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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 10827422 B1), in view of Bull (US 20060003775 A1), in view of Issakov (US 20210314901 A1), and further in view of Bramwell (US 20110294472 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches the limitation: “a method for determining a location for a user device, the method comprising: determining, by an application installed on a subscriber identity module (SIM) within the user device, that the user device has moved from a first location to a second location” ([Col. 6, Lines 19-37], STK Applet determines that a device has changed location by comparing current location information values with previously recorded ones. [Col. 5 Lines 51-55] disclose that the STK Applet is equivalent to a SIM application / applet).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “requesting, by the application, a second set of one or more NMRs and a second set of one or more CGIs for each cell site that the user device is attached to from the user device” ([Col. 6 Line 19-37] STK Applet causes mobile device to take and collect network measurement information from cell sites, such as Cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) and radio strength value (equivalent to NMR) periodically, meaning that NMR and Cell-ID can be collected in multiple sets and that secondary CGI and NMR sets are recorded for the purposes of monitoring changes in the device location).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “determining the current location of the user device based on the second set of one or more NMRs and the second set of one or more CGIs” ([Col. 6 Lines 46-49], steering application 40, a network side entity, calculates position of device using the Cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) and adjacent cell information + radio signal strength values (both equivalent to NMR)).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “communicating the historical location record and the current location of the user device to an external server” ([Col. 7, Lines 40-60], GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude) are periodically obtained by a GPS module (that is equipped by a mobile device), creating a historical record of coordinates. These two values are equivalent to the device location. Once it is determined that a mobile device is in a certain area, these two values may be sent by the mobile device to the Steering Application, after notifying the SIM Application. [Col. 5 Lines 56-58] disclose that the Steering Application is a network entity).
Xu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “determining a historical location of the user device based on the first set of one or more NMRs and the first set of one or more CGIs”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Issakov teaches the limitation: “determining a historical location of the user device based on the first set of one or more NMRs and the first set of one or more CGIs” ([0037] discloses the processing / use of RSS measurements from multiple cells to pinpoint a UE’s location. [0038] discloses that a positioning algorithm checks if an incoming location request includes a serving cell ID (equivalent to a CGI) that is known in a database. NMR is also processed as well to help identify surrounding neighbor cells within a certain distance. After the processing of the NMR and CGI, triangulation at step 570 is then performed to estimate position of a UE. [0036] discloses that a LIMS server may provide the estimate position of the UE to an external entity and stream it in real time, meaning that the location is historical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu and Issakov for the advantage of more accurately tracking a device’s position by keeping a historical record of its past locations through the repeated sending of location measurement data.
The combination of Xu and Issakov differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitations:
“storing the historical location on the SIM to create a historical location record”,
and
“based on the determination that the user device has moved, requesting from the user device, by the application, a first set of one or more network measurement reports (NMRs) and a first set of one or more cell site location information (CGIs) for each cell site that the user device is attached to”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bull teaches the limitations:
“storing the historical location on the SIM to create a historical location record” ([0258], Location Area Code (equivalent to a location) may be stored on a SIM of a device. The LAI in the SIM may be updated over time, creating a historical record),
and
“based on the determination that the user device has moved, requesting from the user device, by the application, a first set of one or more network measurement reports (NMRs) and a first set of one or more cell site location information (CGIs) for each cell site that the user device is attached to” ([0105], a “location update” procedure is performed by the MS (mobile station, or a device) when the MS changes location. [0124] discloses that this location update causes the LMS (network entity) to collect CGI, TA and NMR. Thus, the MS (device) requests the LMS to collect CGI and NMR when the MS moves position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of the combination of Xu and Issakov with those of Bull, for the purposes of tracking and positioning a mobile device by taking multiple measurements (NMR and CGI) and storing a record of past locations.
The combination of Xu, Issakov and Bull differ from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “receiving, by the application, a request from a network for a current location of the user device”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bramwell teaches the limitation: “receiving, by the application, a request from a network for a current location of the user device” ([0330], STK application (equivalent to SIM app) Is able to handle location requests).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu, Issakov and Bull with those of Bramwell, for the purposes of tracking and positioning a mobile device by taking multiple measurements (NMR and CGI) and receiving location requests.
Regarding claim 2, Bull further teaches the limitation: “wherein each of the first set of one or more NMRs comprise one or more signal measurements for each cell site that the user device is attached to” ([0121] and [0119], RXLev is a signal measurement that is part of NMR that records the power levels (a signal measurement) of nearby cells).
Regarding claim 3, Bull further teaches the limitation: “wherein each of the first set of one or more CGIs comprise an identification of a specific location for each cell site that the user device is attached to” ([0226] Mobile phones may be identified and located on the basis of historical, past presence in a defined geographic area as bounded by a covered by a sector, a cell or group of cells. The background location feature allows the operator to define an area based on cells (CGIs)).
Regarding claim 4, Xu further teaches the limitations:
“computing, one or more distances between the user device and each cell site that the user device is attached to based on the second set of one or more NMRs and the second set of one or more CGIs” ([Col. 6 Lines 19-67], there are private LTE/5G networks 22 that the device can connect to. Both the cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) and the adjacent cell information + radio signal strength values (both equivalent to NMR) are used to calculate the speed and direction of a moving user device. The speed and direction values are used to create an estimated time at which the device will be in range of a Private LTE/5G network 22 (equivalent to a cell tower connected with the device). This estimated time of arrival to the cell tower, combined with the current location and movement speed of the device, can be considered equivalent to measuring the distance from a user device to the cell tower. The CGI and NMR measurements can be taken periodically, resulting in multiple (second) sets of both CGI and NMRs).
Xu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “determining an intersection point of the one or more distances to pinpoint the location of the user device”.
However, Bull teaches the limitation: “determining an intersection point of the one or more distances to pinpoint the location of the user device” ([0289], reported location of the mobile device / UE is the intersection of the area formed by the timing advance measurement (derived from a CGI+TA distancing method) and the bisector (half) of the sector of a serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu with those of Bull, for the advantages of more efficiently tracking a device’s location by using intersections of distances collected periodically.
The combination of Xu and Bull differ from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “wherein the current location is determined by: analyzing one or more signal measurements for each cell site that the user device is attached to”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Issakov teaches the limitation: “wherein the current location is determined by: analyzing one or more signal measurements for each cell site that the user device is attached to” ([0037] discloses the processing and use of RSS measurements from multiple cells to pinpoint a UE’s location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of the combination of Xu and Bull with those of Issakov, for the advantage of pinpointing a device’s location by taking multiple measurements from cell tower(s).
Regarding claim 5, Bull further teaches the limitation: “wherein one or more signal measurements in the second set of one or more NMRs include one or more of the following: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a reference signal received power (RSRP), and a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)” ([0087], the NMR may include channel and power levels, equivalent to RSSI (signal strength).
Regarding claim 6, Bull further teaches the limitation: “wherein determining that the user device has moved from the first location to the second location is based at least in part on determining that the user device has attached to one or more new cell sites” ([0266] a Handover (a.k.a. a device attaches to a new cell) is detected by a network element LMS. From there, the positioning of the mobile is performed by another network element WLS. Thus, the handover (switching of cells) makes the LMS realize that the mobile has changed position because it must do a positioning procedure right after it detects a handover).
Regarding claim 7, Bull teaches the limitation: “wherein the determining that the user device has moved from the first location to the second location is based at least in part on determining that the user device has detached from one or more cell sites” ([0266] Handover (a device detaches from its old cell) is detected by a network element LMS. From there, the positioning of the mobile is performed by another network element WLS. Thus, the handover makes the LMS realize that the mobile has changed position because it has to do a positioning right after it detected the handover).
Regarding claim 8, Issakov further teaches the limitation: “further comprising validating the second set of one or more CGIs against a database of known cell sites” ([0038], positioning algorithm checks if a serving cell ID (equivalent to CGI) is known in a database of IDs).
Regarding claim 10, Xu further teaches the limitation: “further comprising generating an alert on the user device indicating that a location request has been processed by the application on the SIM” ([Col. 5 Line 51-Col. 6 Line 6] disclose that the applet on the SIM is invoked to determine whether or not a device is in a certain area. This is essentially the SIM application handling a request for a location.
After it is determined that the device is within a location, an OTA (over the air) message is sent to the SIM of the device. This is essentially generating an alert on the device that the location determination has been completed).
Regarding claim 11, Bull further teaches the limitation: “wherein the first set of one or more NMRs and the first set of one or more CGIs are stored for a predetermined period” ([0266] discloses that a network entity LMS (Link Monitoring System) sends both CGI and NMR to a network entity SMLC as part of an ECID positioning process to locate the position of a device. SMLC is defined by [0067] as being able to store and distribute location data. [0105] discloses that multiple measurements may be taken after a predetermined period using a process known as a Location Update, meaning that the NMRs and CGIs as disclosed in [0266] can be stored in the SMLC for a predetermined period before another Location Update occurs).
Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches the limitations:
“A system for determining a location for a user device, the system comprising: the user device configured to communicate with one or more cell sites associated with a network” ([Col. 5, Lines 51-55], mobile device collects network measurements from a current network (associated with a cell site)),
“a subscriber identity module (SIM) installed within the user device, the SIM comprising an application configured to: determine that the user device has moved from a first location to a second location” ([Col. 6, Lines 19-37], STK Applet determines that a device has changed location by comparing current location information values with previously recorded ones. [Col. 5 Lines 51-55] disclose that the STK Applet is equivalent to a SIM application / applet. [Col. 5 Lines 42-43] disclose the SIM as being installed on the device).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “request a second set of one or more NMRs and a second set of one or more CGIs from the user device” ([Col. 6 Line 19-37] STK Applet causes mobile device to collect and report network measurement information from cell sites, such as Cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) and radio strength value (equivalent to NMR) periodically, meaning that NMR and Cell-ID can be collected in multiple sets and that secondary CGI and NMR sets are recorded for the purposes of monitoring changes in the device location. This is essentially a request from the Applet to the device to collect and report the measurement values to the Applet).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “determine the current location of the user device using the second set of one or more NMRs and the second set of one or more CGIs” ([Col. 6 Lines 46-49], steering application 40, a network side entity, calculates position of device using the Cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) and adjacent cell information + radio signal strength values (both equivalent to NMR)).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “communicate the current location of the user device and the historical location of the user device to an external server” ([Col. 7, Lines 40-60], GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude) are periodically obtained by a GPS module (that is equipped by a mobile device), creating a historical record of coordinates. These two values are equivalent to the device location. Once it is determined that a mobile device is in a certain area, these two values may be sent by the mobile device to the Steering Application, after notifying the SIM Application. [Col. 5 Lines 56-58] disclose that the Steering Application is a network entity).
Xu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “determine a historical location of the user device based on the first set of one or more NMRs and the first set of one or more CGIs”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Issakov teaches the limitation: “determine a historical location of the user device based on the first set of one or more NMRs and the first set of one or more CGIs” ([0037] discloses the processing / use of RSS measurements from multiple cells to pinpoint a UE’s location. [0038] discloses that a positioning algorithm checks if an incoming location request includes a serving cell ID (equivalent to a CGI) that is known in a database. NMR is also processed as well to help identify surrounding neighbor cells within a certain distance. After the processing of the NMR and CGI, triangulation at step 570 is then performed to estimate position of a UE. [0036] discloses that a LIMS server may provide the estimate position of the UE to an external entity and stream it in real time, meaning that the location is historical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu and Issakov for the advantage of more accurately tracking a device’s position by keeping a historical record of its past locations through the repeated sending of location measurement data.
The combination of Xu and Issakov differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitations:
“based on the determination that the user device has moved, request a first set of one or more network measurement reports (NMRs) and first set of one or more cell site location information (CGIs) from the user device”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bull teaches the limitation:
“based on the determination that the user device has moved, request a first set of one or more network measurement reports (NMRs) and first set of one or more cell site location information (CGIs) from the user device” ([0105], a “location update” procedure is performed periodically by the MS (mobile station, or a device) when the MS changes location. [0124] discloses that this location update causes the LMS (network entity) to collect CGI, TA and NMR. [0119] discloses the mobile device’s ability to record different measurements such as NMR as an improvement on an existing NMR+TA location estimate. Thus the location update causes the LMR to collect (request) measurements such as NMR and CGI from the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of the combination of Xu and Issakov with those of Bull, for the purposes of tracking and positioning a mobile device by taking multiple measurements (NMR and CGI) and storing a record of past locations.
The combination of Xu, Issakov and Bull differ from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “receive a request from the network for a current location of the user device and the historical location of the user device”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bramwell teaches the limitation: “receive a request from the network for a current location of the user device and the historical location of the user device” ([0326]-[0330], STK application (equivalent to SIM app) Is able to handle location requests in a Network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu, Issakov and Bull with those of Bramwell, for the purposes of tracking and positioning a mobile device by taking multiple measurements (NMR and CGI) and receiving location requests.
Regarding claim 13, Xu further teaches the limitation: “wherein determining that the user device has moved from the first location to the second location is based on a change in one or more CGIs associated with the user device” ([Col. 6, Lines 19-37] If Cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) has not changed then the device location is considered unchanged as well).
Regarding claim 14, Xu further teaches the limitation: “wherein determining that the user device has moved from the first location to the second location is based on a set of location data provided by the user device” ([Col. 6, Lines 19-37] Location information such as Cell-ID, MNC, MCC, signal strength is used to determine location change status of the mobile device).
Regarding claim 15, Xu further teaches the limitation: “wherein determining that the user device has moved from the first location to the second location is based on the user device moving at least more than a predetermined distance from the first location” ([Col. 7 Lines 61-Col. 8 Line 15] disclose the comparison of a device’s present longitude and latitude to the previously recorded values of its longitude and latitude to determine if the mobile device has changed location. The comparison of the new longitude and latitude to the new longitude and latitude can be considered equivalent to a “distance moved” comparison).
Regarding claim 16, Xu further teaches the limitation: “wherein the application generates an alert on the user device indicating that a location determination process has been initiated” ([Col. 5 Line 51-Col. 6 Line 6] disclose that the applet on the SIM is invoked to determine whether or not a device is in a certain area. This is essentially the SIM application handling a request for a location. After it is determined that the device is within a location, an OTA (over the air) message is sent to the SIM of the device. This is essentially generating an alert on the device from the application that the location determination has been completed).
Regarding claim 17, Xu further teaches the limitation: “wherein a historical location record is generated based on the first set of one or more NMRs and the first set of one or more CGIs” ([Col. 10, Lines 14-20], Cell-ID (CGI) and adjacent cell information + radio strength values (NMR) are values taken multiple times / periodically, as disclosed in [Col. 5 Lines 51 to 55]. A change in these values indicates that a mobile device has changed its location with respect to the location at which previous values were recorded. This means that there is a record of previous locations corresponding to previous values of NMR and CGI).
Regarding claim 18, Bull further teaches the limitation: “wherein determining that the user device has moved is based in part on the user device attaching to one or more new cell sites” ([0266] a Handover (a.k.a. a device attaches to a new cell) is detected by a network element LMS. From there, the positioning of the mobile is performed by another network element WLS. Thus, the handover (switching of cells) makes the LMS realize that the mobile has changed position because it must do a positioning procedure right after it detects a handover).
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches the limitations:
“A subscriber identity module (SIM) for determining and storing location data of a user device, the SIM comprising: an application installed on the SIM, the application configured to: determine that the user device has moved from a first location to a second location” ([Col. 6, Lines 19-37], STK Applet determines that a device has changed location by comparing current location information values with previously recorded ones. [Col. 5 Lines 51-55] disclose that the STK Applet is equivalent to a SIM application / applet as part of a SIM. [Col. 5 Lines 42-43] disclose a SIM as being installed on the device).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “determine the current location of the user device based on the request” ([Col. 6 Lines 46-49], steering application 40, a network side entity, calculates position of device using the Cell-ID (equivalent to CGI) and adjacent cell information + radio signal strength values (both equivalent to NMR). [Col. 6, Lines 24-30] discloses that the positioning is started by a request received by the device to collect measurements such as CGI and NMR).
Xu additionally teaches the limitation: “transmit the historical location and the current location to the external server” ([Col. 7, Lines 40-60], GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude) are periodically obtained by a GPS module (that is equipped by a mobile device), creating a historical record of coordinates. These two values are equivalent to the device location. Once it is determined that a mobile device is in a certain area, these two values may be sent by the mobile device to the Steering Application, after notifying the SIM Application. [Col. 5 Lines 56-58] disclose that the Steering Application is a network entity).
Xu differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitations:
“determine a historical location of the user device using a triangulation algorithm that processes the one or more NMRs and the one or more CGIs associated with the user device”,
and
“generate a historical location record based on the historical location”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Issakov teaches the limitations:
“determine a historical location of the user device using a triangulation algorithm that processes the one or more NMRs and the one or more CGIs associated with the user device” ([0037] discloses the processing / use of RSS measurements from multiple cells to pinpoint a UE’s location. [0038] discloses that a positioning algorithm checks if an incoming location request includes a serving cell ID (equivalent to a CGI) that is known in a database. NMR is also processed as well to help identify surrounding neighbor cells within a certain distance. After the processing of the NMR and CGI, triangulation at step 570 is then performed to estimate position of a UE. [0036] discloses that a LIMS server may provide the estimate position of the UE to an external entity and stream it in real time, meaning that the location is historical),
and
“generate a historical location record based on the historical location” ([0036], database 460 includes the CGI and NMR measurements used to derive a device position. As said earlier, the location is streamed in real time. To facilitate this, the database may be updated to reflect any changes in the position, thus the database can be considered a historical location record based on a historical location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu and Issakov for the advantage of more accurately tracking a device’s position by keeping a historical record of its past locations through the repeated sending of location measurement data.
The combination of Xu and Issakov differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitations:
“based on the determination that the user device has moved, request one or more network measurement reports (NMRs) and one or more cell site location information (CGIs) from the user device”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bull teaches the limitation:
“based on the determination that the user device has moved, request one or more network measurement reports (NMRs) and one or more cell site location information (CGIs) from the user device” ([0105], a “location update” procedure is performed periodically by the MS (mobile station, or a device) when the MS changes location. [0124] discloses that this location update causes the LMS (network entity) to collect CGI, TA and NMR. [0119] discloses the mobile device’s ability to record different measurements such as NMR as an improvement on an existing NMR+TA location estimate. Thus the location update causes the LMR to collect (request) measurements such as NMR and CGI from the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of the combination of Xu and Issakov with those of Bull, for the purposes of tracking and positioning a mobile device by taking multiple measurements (NMR and CGI) and storing a record of past locations.
The combination of Xu, Issakov and Bull differ from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the limitation: “receive a request from an external network for a current location of the user device”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bramwell teaches the limitation: “receive a request from an external network for a current location of the user device” ([0326]-[0330], STK application (equivalent to SIM app) Is able to handle location requests in a Network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Xu, Issakov and Bull with those of Bramwell, for the purposes of tracking and positioning a mobile device by taking multiple measurements (NMR and CGI) and receiving location requests.
Regarding claim 20, Xu further teaches the limitation: “the SIM of claim 19, wherein determining that the user device has moved from the first location to the second location is based on detecting a change in a signal strength of one or more cell sites to which the user device is attached” ([Col. 6 Lines 19-37], STK Applet (equivalent to SIM Applet, as disclosed in [Col. 5, Lines 51-55]) keeps track of a set of recorded values as part of a location change determination process. Radio signal strength is part of those values. If the current version of the reported values and the previous version of the reported values are the same, the STK Applet determines that the location of the mobile device has not changed).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 10827422 B1), in view of Bull (US 20060003775 A1), in view of Issakov (US 20210314901 A1), in view of Bramwell (US 20110294472 A1), and further in view of Hirzallah (US 20250089015 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu, Bull, Issakov and Bramwell does not teach the limitation: “wherein determining the current location of the user device comprises using a machine learning algorithm to refine an accuracy of a location determination over time”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Hirzallah teaches the limitation: “wherein determining the current location of the user device comprises using a machine learning algorithm to refine an accuracy of a location determination over time” ([0112], positioning data pertaining to a device may be utilized for monitoring applications within a network environment. The monitoring application may be an AI or ML model that handles beam prediction, positioning, scheduling, mobility/handover, etc. of the device to help track the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of the combination of Xu, Bull, Issakov and Bramwell with those of Hirzallah, for the advantage of further increasing accuracy of device positioning via the use of AI or Machine Learning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN H. NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights