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 .
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 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites ‘…wherein the one or more anchor channels are evenly distributed on the frequency band…’ This phrase is unclear. That is, it is unclear how one anchor channel could be evenly distributed. That is if there is only one then it would be uneven. In other words, it is unclear if this one anchor channel appears multiple times in the frequency band or if Applicant is attempting to claim that there are two or more anchor channels. Please clarify.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites ‘…wherein a frequency space between adjacent anchor channels of the one or more anchor channels…’ This is unclear. How can one channel be adjacent? Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (2019/0013881) and further in view of Damnjanovic (2019/0394790).
Regarding claim 1, Olesen discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: (See Olesen fig. 1b, para. 36; WTRU (e.g. UE) with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
perform, with a network entity, an initialization or maintenance procedure for a first radio access technology (RAT) using at least one channel based on a configuration of one or more channels for the first RAT, (See Olesen para. 158; WTRU configured (e.g. configuration) with primary RAT; para. 159 WTRU synchronizes, camp on and maintain connection, and acquire and/or maintain security parameters (e.g. initialization and maintenance procedure); para. 26, fig. 1A; base station (e.g. network entity); see also para. 174; WTRU receive configuration) wherein the one or more channels are in a frequency band shared between the first RAT and a second RAT; and (See Olesen para. 168, 169; two RATs share frequency spectrum)
communicate on the frequency band using one or more of the first RAT or the second RAT, wherein the first RAT has priority over the second RAT for using the one or more channels. (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 137; preferred RAT indicated and a priority rule between different RATs may be predefined, used and/or configured (e.g. one RAT has priority over the other))
Olesen does not explicitly disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. However, Damnjanovic does disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved (e.g. distributed in that part is set aside for as opposed to total sharing) for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB, SI, paging signals, etc. (e.g. critical signals and channels are anchor channels in that they maintain the connection and are vital to having an operational connection)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen to include the teaching of one or more anchor channels that are distributed of Damnjanovic with the motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to perform the initialization or maintenance procedure for the first RAT using the at least one anchor channel, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to:
transmit or receive a synchronization signal based on the first RAT,
transmit, receive, or monitor for a random access channel (RACH) message based on the first RAT, or
transmit, receive, or monitor for a paging signal based on the first RAT. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB (e.g. synchronization), PRACH, (e.g. RACH) SI, paging signals, etc.) The motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first RAT is for wireless cellular communication, and the second RAT is for Wi-Fi communication, (See Olesen para. 30, fig. 1a; base station 114a may use LTE, etc. (e.g. cellular); para. 32 base station 114b may use 802.11 WLAN (e.g. WiFi communication)) and wherein the first RAT has a higher priority than the second RAT to use the frequency band. (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 137; preferred RAT indicated and a priority rule between different RATs may be predefined, used and/or configured (e.g. one RAT has priority over the other))
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (2019/0013881) and further in view of Damnjanovic (2019/0394790) and further in view of Verma (2019/0199491).
Regarding claim 2, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, (See Olesen fig. 1b, para. 37; Transceiver coupled to processor) wherein to communicate on the frequency band using one or more of the first RAT or the second RAT, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to communicate on the frequency band using one or more of the first RAT or the second RAT via the transceiver, and (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 40 transceiver modulates/demodulates and transmits/receives on resources)
Olesen in view of Damnjanovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the frequency band comprises a frequency of 6 GHz. However, Verma does disclose wherein the frequency band comprises a frequency of 6 GHz. (See Verma para. 4; 6GHz unlicensed frequency band used for different technology types like IEEE 802.11 and 3GPP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic to include the teaching of wherein the frequency band comprises a frequency of 6 GHz of Verma with the motivation being to allow for interoperability of different technologies which further increases limited wireless spectrum which can increase connectivity, throughput, and reduce delay and further to provide compatibility with the latest standards from both 3GPP and IEEE which allows for interoperability and interchangeability with devices.
Regarding claim 12, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Damnjanovic does disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved (e.g. distributed in that part is set aside for as opposed to total sharing) for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB, SI, paging signals, etc. (e.g. critical signals and channels are anchor channels in that they maintain the connection and are vital to having an operational connection)) The motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Olesen in view of Damnjanovic do not explicitly disclose a primary channel for the second RAT does not overlap with one or more channels. However, Verma does disclose a primary channel for the second RAT does not overlap with one or more channels. (See Verma para. 66, 89, fig. 11; primary channel does not overlap) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic to include the teaching of a primary channel for the second RAT does not overlap with one or more channels of Verma with the motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to increase goodput by reducing interference.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (2019/0013881) and further in view of Damnjanovic (2019/0394790) and further in view of Zhang (2019/0274162).
Regarding claim 3, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Olesen in view of Damnjanovic do not explicitly disclose wherein the configuration is defined in a wireless standard, or wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the UE to: receive the configuration of the one or more channels in a radio resource control (RRC) message from the network entity. However, Zhang does disclose wherein the configuration is defined in a wireless standard, or wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the UE to: receive the configuration of the one or more channels in a radio resource control (RRC) message from the network entity. (See Zhang para. 114; UE receives an RRC message configuring a BWP; see also para. 115) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic to include the teaching of wherein the configuration is defined in a wireless standard, or wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to cause the UE to: receive the configuration of the one or more channels in a radio resource control (RRC) message from the network entity of Zhang with the motivation being to utilize standardized methods of control message exchange (RRC) which provides compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards and further to save time and money by not having to create a new standardized message but using what is already widely used (RRC).
Regarding claim 4, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Olesen does not explicitly disclose an anchor channels that are distributed. However, Damnjanovic does disclose an anchor channels that are distributed. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved (e.g. distributed in that part is set aside for as opposed to total sharing) for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB, SI, paging signals, etc. (e.g. critical signals and channels are anchor channels in that they maintain the connection and are vital to having an operational connection)) The motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Olesen in view of Damnjanovic do not explicitly disclose distribution on the frequency band and the channels having a bandwidth equal to or greater than 20MHz. However, Zhang does disclose distribution on the frequency band and the channels having a bandwidth equal to or greater than 20MHz. (See Zhang fig. 6, para. 76; 80MHz frequency band is partitioned into 20MHz channels) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic to include the teaching of distribution on the frequency band and the channels having a bandwidth equal to or greater than 20MHz of Zhang with the motivation being to allow for flexible configuration of limited bandwidth (See Zhang para. 77) and further to allow for flexible scheduling of resources to meet demand while ensuring reliability.
Regarding claim 8, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 6. Olesen discloses UE operating with cellular and IEEE in a multi RAT setup. Damjanovic discloses a protected/reserved first-RAT resource for critical control data (e.g. anchor).
Olesen in view of Damnjanovic do not explicitly disclose receive a first bandwidth part (BWP) configuration for a first BWP of the first RAT into adjacent channels. However, Zhang does disclose receive a first bandwidth part (BWP) configuration for a first BWP of the first RAT into adjacent channels. (See Zhang fig. 6, para. 76; 80MHz frequency band is partitioned into 20MHz channels which are all adjacent to each other) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic to include the teaching of receive a first bandwidth part (BWP) configuration for a first BWP of the first RAT into adjacent channels of Zhang with the motivation being to allow for flexible configuration of limited bandwidth (See Zhang para. 77) and further to allow for flexible scheduling of resources to meet demand while ensuring reliability.
Regarding claim 9, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus of claim 8.
Olesen in view of Damnjanovic do not explicitly disclose receive a second BWP configuration for a second BWP of the first RAT, wherein the second BWP includes a second channel of the one or more channels different from the first anchor channel and a second frequency space adjacent to the second channel. However, Zhang does disclose receive a second BWP configuration for a second BWP of the first RAT, wherein the second BWP includes a second channel of the one or more channels different from the first channel and a second frequency space adjacent to the second channel. (See Zhang fig. 14; communicating a plurality of bandwidth parts in a configuration (e.g. a 1st and second configuration); fig. 6, para. 76; shows multiple locations of different channels (slashed part);see also fig. 7, 8;) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic to include the teaching of receive a second BWP configuration for a second BWP of the first RAT, wherein the second BWP includes a second channel of the one or more channels different from the first channel and a second frequency space adjacent to the second anchor channel of Zhang with the motivation being to allow for flexible configuration of limited bandwidth (See Zhang para. 77) and further to allow for flexible scheduling of resources to meet demand while ensuring reliability.
Regarding claim 11, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein a guard band is provided between the first BWP and the second BWP. (See Zhang fig. 6, para. 76; multiple BWP; para. 60, fig. 3, fig. 12; guard bands) The motivation being to provide isolation and thereby reducing interference and further to reduce hardware and filtering requirements for devices which saves money and reduces battery usage.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (2019/0013881) and further in view of Damnjanovic (2019/0394790) and further in view of Zhang (2019/0274162) and further in view of Papaleo (2020/0008087).
Regarding claim 10, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic in view of Zhang discloses the apparatus of claim 9. Zhang discloses using BWP for multiple configurations and TDD. (See Zhang fig. 14, 7, 8, para. 30)
Olesen in view of Damnjanovic in view of Zhang using a synchronous TDD. However, Papaleo does disclose using a synchronous TDD. (See Papaleo para. 40; synchronized over entire deployment for TDD) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen in view of Damnjanovic in view of Zhang to include the teaching of using a synchronous TDD of Papaleo with the motivation being relatively simple deployment and management and reduction in interference. (See Papaleo para. 40)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (2019/0013881) and further in view of Damnjanovic (2019/0394790).
Regarding claim 13, Olesen discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the network entity to: (See Olesen fig. 1a; base station(s) and/or core network which have a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a configuration for an allocation of one or more channels for a first radio access technology (RAT), (See Olesen para. 158; WTRU configured (e.g. configuration) with primary RAT; para. 159 WTRU synchronizes, camp on and maintain connection, and acquire and/or maintain security parameters (e.g. initialization and maintenance procedure); para. 26, fig. 1A; base station; see also para. 174; WTRU receive configuration (e.g. from the network because that is the only communication that is occurring between the network and UE)) wherein the one or more channels are in a frequency band shared between the first RAT and a second RAT; (See Olesen para. 168, 169; two RATs share frequency spectrum)
perform an initialization or maintenance procedure based on the first RAT using at least one channel from the one or more channels; and(See Olesen para. 158; WTRU configured (e.g. configuration) with primary RAT; para. 159 WTRU synchronizes, camp on and maintain connection, and acquire and/or maintain security parameters (e.g. initialization and maintenance procedure); para. 26, fig. 1A; base station (e.g. network entity); see also para. 174; WTRU receive configuration)
communicate with the UE on the frequency band, wherein the first RAT has priority over the second RAT for using the one or more channels. (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 137; preferred RAT indicated and a priority rule between different RATs may be predefined, used and/or configured (e.g. one RAT has priority over the other))
Olesen does not explicitly disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. However, Damnjanovic does disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved (e.g. distributed in that part is set aside for as opposed to total sharing) for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB, SI, paging signals, etc. (e.g. critical signals and channels are anchor channels in that they maintain the connection and are vital to having an operational connection)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen to include the teaching of one or more anchor channels that are distributed of Damnjanovic with the motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Regarding claim 14, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 13, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to transmit the configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the network entity to transmit the configuration via the transceiver, and wherein to perform the initialization or maintenance procedure for the first RAT using the at least one anchor channel, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the network entity to:
receive or transmit a synchronization signal for the first RAT,
receive or transmit a random access channel (RACH) message for the first RAT, or
receive or transmit a paging signal for the first RAT. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB (e.g. synchronization), PRACH, (e.g. RACH) SI, paging signals, etc.) The motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first RAT is for wireless cellular communication, and the second RAT is for Wi-Fi communication, (See Olesen para. 30, fig. 1a; base station 114a may use LTE, etc. (e.g. cellular); para. 32 base station 114b may use 802.11 WLAN (e.g. WiFi communication)) and wherein the first RAT has a higher priority than the second RAT to use the frequency band. (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 137; preferred RAT indicated and a priority rule between different RATs may be predefined, used and/or configured (e.g. one RAT has priority over the other))
Regarding claim 17, Olesen in view of Damnjanovic discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first RAT is for wireless cellular communication, and the second RAT is for Wi-Fi communication, (See Olesen para. 30, fig. 1a; base station 114a may use LTE, etc. (e.g. cellular); para. 32 base station 114b may use 802.11 WLAN (e.g. WiFi communication)) and wherein the first RAT has a lower priority than the second RAT for using the frequency band than the second RAT. (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 137; preferred RAT indicated and a priority rule between different RATs may be predefined, used and/or configured (e.g. one RAT has priority over the other))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (2019/0013881) and further in view of Damnjanovic (2019/0394790).
Regarding claim 20, Olesen discloses a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Olesen fig. 1b, para. 36; WTRU (e.g. UE) with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
performing, with a network entity, an initialization or maintenance procedure for a first radio access technology (RAT) using at least one channel based on a configuration of one or more channels for the first RAT, (See Olesen para. 158; WTRU configured (e.g. configuration) with primary RAT; para. 159 WTRU synchronizes, camp on and maintain connection, and acquire and/or maintain security parameters (e.g. initialization and maintenance procedure); para. 26, fig. 1A; base station (e.g. network entity); see also para. 174; WTRU receive configuration) wherein the one or more channels are in a frequency band shared between the first RAT and a second RAT; and (See Olesen para. 168, 169; two RATs share frequency spectrum)
communicating on the frequency band using one or more of the first RAT or the second RAT, wherein the first RAT has priority over the second RAT for using the one or more channels. (See Olesen para. 125; performing coordinated communication; para. 137; preferred RAT indicated and a priority rule between different RATs may be predefined, used and/or configured (e.g. one RAT has priority over the other))
Olesen does not explicitly disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. However, Damnjanovic does disclose one or more anchor channels that are distributed. (See Damnjanovic para. 70; exclusive resources reserved (e.g. distributed in that part is set aside for as opposed to total sharing) for critical overhead signals and channels like SSB, SI, paging signals, etc. (e.g. critical signals and channels are anchor channels in that they maintain the connection and are vital to having an operational connection)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Olesen to include the teaching of one or more anchor channels that are distributed of Damnjanovic with the motivation being to protect critical control traffic which may be vital to maintaining connectivity with the network and further to reduce interference caused by a shared channel especially with critical traffic and further to allow for interoperability of different wireless technologies that may have differing requirements which increases connectivity potential thus improving bandwidth usage and reducing delay, jitter, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights