Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/CN2023/101887, filed on June 21, 2023, that claims foreign priority to 202210770926.3, filed on June 30, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on January 7, 2025, and September 18, 2025, were filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak ‘954 (US 7,697,954, “Kwak ‘954”), in view of Henttonen ‘406 (US 2019/0200406, “Henttonen ‘406”).
Regarding claim 1, Kwak ‘954 discloses a method, applied to a network device (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34; Node B), wherein the method comprises:
receiving first information from a terminal device, wherein the first information indicates a transmission capability of the terminal device (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34 and claim 1; radio network controller (RNC) receives user equipment (UE) capability information, where the UE capability information indicates UE type information and maximum transmitter power information of the UE; RNC sends the maximum UE transmitter power information to the Node B; thus, Node B receives maximum UE transmitter power information; maximum UE transmitter power information reads on first information and transmission capability of the terminal device);
determining, based on the first information, scheduling information supported by the terminal device (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; Node B determines scheduling grant information based on the maximum UE transmitter power information; scheduling grant information reads on scheduling information),
scheduling the terminal device based on the scheduling information (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; Node B transmits the scheduling grant information to the UE; thus, Node B schedules the UE based on the scheduling grant information).
However, Kwak ‘954 does not specifically disclose wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit.
Henttonen ‘406 teaches wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit (para 33 and 44; UE sends UE category and UE capabilities to a base station (BS), where the UE category and capabilities indicate a maximum number of bits per transmission time interval (TTI); examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwak ‘954’s method for scheduling a terminal device, to include Henttonen ‘406’s maximum number of bits per transmission time interval. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reliability for data transmission, improved handover procedures, reduced handover interruption time, fewer dropped connections (Henttonen ‘406, para 42).
Regarding claim 11, Kwak ‘954 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34; UE), wherein the apparatus is enabled to:
determine a transmission capability of a terminal device; and send first information to a network device, wherein the first information indicates the transmission capability of the terminal device to enable the network device to determine scheduling information supported by the terminal device based on the first information (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34 and claim 1; radio network controller (RNC) receives from the UE the UE capability information, where the UE capability information indicates UE type information and maximum transmitter power information of the UE; RNC sends the maximum UE transmitter power information to the Node B; Node B determines scheduling grant information based on the maximum UE transmitter power information ; thus, UE determines the UE capability, sends UE capability information to the Node B, including maximum UE transmitter power information, and the Node B determines scheduling grant information based on the maximum UE transmitter power information; maximum UE transmitter power information reads on first information and transmission capability of a terminal device).
However, Kwak ‘954 does not specifically disclose wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more processors; one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, and wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit.
Henttonen ‘406 teaches wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more processors; one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors (FIG. 11, para 110; UE includes a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory), and
wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit (para 33 and 44; UE sends UE category and UE capabilities to a base station (BS), where the UE category and capabilities indicate a maximum number of bits per transmission time interval (TTI); examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwak ‘954’s apparatus that determines a transmission capability of a terminal device, to include Henttonen ‘406’s maximum number of bits per transmission time interval. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reliability for data transmission, improved handover procedures, reduced handover interruption time, fewer dropped connections (Henttonen ‘406, para 42).
Regarding claim 19, Kwak ‘954 discloses an apparatus, wherein the apparatus is enabled to:
receive second information from a terminal device, wherein transmit power of the second information is a predetermined transmit power (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34 and claim 1; radio network controller (RNC) receives user equipment (UE) capability information, where the UE capability information indicates UE type information and maximum transmitter power information of the UE; RNC sends the maximum UE transmitter power information to the Node B; thus, Node B receives maximum UE transmitter power information; maximum UE transmitter power information reads on second information, transmit power of the second information, and a predetermined transmit power);
determine, based on the second information, uplink scheduling information supported by the terminal device, the uplink scheduling information (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; Node B determines scheduling grant information based on the maximum UE transmitter power information; scheduling grant information indicates transmission timing for the UE; thus, Node B determines uplink scheduling grant information, based on the maximum UE transmitter power information);
that can be transmitted in an uplink (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; scheduling grant information indicates transmission timing for the UE; thus, UE transmits in an uplink); and
schedule the terminal device based on the uplink scheduling information (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; Node B transmits the scheduling grant information to the UE; thus, Node B schedules the UE based on the uplink scheduling grant information);
However, Kwak ‘954 does not specifically disclose wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more processors; one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors. Further, although Kwak ‘954 discloses the uplink scheduling information that can be transmitted in an uplink, Kwak ‘954 does not specifically disclose wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit.
Henttonen ‘406 teaches wherein the apparatus comprises: one or more processors; one or more memories, wherein the one or more memories store one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors (FIG. 11, para 110; BS includes a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory);
wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit (para 33 and 44; para 33 and 44; UE sends UE category and UE capabilities to a base station (BS), where the UE category and capabilities indicate a maximum number of bits per transmission time interval (TTI); examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwak ‘954’s apparatus that schedules a terminal device, to include Henttonen ‘406’s maximum number of bits per transmission time interval. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reliability for data transmission, improved handover procedures, reduced handover interruption time, fewer dropped connections (Henttonen ‘406, para 42).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kwak ‘954 teaches wherein
the first information comprises equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) of the terminal device;
the first information comprises maximum transmit power information or transmit antenna gain information of the terminal device;
the first information comprises first capability level information, wherein the first capability level information indicates a capability level to which a transmit capability of the terminal device belongs; or
the first information comprises type information of the terminal device (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34 and claim 1; radio network controller (RNC) receives user equipment (UE) capability information, where the UE capability information indicates UE type information; UE type information reads on type information of the terminal device; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kwak ‘954 teaches wherein the first information is information corresponding to a terminal device of a first type, wherein a transmission capability of the terminal device of the first type is a first transmission capability (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34 and claim 1; radio network controller (RNC) receives user equipment (UE) capability information, where the UE capability information indicates UE type information and maximum transmitter power information of the UE; thus, UE capability information corresponds to the UE type, and UE capability information is UE transmission capability).
Regarding claim 20, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 19, as outlined above.
Further, Kwak ‘954 teaches, wherein the predetermined transmit power is maximum transmit power of the terminal device (FIG. 7, col. 9:6-34 and claim 1; radio network controller (RNC) receives user equipment (UE) capability information, where the UE capability information indicates UE type information and maximum transmitter power information of the UE; RNC sends the maximum UE transmitter power information to the Node B; thus, Node B receives maximum UE transmitter power information that is a predetermined transmit power).
6. Claims 2, 4-5, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak ‘954, in view of Henttonen ‘406, and further in view of Wang ‘934 (US 2024/0014934, “Wang ‘934”).
Regarding claim 2, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 does not specifically disclose wherein: the terminal device accesses the network device via a non-terrestrial network device; or the network device is a non-terrestrial network device.
Wang ‘934 teaches wherein:
the terminal device accesses the network device via a non-terrestrial network device (FIGS. 6 and 9, para 76, 90-91, and 96; UE communicates with a ground station via a satellite; the ground station includes base station functionalities; a satellite reads on a non-terrestrial network device; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art); or
the network device is a non-terrestrial network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954 and Henttonen ‘406, to include Wang ‘934’s UE that communicates with a ground station via a satellite. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a quality and reliability of services provided by non-terrestrial communication systems (Wang ‘934, para 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Wang ‘934 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 3 and 13, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kwak ‘954 teaches wherein
the first information is comprised in a radio resource control (RRC) message (FIG. 5, col. 6:30-33 and col. 7:50-59; UE capability information is received in a RRC message; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
the first information is comprised in a media access control element (MAC CE); or
the first information is comprised in a third message (Msg3) in a random access process.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Wang ‘934 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 4 and 14, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kwak ‘954 teaches wherein the RRC message is a message carrying capability information of the terminal device (FIG. 5, col. 7:50-59; UE capability information is received in a RRC message).
Regarding claim 12, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 does not specifically disclose wherein: the terminal device accesses the network device via a non-terrestrial network device; or the terminal device is a non-terrestrial network device.
Wang ‘934 teaches wherein:
the terminal device accesses the network device via a non-terrestrial network device (FIGS. 6 and 9, para 76, 90-91, and 96; UE communicates with a ground station via a satellite; the ground station includes base station functionalities; a satellite reads on a non-terrestrial network device; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art); or
the terminal device is a non-terrestrial network device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954 and Henttonen ‘406, to include Wang ‘934’s UE that communicates with a ground station via a satellite. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a quality and reliability of services provided by non-terrestrial communication systems (Wang ‘934, para 1).
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak ‘954, in view of Henttonen ‘406, further in view of Ren ‘424 (US 2023/0266424, “Ren ‘424”), and further in view of Yukawa ‘507 (US 2022/0408507, “Yukawa ‘507”).
Regarding claim 6, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Kwak ‘954 teaches wherein: the scheduling information comprises uplink scheduling information (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; scheduling grant information indicates transmission timing for the UE; thus, scheduling grant information includes uplink scheduling information); and
determining, based on the first information, the scheduling information supported by the terminal device comprises:
determining the uplink scheduling information (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; scheduling grant information indicates transmission timing for the UE; thus, scheduling grant information is determined, and includes uplink scheduling information)
wherein the uplink scheduling information (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; scheduling grant information indicates transmission timing for the UE; thus, scheduling grant information includes uplink scheduling information)
that can be transmitted in an uplink (FIGS. 7-8, col. 9:6-58; scheduling grant information indicates transmission timing for the UE; thus, UE transmits in an uplink).
Furthermore, Henttonen ‘406 teaches determining a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (para 43; UE sends UE capabilities to the BS, where the UE capabilities include supported MCS); and
determining information according to the first MCS (para 43; UE sends UE capabilities to the BS, where the UE capabilities include supported MCS),
wherein the scheduling information comprises a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit (para 33 and 44; UE sends UE category and UE capabilities to a base station (BS), where the UE category and capabilities indicate a maximum number of bits per transmission time interval (TTI); examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954 and Henttonen ‘406, to further include Henttonen ‘406’s UE capabilities that include supported MCS. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reliability for data transmission, improved handover procedures, reduced handover interruption time, fewer dropped connections (Henttonen ‘406, para 42).
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 does not specifically disclose determining a first received signal strength based on the first information, wherein the first received signal strength is a received signal strength of the network device for information from the terminal device.
Ren ‘424 teaches determining a first received signal strength based on the first information, wherein the first received signal strength is a received signal strength of the network device for information from the terminal device (para 33; the base station sends to a UE a measurement report, where the measurement report indicates the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the uplink signal; thus, the base station determines the received signal strength based on RSSI information, where the RSSI is the RSSI of the uplink signal, and the uplink signal carries information from the UE to the base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954 and Henttonen ‘406, to include Ren ‘424’s uplink signal RSSI report. The motivation for doing so would have been for a UE to improve its resource utilization in the wireless communication system, while also satisfying performance specifications of individual applications of the UE (Ren ‘424, para 45).
Although Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Ren ‘424 discloses determining a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS), Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Ren ‘424 does not specifically disclose determining a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on the first received signal strength.
Yukawa ‘507 teaches determining a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on the first received signal strength (para 67; MCS is set based on the RSSI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954, Henttonen ‘406, and Ren ‘424, to include Yukawa ‘507’s MCS that is set based on the RSSI. The motivation for doing so would have been to address throughput decreases in distributed MIMO communication (Yukawa ‘507, para 4 and 6).
8. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak ‘954, in view of Henttonen ‘406, and further in view of Roh ‘806 (US 2017/0111806, “Roh ‘806”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 does not specifically disclose wherein: the first information further comprises receive antenna gain information or received noise information of the terminal device; or the first information further comprises second capability level information, wherein the second capability level information indicates a capability level to which a receiving capability of the terminal device belongs.
Roh ‘806 teaches wherein:
the first information further comprises receive antenna gain information (para 28 and 227; reference signal (RS) includes RX antenna gain information; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art) or received noise information of the terminal device; or
the first information further comprises second capability level information, wherein the second capability level information indicates a capability level to which a receiving capability of the terminal device belongs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954 and Henttonen ‘406, to include Roh ‘806’s reference signal (RS) that includes RX antenna gain information. The motivation for doing so would have been to address large network latency (Roh ‘806, para 23).
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak ‘954, in view of Henttonen ‘406, further in view of Roh ‘806, further in view of Zhou ‘395 (US 10,750,395, “Zhou ‘395”), and further in view of Yukawa ‘507.
Regarding claim 8, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 7, as outlined above.
Further, Henttonen ‘406 teaches determining information according to the first MCS (para 43; UE sends UE capabilities to the BS, where the UE capabilities include supported MCS),
wherein the scheduling information comprises at least one of a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit (para 33 and 44; UE sends UE category and UE capabilities to a base station (BS), where the UE category and capabilities indicate a maximum number of bits per transmission time interval (TTI); examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954, Henttonen ‘406, and Roh ‘806, to further include Henttonen ‘406’s UE capabilities that include supported MCS. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide reliability for data transmission, improved handover procedures, reduced handover interruption time, fewer dropped connections (Henttonen ‘406, para 42).
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 does not specifically disclose wherein: the scheduling information comprises downlink scheduling; and determining, based on the first information, the scheduling information supported by the terminal device comprises: determining a second received signal strength based on the first information, wherein the second received signal strength is a received signal strength of the terminal device for information from the network device. Further, although Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 discloses determining information according to the first MCS, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 does not specifically disclose determining the downlink scheduling information. Furthermore, although Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 discloses wherein the scheduling information comprises, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 does not specifically disclose wherein the downlink scheduling. Moreover, although Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 discloses at least one of a maximum quantity of data blocks or a maximum quantity of bits that can be transmitted in a single time domain unit, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 and Roh ‘806 does not specifically disclose that can be transmitted in a downlink.
Zhou ‘395 teaches wherein: the scheduling information comprises downlink scheduling information (col. 33:30-34; DL scheduling information); and
determining, based on the first information, the scheduling information supported by the terminal device comprises:
determining a second received signal strength based on the first information, wherein the second received signal strength is a received signal strength of the terminal device for information from the network device (claim 1; DL received signal strength information is obtained after a request to measure the DL received signal strength information is output, and the DL received signal strength is strength of the downlink signal a terminal receives from a network device);
determining the downlink scheduling information (col. 33:30-34; DL scheduling information),
wherein the downlink scheduling information (col. 33:30-34; DL scheduling information)
that can be transmitted in a downlink (col. 36:20; data transmission in DL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954, Henttonen ‘406, and Roh ‘806, to include Zhou ‘395’s DL scheduling information. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide effective techniques for sharing a communication resource (Zhou ‘395, col. 1:47-55).
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406, Roh ‘806, and Zhou ‘395 does not specifically disclose determining a second MCS based on the second received signal strength.
Yukawa ‘507 teaches determining a second MCS based on the second received signal strength (para 67; MCS is set based on the RSSI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954, Henttonen ‘406, Roh ‘806, and Zhou ‘395, to include Yukawa ‘507’s MCS that is set based on the RSSI. The motivation for doing so would have been to address throughput decreases in distributed MIMO communication (Yukawa ‘507, para 4 and 6).
10. Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak ‘954, in view of Henttonen ‘406, and further in view of Guo ‘210 (US 2024/0306210, “Guo ‘210”).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 9 and 17, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Kwak ‘954 in combination with Henttonen ‘406 does not specifically disclose wherein the first information is a random access preamble.
Guo ‘210 teaches wherein the first information is a random access preamble (FIG. 3, para 30; random access preamble information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined method of Kwak ‘954 and Henttonen ‘406, to include Guo ‘210’s random access preamble information. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve service quality of a deployed terminal (Guo ‘210, para 24).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
