverage layer views and the site types; and generating the scheduled coverage layer views along with the corresponding KPIs and the site types, at the defined schedules.
However, Singh discloses further comprising:
receiving input to generate the coverage layer views at defined schedules, and the KPIs to be generated with the coverage layer views and the site types (Singh, [0034]: receiving user selected parameters to be checked (KPIs); [0038]: receiving a Site Type selection such as Macro or RUID; [0047]-[0049]: receiving Daily, Weekly or Monthly scheduling selections (defined schedules) under which the selected parameter queries are performed and a report (coverage layer view) of the query results is generated); and
generating the scheduled coverage layer views along with the corresponding KPIs and the site types, at the defined schedules (Singh, [0049]: performing the selected parameter queries according to the defined query schedule and generating a report (coverage layer view) containing the query results; [0052]: associating the query template with the selected Macro Site Type and parameter fields (KPIs); [0057]: visually presenting the resulting parameter information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta, Hotchkiss and Singh before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coverage layer views and corresponding network performance KPI visualizations as taught by Kateley, Gupta and Hotchkiss, to include user selectable site type and scheduling functionality as taught by Singh. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the existing coverage layer views and KPIs to be generated according to a user defined schedule for selected site types, thereby facilitating recurring network monitoring without requiring the user to manually initiate each generation of the network view.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kateley in view of Gupta, Hotchkiss and Singh, further in view of Chandrasekaran et al. (US 2018/0049039), hereinafter Chandrasekaran.
Regarding claim 7, Kateley, Gupta, Hotchkiss and Singh do not explicitly disclose wherein the coverage layer views are automatically updated, and wherein responsive to implementation of a new site, the new site with traffic information is displayed in the coverage layer views.
However, Chandrasekaran discloses wherein the coverage layer views are automatically updated (Chandrasekaran, [0011], [0028], [0030]-[0031]: automatically processing geolocated traffic data obtained at regular intervals or in response to addition of a new cell site, updating cell-to-geolocation associations based on recently obtained traffic data, and overlaying the cell sites and traffic data points on a map (coverage layer view)), and wherein responsive to implementation of a new site, the new site with traffic information is displayed in the coverage layer views (Chandrasekar, [0028]: addition of a new cell site triggers obtaining geolocated traffic data; [0023], [0030]: displaying cell sites together with traffic data points on a map (coverage layer view)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta, Hotchkiss, Singh and Chandrasekar before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network visualization system as taught by Kateley, Gupta, Hotchkiss and Singh, to include updating the visualization responsive to the addition of a new cell site with geolocated traffic data as taught by Chandrasekar. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the scheduled coverage layer views to reflect newly added cell sites and their associated traffic information, thereby maintaining an up-to-date network coverage visualization for network analysis and optimization.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kateley in view of Gupta, further in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2010/0172329), hereinafter Yokoyama.
Regarding claim 16, Kateley as modified by Gupta discloses wherein the system (108) is configured for performing of generating a real-time view in terms of a site layer view and coverage layer view for a network as claimed in method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kateley and Gupta do not explicitly disclose a user equipment (104) communicatively coupled with a system (108), the coupling comprises steps of: receiving a connection request; sending an acknowledgment of connection request to the system (108); and transmitting data from a network view module (212) running in the UE (104) to the system (108).
However, Yokoyama discloses a user equipment (104) communicatively coupled with a system (108) (Yokoyama, [0196]-[0197]: mobile station (UE) communicating with base stations and control server (system)), the coupling comprises steps of:
receiving a connection request (Yokoyama, [0247]: base station sends connection request to mobile station);
sending an acknowledgment of connection request to the system (108) (Yokoyama, [0248]: mobile station returns an acknowledgement response); and
transmitting data from a network view module (212) running in the UE (104) to the system (108) (Yokoyama, [0197], [0208]-[0210]: modules running in the mobile station (UE) measure downlink/network conditions and transmit the resulting measurement packet data to HO control server (system)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kateley, Gupta and Yokoyama before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network visualization system as taught by Kateley and Gupta, to receive communication quality data from a connected mobile station as taught by Yokoyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain mobile device measurement data for network monitoring and management.
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Rathore et al. (US 2023/0217357) discloses a real-time unified network coverage visualization through a GUI using predictive coverage data, actual UE KPI data, and site information (Rathore [0047]-[0048], [0053]). It also allows the user to select among different coverage layer representations, including predictive coverage and 4G/5G layers (Rathore, [0082]-[0083]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights