Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 6-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal (US. Pub. No. 2022/0095409 A1) in view of Mukherjee et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0176794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Agiwal discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (See Agiwal; Fig. 1; UE/Terminal), comprising:
at least one memory (See Agiwal; Fig. 6; Memory 630); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (See Agiwal; Fig. 6; Controller/Processor 620) and configured to cause the UE to:
transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble on a PRACH occasion of a first cell and a corresponding message A (MsgA) physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) on a MsgA PUSCH occasion of the first cell (See par. [266], [268]-[269] of Agiwal for a reference to the camped cell supplies system information. The UE selects preamble/RO/PUSCH occasion corresponding to selected SSB, transmits random access preamble in selected RO, and transmits MsgA payload in selected PUSCH occasion [Direct two-step MsgA transmission tied to the camped/first cell]);
receive a message B (MsgB) that includes a random access response (See par. [320] of Agiwal for a reference to the UE receives MsgB that includes successRAR wherein the successRAR includes TA, C-RNTI);
Agiwal does not explicitly disclose identify a serving cell based on receiving the MsgB; and
transmit a connection complete message to the identified serving cell.
However, Mukherjee discloses identify a serving cell based on receiving the MsgB (See par. [107]-[109], [154]-155], [189]-[190] and Figs 2A-2C & 3A-3B of Mukherjee for a reference to that after receiving RAR/msgB responses from one or more of several cells that received the UE's access message, the UE, ultimately selects one of the responding gNBes for further connection procedures [The UE identifies/selects a serving cell based on the received MsgB(s)]); and
transmit a connection complete message to the identified serving cell (See par. [25], [108]-[114] and Fig. 3 of Mukherjee for a reference to the UE transmitting a message to a random access node associated with the selected received RAR. For example, transmitting a subsequent (connection-completing) message to the identified/selected serving cell, and the UE continuing RRC connection procedures (requesting release of RRC connections to extraneous cells) with only the selected serving cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee, specifically Agiwal discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: detect the first cell; select the first cell (See par. [266], [268] of Agiwal for a reference to the UE operates using system information of the “camped cell”, and selects an SSB based on SS-RSRP, and selects the corresponding RA resources); and
monitor system information of the first cell (See par. [266], [319] of Agiwal for a reference to the timer and the multiple sets of search space parameters are signaled by camped cell in system information).
Regarding claim 6, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: receive a configuration of multiple common physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) search spaces, wherein each common PDCCH search space is associated with at least one cell from the first cell and one or more neighbor cells of the first cell.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: receive a configuration of multiple common physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) search spaces, wherein each common PDCCH search space is associated with at least one cell from the first cell and one or more neighbor cells of the first cell (See par. [130]-[132] of Mukherjee for a reference to a UE can monitor separate PDCCH per cell in potentially separate Type-1 PDCCH common search spaces. Each cell may broadcast Type-1 search space configurations of multiple cells).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 7, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: monitor the multiple common PDCCH search spaces to receive the MsgB; and identify the serving cell based on detecting downlink control information (DCI) for MsgB delivery in a common PDCCH search space of the multiple common PDCCH search spaces.
However, Mukherjee discloses monitor the multiple common PDCCH search spaces to receive the MsgB (See par. [132], [136], [154]-[155], [171] of Mukherjee for a reference to the UE performs PDCCH detection on all the PDCCH search spaces; for two-step RA, each cell transmits MsgB and the UE waits for RARs on their respective PDCCHs; non-overlapping spaces are monitored for the RARs); and identify the serving cell based on detecting downlink control information (DCI) for MsgB delivery in a common PDCCH search space of the multiple common PDCCH search spaces (See par. [130]-[132], [171] of Mukherjee for a reference to that each PDCCH carries one DCI; separate Type-1 common spaces are monitored per cell, and PCIs of all cells are indicated to enable cell-ID-based descrambling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee, specifically Agiwal discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: monitor a first common PDCCH search space of the multiple common PDCCH search spaces that is associated with the first cell (See par. [319], [325]-[329] of Agiwal for a reference to the camped cell signals RA-SearchSpace/search-space IDs in system information and the UE monitors the identified PDCCH search space for MsgB).
Regarding claim 9, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein: the UE identifies the first cell as the serving cell when the MsgB does not include an indication of the serving cell corresponding to the random access response; and the UE identifies a second cell different from the first cell as the serving cell when the MsgB includes an indication of the second cell as the serving cell corresponding to the random access response.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein: the UE identifies the first cell as the serving cell when the MsgB does not include an indication of the serving cell corresponding to the random access response (See par. [154]-[155] of Mukherjee for a reference to that each cell sends MsgB and the UE proceeds when at least one RAR is received; if none is received it falls back to four-step RACH); and the UE identifies a second cell different from the first cell as the serving cell when the MsgB includes an indication of the second cell as the serving cell corresponding to the random access response (See par. [138]-[140], [154]-[155] of Mukherjee for a reference to that absent a specific reassignment indication, the UE continues with the first/access cell as its serving cell, whereas when the received RAR/msgB (together with its associated cell-identifying information, e.g., PCI) indicates a different candidate cell that also responded, the UE adopts that different cell as its serving cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 10, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the second cell as the serving cell is included in a medium access control (MAC) subheader of a MAC sub packet data unit (subPDU) for the random access response.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the indication of the second cell as the serving cell is included in a medium access control (MAC) subheader of a MAC sub packet data unit (subPDU) for the random access response (See par. [138]-[140], [154]-[155] of Mukherjee for a reference to cell-identifying information (PCI) associated with and used to process the MAC-layer RAR/msgB response, consistent with conveying a serving-cell indication as part of the MAC-layer signaling structure carrying the random access response).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee, specifically Agiwal discloses wherein the multiple PDCCH search spaces are quasi co-located with a synchronization signal block (SSB) (See par. [268], [322], [329] of Agiwal for a reference to the UE assumes the PDCCH DM-RS is quasi co-located with the SS/PBCH block identified during RA and monitors using the corresponding receive beam).
Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the SSB is selected for the PRACH preamble transmission on the PRACH occasion of the first cell.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the SSB is selected for the PRACH preamble transmission on the PRACH occasion of the first cell (See par. [132], [152] of Mukherjee for a reference to selecting an SSB (based on best measured RSRP) to determine the PRACH/RO used for the MsgA transmission, and configuration of the corresponding PDCCH monitoring occasions relative to that same SSB-to-RO mapping).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 13, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the first cell and the one or more neighbor cells are deployed in a same frequency layer.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the first cell and the one or more neighbor cells are deployed in a same frequency layer (See par. [125]-[126], [132] of Mukherjee for a reference to ROs for different cells may be in the same time slot but spread across different frequency locations, or may overlap in time-frequency; multiple cells may share an overlapping/common initial DL active BWP).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 14, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the first cell and the one or more neighbor cells are deployed in different frequency layers.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the first cell and the one or more neighbor cells are deployed in different frequency layers (See par. [125], [153] of Mukherjee for a reference to a separate RO in a different UL Bandwidth Part (BWP) may be used for each cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee, specifically Agiwal discloses wherein the random access response included in the MsgB is a success random access response (successRAR) (See par. [320] of Agiwal for a reference to MsgB includes successRAR wherein the successRAR includes TA, C-RNTI).
Regarding claim 16, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein, when the random access response included in the MsgB is a fallback random access response (fallbackRAR) and the MsgB includes an indication of one or more candidate serving cells corresponding to the fallbackRAR, the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit a message 3 (Msg3) with a measurement report for the one or more candidate serving cells; receive a message 4 (Msg4); and identify the serving cell based on the reception of the MsgB and the Msg4.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein, when the random access response included in the MsgB is a fallback random access response (fallbackRAR) and the MsgB includes an indication of one or more candidate serving cells corresponding to the fallbackRAR (See par. [154]-[155] of Mukherjee for a reference to that each cell transmits MsgB; the UE waits for one or more RARs and, if none is received, falls back to 4-step RACH. The fallback is triggered by no RAR—not a fallbackRAR carrying a candidate-cell list), the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit a message 3 (Msg3) with a measurement report for the one or more candidate serving cells (See par. [140]-[142], [164] of Mukherjee for a reference to mobile device includes the corresponding global cell identity for each cell in the measurement report, together with measurement results. Upon receiving a FallbackRAR, the UE falls back to a 4-step-like exchange, transmitting Msg3 and thereafter receiving Msg4/contention resolution); receive a message 4 (Msg4); and identify the serving cell based on the reception of the MsgB and the Msg4. (See par. [139]-[142] of Mukherjee for a reference to the UE receiving RAR(s) from multiple candidate cells and selecting among the associated uplink grants/cells for its Msg3 transmission based on cell-specific criteria, with final serving-cell selection/continuation occurring after the subsequent network response (Msg4/RRC signaling)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a processor (See Agiwal; Fig. 1; UE/Terminal, which includes a processor) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller (See Agiwal; Fig. 6; Controller 620) coupled with at least one memory (See Agiwal; Fig. 6; Memory 630).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Agiwal discloses a network entity for wireless communication (See Agiwal; Fig. 1; Base station), comprising:
at least one memory (See Agiwal; Fig. 7; Memory 730); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (See Agiwal; Fig. 7; Controller/Processor 720) and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble on a PRACH occasion of a first cell and a corresponding message A (MsgA) physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) on a MsgA PUSCH occasion of the first cell (See par. [266], [268]-[269] of Agiwal for a reference to the camped cell supplies system information. The UE selects preamble/RO/PUSCH occasion corresponding to selected SSB, transmits random access preamble in selected RO, and transmits MsgA payload in selected PUSCH occasion [Direct two-step MsgA transmission tied to the camped/first cell]); and
transmit a message B (MsgB) that includes a random access response (See par. [320] of Agiwal for a reference to the gNB transmits MsgB that includes successRAR wherein the successRAR includes TA, C-RNTI);
Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein delivery of the MsgB identifies a neighbor cell of the first cell as a serving cell for the UE.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein delivery of the MsgB identifies a neighbor cell of the first cell as a serving cell for the UE (See par. [107]-[109], [154]-155], [189]-[190] and Figs 2A-2C & 3A-3B of Mukherjee for a reference to that after receiving RAR/msgB responses from one or more of several cells that received the UE's access message, the UE, ultimately selects one of the responding gNBes for further connection procedures [The UE identifies/selects a serving cell based on the received MsgB(s)]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
Regarding claim 20, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein a common physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) search space that includes downlink control information (DCI) for the delivery of the MsgB identifies the neighbor cell of the first cell as the serving cell for the UE.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein a common physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) search space that includes downlink control information (DCI) for the delivery of the MsgB identifies the neighbor cell of the first cell as the serving cell for the UE (See par. [130]-[132], [171] of Mukherjee for a reference to that each PDCCH carries one DCI; separate Type-1 common spaces are monitored per cell, and PCIs of all cells are indicated to enable cell-ID-based descrambling).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
5. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal in view of Mukherjee et al. and further in view of Singh et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0069750 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection complete message is a connection setup complete message or a connection resume complete message.
However, Singh discloses wherein the connection complete message is a connection setup complete message (See par. [55] of Singh for a reference to the base station sends an RRC resume message, and the UE can subsequently send an RRC resume complete message to the base station) or a connection resume complete message (See par. [65] of Singh for a reference to the UE, in response to the RRC setup message, configures the RRC connection and transmits the RRC setup complete message to the base station).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh to the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by reducing power consumption when the UE enters an RRC inactive mode after the connection complete message is received. (Singh; Par. [19])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform cell detection for the serving cell when the serving cell is different from the first cell.
However, Singh discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: perform cell detection for the serving cell when the serving cell is different from the first cell (See par. [48] of Singh for a reference to the NRRC layer then scans neighboring cells and determines that RSRP or RSRQ of the second cell is above the threshold, then camps on it; the second cell may be a different cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Singh to the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by reducing power consumption when the UE enters an RRC inactive mode after the connection complete message is received. (Singh; Par. [19])
6. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal in view of Mukherjee et al. and further in view of Li et al. (US. Pub. No. 2014/0105056 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Agiwal does not explicitly disclose wherein the serving cell is different from the first cell and transitions from an energy saving state of operation to an active state of operation.
However, Mukherjee discloses wherein the serving cell is different from the first cell (See par. [137]-[140] of Mukherjee for a reference to UE may receive RARs from different cells and selects only one for transmission of msg3 to one of the cells).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mukherjee to Agiwal. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the likelihood of RACH procedure success on the first attempt whether operating using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, thereby reducing connection latency, through implementing an enhanced UE (UEe) that attempts to access multiple cells simultaneously. (Mukherjee; Par. [24])
The combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose different serving cells transitions from an energy saving state of operation to an active state of operation.
However, Li discloses different serving cells transitions from an energy saving state of operation to an active state of operation (See par. [61]-[63], [84]-[89] of Li for a reference to a dormant/energy-saving cell that is activated (transitions to an active state) in response to a random-access-related trigger detected via a neighboring always-on coverage cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li to the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by increasing the system’s capacity when the uplink transmission load towards the main base station is detected. (Li; Par. [22])
7. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal in view of Mukherjee et al. and further in view of Larsson et al. (US. Pub. No. 2013/0010711 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: monitor a common PDCCH search space associated with the serving cell upon identifying the serving cell; and receive, within the monitored common PDCCH search space, an uplink grant to transmit the connection complete message.
However, Larsson discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: monitor a common PDCCH search space associated with the serving cell upon identifying the serving cell (See par. [66]-[70] of Larsson for a reference to the UE monitors RA-RNTI for Msg2 in a common search space; the RAR includes timing/grant information and a cell-specific identifier); and receive, within the monitored common PDCCH search space, an uplink grant to transmit the connection complete message (See par. [58]-[66] of Larsson for a reference to that once a (secondary) serving cell is identified/activated, the UE monitors the applicable common/UE-specific PDCCH search space on that cell and receives therein an uplink grant (via MSG4/C-RNTI signaling) used for subsequent uplink transmission [connection complete message]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Larsson to the combination of Agiwal and Mukherjee. The motivation for combination would be to improving the system’s performance, by allowing the UE to more efficiently and effectively synchronize to the SCell and be able to transmit over the SCell using the proper timing advance, when UE performs random access on a secondary cell and the base station can send the UE a RA response that includes SCell timing advance (TA) and preferably also a SCell identifier . (Larsson; Par. [27])
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nemeth et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0137986 A1) discloses methods and apparatuses for intra-UE UL-DL collision handling in a single component carrier UE configuration in a gNB-only Subband Full-duplex (SBFD) network.
Lin et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0171809 A1) discloses a method for prioritized early channel state information (CSI) reporting for mission critical services and devices.
Wei et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0168874 A1) discloses a 2-step random access procedure in cellular wireless communication networks.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights