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 Objections
Regarding claim 1, 26, Examiner notes “frequency reference signal” is broad and does not have a specific definition or example in the specification, thus any signal may be considered a “frequency reference signal.”
Examiner notes regarding claim 19-25, the claim does not refer back to a satellite system specifically, thus these claims may pertain to any network or control system, not related to the satellite system of claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-26 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18919109 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, the reference application teaches:
A system, comprising: a satellite communication system comprising: a first frequency reference generator of a terminal [claim 1 first frequency reference generator], wherein the first frequency reference generator generates a first frequency reference signal in a first frequency band; a broadband communication transmission channel for transmitting broadband data from the terminal using the first frequency reference signal, wherein a legacy satellite system comprises a legacy communication receiving channel for receiving data at a legacy terminal in the first frequency band [claim 1 “transmitting broadband data from a terminal using a broadband communication transmission channel using a first frequency reference signal, wherein a legacy satellite system comprises a legacy communication receiving channel for receiving data from a legacy terminal in a first frequency band, wherein a first frequency reference generator generates a first frequency reference signal in the first frequency band”]; and a second frequency reference generator of the terminal, wherein the second frequency reference generator generates a second frequency reference signal in a second frequency band; and a broadband communication receiving channel for receiving broadband data at the terminal using the second frequency reference signal, wherein the legacy satellite system comprises a legacy communication transmission channel for transmitting data from the legacy terminal using the second frequency band [“receiving broadband data at the terminal using a broadband communication receiving channel using the second frequency reference signal, wherein the legacy satellite system comprises a legacy communication transmission channel for transmitting data at the legacy terminal using a second frequency band, wherein the second frequency reference generator generates a second frequency reference signal in the second frequency band.”].
Claims 2-25 rejected based on claims 2-25 respectively of the copending application. Claim 26 rejected based on claim 1 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 7, 20-25 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 7, “the one or more nulls” and “the interfering signal” lack antecedent basis as claim 7 depends on claim 2 and claim 2 or claim 1 do not define these terms.
Regarding claim 20, “other systems” and “the other system information” lacks antecedent basis as the claim only defines a single “other system” and does define “other system information.” Claims 21-25 rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 14-15, 17-18, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches:
A system, comprising: a satellite communication system comprising [Figure 6]:
a first frequency reference generator of a terminal, wherein the first frequency reference generator generates a first frequency reference signal in a first frequency band [¶0075, UE generates UL traffic (first frequency reference signal as this is not defined anywhere in the specification or how these are used) over UL band FR2]; a broadband communication transmission channel for transmitting broadband data from the terminal using the first frequency reference signal [Figure 4, ¶0050, table 402, channels which are known to be broadband channels, used for downlink and uplink, wherein Figure 6, UE 110 transmits data using first frequency reference signal ¶0075 in UL FR2 (first frequency) see 635], wherein a legacy satellite system comprises a legacy communication receiving channel for receiving data at a legacy terminal in the first frequency band [¶0075 step 635 UL received at base station FR2];
and a broadband communication receiving channel for receiving broadband data at the terminal [¶0075, Figure 6 step 630 DL in different frequency band FR1 (second frequency)], wherein the legacy satellite system comprises a legacy communication transmission channel for transmitting data from the legacy terminal using the second frequency band [¶0075, satellite sending DL in FR1 (second frequency band)].
Wang teaches communicating via different frequencies but does not expressly teach sending reference signal from terminal in second frequency band.
Jo teaches a second frequency reference generator of the terminal, wherein the second frequency reference generator generates a second frequency reference signal in a second frequency band [device 100, shown in Figure 2 100b, with reference signal generator, to produce reference signal across frequency bands up to a satellite, ¶0026]; and a broadband communication receiving channel for receiving broadband data at the terminal using the second frequency reference signal [Figure 3-4, ¶0063, response received from satellite via frequency ranges for sent test signal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to specify the test signal on the frequency for which downlink is to be received as in Jo who teaches this allows for measuring a performance of satellite transponder for a channel in various conditions ¶0009.
Regarding claim 14, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency band is higher than 10GHz and the second frequency band is higher than 10GHz [Wang Figure 4 shows Frequency range 2 with both uplink and downlink portion, ¶0054, and Figure 6, uplink and downlink in two different bands e.g. n257, n258, both above 10 GHz].
Regarding claim 15, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency band is higher than 20GHz and the second frequency band is higher than 20GHz [Wang Figure 4 shows Frequency range 2 with both uplink and downlink portion, ¶0054, and Figure 6, uplink and downlink in two different bands e.g. n257, n258, both above 20 GHz].
Regarding claim 17, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency band comprises 20-24GHz and the second frequency band comprises 40-42GHz [Wang ¶0028, antenna may be tuned to K-band 18-27 GHz, or frequency range for downlink ¶0048 frequency range 2 from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz Figure 4, the reference indicating these are options for transmission/reception].
Regarding claim 18, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency band comprises 37.5-42.5GHz and the second frequency band comprises 47-52GHz [Wang ¶0048 Frequency ranges for uplink/downlink within frequency range 2 Figure 4 cover 24.25-52 GHz].
Regarding claim 26, see similar rejection for claim 1 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding functions.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Huang (US 20180254809 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Wang teaches beams but not pencil beams however Huang teaches further comprising a receiving pencil beam antenna, wherein the broadband communication receiving channel for receiving broadband data uses the receiving pencil beam antenna [¶0101, UE receiving serving beam at narrow bandwidth being pencil beam].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the beams being pencil beams as in Huang who teaches ¶0101 this allows for coverage over long distances.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Huang (US 20180254809 A1), Alcorn (US 8311533 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Wang-Jo-Huang teaches:
The system of claim 2.
Wang-Jo-Huang teaches pencil beams but does not specify the width.
Alcorn teaches wherein the receiving pencil beam antenna comprises an antenna capable of forming a central beam with a half width of less than 5 degrees [Column 3, ll 58-col 4 ll1-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the beams being pencil beams with the claimed width as in Alcorn who teaches column 4 ll 1-4 this allows for null steering.
Regarding claim 4, Wang-Jo-Huang-Alcorn teaches:
The system of claim 3, wherein the receiving pencil beam antenna comprises one or more of a beamformed antenna [Huang ¶0101 pencil beams formed using beamforming see rationale for combination claim 3], a phased-array antenna, a metamaterial antenna, reflector antenna, or an RF lens.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Huang (US 20180254809 A1), Bayesteh et al. (“Bayesteh”) (US 20210302561 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wang-Jo-Huang teaches:
The system of claim 2.
Wang in view of Huang teaches pencil beams but not simultaneous reception.
Bayesteh teaches wherein the receiving pencil beam antenna is configured to receive multiple beams simultaneously [¶0138, ¶0140 device receives beams in same time slot].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the beams being received simultaneously as in Bayesteh for calculation of UE location based on multiple received beams ¶0145.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Huang (US 20180254809 A1), Kaplan (US 20210048535 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wang-Jo-Huang teaches:
The system of claim 2.
Wang in view of Huang teaches narrow beams but not nulls.
Kaplan teaches wherein the receiving pencil beam antenna forms one or more nulls to reduce signal degradation from an interfering signal [¶0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the beams forming nulls at the receiver to avoid interference from certain sources ¶0051.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Askar et al. (“Askar”) (US 20210051660 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Askar teaches further comprising a transmission pencil beam antenna, wherein the broadband communication transmission channel for transmitting broadband data uses the transmission pencil beam antenna [¶0222 UE transmits pencil beams].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the beams are pencil beams to avoid interference as in Askar ¶0238.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Askar et al. (“Askar”) (US 20210051660 A1), Alcorn (US 8311533 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Wang-Jo-Askar teaches:
The system of claim 8.
Wang-Jo-Askar teaches pencil beams but does not specify the width.
Alcorn teaches wherein the receiving pencil beam antenna comprises an antenna capable of forming a central beam with a half width of less than 5 degrees [Column 3, ll 58-col 4 ll1-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the beams being pencil beams with the claimed width as in Alcorn who teaches column 4 ll 1-4 this allows for null steering.
Regarding claim 10, Wang-Jo-Askar-Alcorn teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the transmitting pencil beam antenna comprises a beamformed antenna, a phased-array antenna, a metamaterial antenna, reflector antenna, or an RF lens [Askar ¶0222 beamforming, see rationale for combination as in claim 9]. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Askar et al. (“Askar”) (US 20210051660 A1), Deng et al. (“Deng”) (US 20190104549 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wang-Jo-Askar teaches:
The system of claim 8.
Wang-Askar teaches pencil beams but not simultaneous transmission.
Deng teaches wherein the transmitting pencil beam antenna is configured to transmit multiple beams simultaneously [¶0069, ¶0080 teaches narrow beam patterns, ¶0327 teaches uplink beam simultaneously].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the simultaneous transmission of uplink beams as in Deng for increased success rate of transmission ¶0327.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Askar et al. (“Askar”) (US 20210051660 A1), Marinier et al. (“Marinier”) (US 20200145079 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wang-Jo-Askar teaches:
The system of claim 8.
Wang teaches beams but does not teach null in direction.
Marinier teaches wherein the transmission pencil beam antenna forms a null to reduce transmission towards a known receiver [¶0236 null toward direction of transmit beam of another device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of nulls as in Marinier to reduce interference toward another device ¶0327.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Le et al. (“Le”) (US 202050132809 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Wang teaches bands but not the specified bands.
Le teaches wherein the first frequency band comprises 17-20GHz and the second frequency band comprises 27-30GHz [¶0031, uplink 17-21 GHz thus including 17-20 GHz and downlink 27-31 GHz thus including 27-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a frequency range of 17-20 GHz and 27-30 GHz as in Le who teaches ¶0031 these pertain to known bands for conventional satellite connectivity making this an obvious combination of prior art elements according to known techniques.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Shrestha et al. (“Shrestha”) (US 20220030504 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Wang-Jo teaches:
The system of claim 1.
Wang teaches a terminal but not providing location.
Shrestha teaches wherein in response to a request to join a network, the terminal provides the network with a terminal location [¶0073, following RRC procedure including request messages as known in the art, UE reports position].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify providing a location as in Shrestha who teaches this allows to provide resource allocation based on UE position ¶0073.
Claim(s) 20, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Shrestha et al. (“Shrestha”) (US 20220030504 A1), Somashekar et al. (“Somashekar”) (US 20240405850 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Wang-Jo-Shrestha teaches:
The system of claim 19.
Wang teaches communication with a network but not determining interference possibility.
Somashekar teaches wherein a satellite or a control system of the network determines whether there is an interference possibility to an other system, wherein the other systems and the other system information is stored in a database [¶0103, one system determines interference to another system, e.g. ground stations and satellite systems, as the claim does not even require that the systems be satellite or ground stations, and ¶0107, database stores information on satellites].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify detecting the interference between systems as in Somashekar in order to prevent or mitigate the degradation as in ¶0105.
Regarding claim 25, Wang et al. teaches:
The system of claim 20 wherein in response to determining that there is the interference possibility to the other system, receive an indication of an alternate location for the terminal [Wang, ¶0070, ¶0072-74, UE reports assistance information including SNR of satellite systems, base station sends band pairing configuration with “location” of new frequencies as the claim does not specify how an “alternate location” can be specified or what the alternate location pertains to, combined with Somashekar can determine interference possibility ¶0103, one system determines interference to another system see rationale for combination as in claim 20].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Shrestha et al. (“Shrestha”) (US 20220030504 A1), Somashekar et al. (“Somashekar”) (US 20240405850 A1), Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) (US 20230344476 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wang et al. teaches:
The system of claim 20.
Wang in view of Somashekar teaches interference but not frequencies.
Raghavan teaches wherein in response to determining that there is the interference possibility to the other system, receive an indication for the terminal to use frequencies to lessen interference [¶0101-102, UE receives indication to switch to single frequency to reduce interference to other system].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a frequency as in Raghavan to reduce interference to adjacent systems ¶0102.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Shrestha et al. (“Shrestha”) (US 20220030504 A1), Somashekar et al. (“Somashekar”) (US 20240405850 A1), Marinier et al. (“Marinier”) (US 20200145079 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Wang et al. teaches:
The system of claim 20.
Wang in view of Somashekar teaches interference but not nulls.
Marinier wherein in response to determining that there is the interference possibility to the other system, receive an indication to generate a null in a direction to lessen interference [¶0236, indicate nulls to avoid interference to other devices].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of nulls as in Marinier to reduce interference toward another device ¶0327.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20240014888 A1) in view of Jo et al. (“Jo”) (US 20120119946 A1) and Shrestha et al. (“Shrestha”) (US 20220030504 A1), Somashekar et al. (“Somashekar”) (US 20240405850 A1), Yu et al. (“Yu”) (US 20180007625 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Wang et al. teaches:
The system of claim 20.
Wang teaches communication but does not teach denying service for interference.
Yu teaches wherein in response to determining that there is the interference possibility to the other system, receive an indication to deny service to the terminal [¶0070-71, service request rejected, cause value indicates reason, ¶0071, prevent interference to another cell ].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify denying the request as in Yu ¶0071 to prevent interference.
Regarding claim 24, Wang et al. teaches:
The system of claim 20.
Wang teaches communication but does not teach denying service for interference.
Yu teaches wherein in response to determining that there is the interference possibility to the other system, receive an indication of a reason for denial of service to the terminal [¶0070-71, service request rejected, cause value indicates reason, ¶0071, prevent interference to another cell ].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify denying the request and including a reason for the denial as in Yu ¶0071 to prevent interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights