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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by XU (US 20240172084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, XU teaches a method of splitting data for multi-path transmissions, comprising:
receiving, by a first wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, quality of service (QoS) information for a first path (¶[0041], ¶[0086]; ¶[0310] S620 and FIG. 8j;core network element sends fourth information indicating a QoS parameter of the first QoS flow is not fulfilled; ¶[0357]; SMF notifies UE #1 that a rate, latency, or reliability corresponding to the first data flow is not fulfilled, while the flow is carried on the PDU session, i.e., the direct path; ¶[0359]–[0362]; the notified values are the actual per-path values — rate m2 vs. profile m1, reliability p2 vs. p1, latency q2 vs. q1); and
determining, by the first wireless communication device, to split the data transmission via the first path or a second path (¶[0051], ¶[0350]–[0352] ,Manner 3; ¶[0041]; ¶[0311]; fourth information "is used as a condition for triggering to use the multi-path transmission mode"; ¶[0357]; multi-path mode includes the layer-3 relay indirect path and the direct path corresponding to the PDU session; split form at ¶[0007], ¶[0031], ¶[0045], ¶[0213], ¶[0228], ¶[0300]).
Regarding claim 4, XU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the QoS information further comprises at least one of an aggregate maximum bit rate (AMBR), a guaranteed flow bit rate (GFBR), or a maximum flow bit rate (MFBR) for communications on the first path or second path (¶[0300]: "if a requirement on a guaranteed flow bit rate in the QoS parameter of the first QoS flow is high, or a guaranteed flow bit rate in the fourth information received by the core network element is not fulfilled, the specific form of the multi-path transmission mode may be split transmission."; ¶[0228]: "if a guaranteed flow bit rate (GFBR) in the QoS parameter is not fulfilled, a specific form of the multi-path transmission mode may be split transmission ... An actual flow bit rate in transmission of the first QoS flow ... is less than the guaranteed flow bit rate that is in the QoS parameter."; "For communications on the first path or second path": ¶[0357], ¶[0360]; rate value in actual transmission on the path in use).
Regarding claim 7, XU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first path is between the first wireless communication device and the wireless communication node, and wherein the second path is between the first wireless communication device and the wireless communication node via a second wireless communication device (¶[0372]: "The second path set may include a direct network communication path on which the terminal device accesses a network and an indirect network communication path on which the terminal device accesses the network through a relay terminal device."; ¶[0381]–[0382]: direct path is between the terminal device and the network device; indirect path is between them and passes through a relay terminal device; "When the network device is the access network device, the second path set includes a direct network communication path between the access network device and the terminal device and M indirect network communication paths that are between the access network device and the terminal device and that pass through M relay terminal devices."; also ¶[0006], ¶[0149]–[0150], ¶[0188], FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 14, XU teaches a method of splitting data for multi-path transmissions, comprising:
sending, by a wireless communication node to a first wireless communication device, quality of service (QoS) information for a first path (¶[0041], ¶[0086]; ¶[0310] S620 and FIG. 8j;core network element sends fourth information indicating a QoS parameter of the first QoS flow is not fulfilled; ¶[0357]; SMF notifies UE #1 that a rate, latency, or reliability corresponding to the first data flow is not fulfilled, while the flow is carried on the PDU session, i.e., the direct path; ¶[0359]–[0362]; the notified values are the actual per-path values — rate m2 vs. profile m1, reliability p2 vs. p1, latency q2 vs. q1); and
causing the first wireless communication device to determine to split the data transmission via the first path or a second path (¶[0051], ¶[0350]–[0352] ,Manner 3; ¶[0041]; ¶[0311]; fourth information "is used as a condition for triggering to use the multi-path transmission mode"; ¶[0357]; multi-path mode includes the layer-3 relay indirect path and the direct path corresponding to the PDU session; split form at ¶[0007], ¶[0031], ¶[0045], ¶[0213], ¶[0228], ¶[0300]).
Regarding claim 15, XU teaches a wireless communication node, comprising:
at least one processor (¶[0073], ¶[0094]–[0096], ¶[0433]–[0434], ¶[0466]–[0476], FIG. 12) configured to:
send, via a transmitter to a first wireless communication device, quality of service (QoS) information for a first path (¶[0041], ¶[0086]; ¶[0310] S620 and FIG. 8j;core network element sends fourth information indicating a QoS parameter of the first QoS flow is not fulfilled; ¶[0357]; SMF notifies UE #1 that a rate, latency, or reliability corresponding to the first data flow is not fulfilled, while the flow is carried on the PDU session, i.e., the direct path; ¶[0359]–[0362]; the notified values are the actual per-path values — rate m2 vs. profile m1, reliability p2 vs. p1, latency q2 vs. q1); and
cause the first wireless communication device to determine to split the data transmission via the first path or a second path (¶[0051], ¶[0350]–[0352] ,Manner 3; ¶[0041]; ¶[0311]; fourth information "is used as a condition for triggering to use the multi-path transmission mode"; ¶[0357]; multi-path mode includes the layer-3 relay indirect path and the direct path corresponding to the PDU session; split form at ¶[0007], ¶[0031], ¶[0045], ¶[0213], ¶[0228], ¶[0300]).
Regarding claim 16, XU teaches a first wireless communication device, comprising:
at least one processor (¶[0086], ¶[0100]–[0104], ¶[0447], ¶[0450], ¶[0452], ¶[0477]–[0483], FIG. 13) configured to:
receive, via a receiver from a wireless communication node, quality of service (QoS) information for a first path (¶[0041], ¶[0086]; ¶[0310] S620 and FIG. 8j;core network element sends fourth information indicating a QoS parameter of the first QoS flow is not fulfilled; ¶[0357]; SMF notifies UE #1 that a rate, latency, or reliability corresponding to the first data flow is not fulfilled, while the flow is carried on the PDU session, i.e., the direct path; ¶[0359]–[0362]; the notified values are the actual per-path values — rate m2 vs. profile m1, reliability p2 vs. p1, latency q2 vs. q1); and
determine to split the data transmission via the first path or a second path (¶[0051], ¶[0350]–[0352] ,Manner 3; ¶[0041]; ¶[0311]; fourth information "is used as a condition for triggering to use the multi-path transmission mode"; ¶[0357]; multi-path mode includes the layer-3 relay indirect path and the direct path corresponding to the PDU session; split form at ¶[0007], ¶[0031], ¶[0045], ¶[0213], ¶[0228], ¶[0300]).
Regarding claim 19, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU as applied to claims 1, 4 and 16 above, and further in view of SRINIVASAN (US 20230127924 A1)
Regarding claim 2, XU teaches the method of claim 1.
XU is silent to teaching that further comprising receiving, by the first wireless communication device from a second wireless communication device, QoS information for the second path.
In the same field of endeavor, SRINIVASAN teaches a method comprising receiving, by the first wireless communication device from a second wireless communication device, QoS information for the second path (The relay UE uses QoS assistance information (QoS_AI) comprising tolerances for QoS parameters, obtained from a QoS manager ¶[0193]; the QoS manager may be located at the remote UE ¶[0194], [0236], [0351]; Fig. 14(b) shows manager 450 at remote UE 402. The QoS_AI is not limited to the receiving hop — tolerances are determined "using measurements of QoS parameters … on one or more or all of the links between the remote UE and the destination" ¶[0195], [0235], and a tolerance from one link "can be passed on to the other links" ¶[0371]. Hop-by-hop QoS_AI signaled to the relay UEs: ¶[0352], [0373]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-path transmission method of XU to incorporate the QoS assistance information, per-link QoS status reporting, and remote-terminal buffer status reporting of SRINIVASAN. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to obtain XU's stated objective — improved reliability and data rate for a terminal device served over multiple paths (XU ¶[0005], [0007], [0031], [0045]) — by giving XU's access network device the per-link QoS and buffer information on which its own path-determination, path-quantity, and split/duplication decisions depend (XU ¶[0007], [0194], [0201]–[0202], [0228], [0247]). The combination is nothing more than the use of a known technique (SRINIVASAN's per-link QoS tolerance signaling and relay-side status reporting) to improve a comparable method (XU's direct-plus-indirect multi-path transmission) in the same way it improves relayed transmissions in SRINIVASAN, yielding the predictable result of multi-path relay transmission whose per-path QoS is monitored, reported, and budgeted. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(A), (C), and (D).
Regarding claim 3, XU teaches the method of claim 1.
XU is silent to teaching that wherein receiving the QoS information further comprises receiving the QoS information for a second path from the wireless communication node.
In the same field of endeavor, SRINIVASAN teaches a method wherein receiving the QoS information further comprises receiving the QoS information for a second path from the wireless communication node (In UE-to-network relaying, "the QoS_AI for the overall link between the remote UE and the destination may be calculated at the network and then signaled to the one or more relay UEs along the connection"; ¶[0374]; Fig. 8/10 element 422 shows QoS_AI delivered to relay UE 400 from the CN (SMF) ¶[0317], [0337]; anchor relay receives QoS_AI from the network and distributes it among the relay UEs ¶[0375], claims 27–28. Signaling is by RRC (RRCReconfiguration / RRCSetup); ¶[0255], "Overall link"/multi-hop coverage = QoS information for a path other than the receiving hop ¶[0195], [0352], Fig. 15; QoS_AI_1 … QoS_AI_n).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-path transmission method of XU to incorporate the QoS assistance information, per-link QoS status reporting, and remote-terminal buffer status reporting of SRINIVASAN. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to obtain XU's stated objective — improved reliability and data rate for a terminal device served over multiple paths (XU ¶[0005], [0007], [0031], [0045]) — by giving XU's access network device the per-link QoS and buffer information on which its own path-determination, path-quantity, and split/duplication decisions depend (XU ¶[0007], [0194], [0201]–[0202], [0228], [0247]). The combination is nothing more than the use of a known technique (SRINIVASAN's per-link QoS tolerance signaling and relay-side status reporting) to improve a comparable method (XU's direct-plus-indirect multi-path transmission) in the same way it improves relayed transmissions in SRINIVASAN, yielding the predictable result of multi-path relay transmission whose per-path QoS is monitored, reported, and budgeted. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(A), (C), and (D).
Regarding claim 5, XU teaches the method of claim 4.
XU is silent to teaching that wherein the AMBR further comprises at least one of an AMBR for UL protocol data unit (PDU) session or an UL AMBR for the first wireless communication device for communications on the first path or second path.
In the same field of endeavor, SRINIVASAN teaches a method wherein the AMBR further comprises at least one of an AMBR for UL protocol data unit (PDU) session or an UL AMBR for the first wireless communication device for communications on the first path or second path (SRINIVASAN discloses "Aggregated Maximum Bit Rate, AMBR, per UE and/or session" ¶[0097] and AMBR tolerances "per remote UE or session" ¶[0244], [0359], claim 42. PDU sessions are the sessions at issue ¶[0090]–[0091], [0192]. The uplink scenario is expressly disclosed (Fig. 5(b), UL transmission from remote UEs to the network over the cumulative link, ¶[0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-path transmission method of XU to incorporate the QoS assistance information, per-link QoS status reporting, and remote-terminal buffer status reporting of SRINIVASAN. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to obtain XU's stated objective — improved reliability and data rate for a terminal device served over multiple paths (XU ¶[0005], [0007], [0031], [0045]) — by giving XU's access network device the per-link QoS and buffer information on which its own path-determination, path-quantity, and split/duplication decisions depend (XU ¶[0007], [0194], [0201]–[0202], [0228], [0247]). The combination is nothing more than the use of a known technique (SRINIVASAN's per-link QoS tolerance signaling and relay-side status reporting) to improve a comparable method (XU's direct-plus-indirect multi-path transmission) in the same way it improves relayed transmissions in SRINIVASAN, yielding the predictable result of multi-path relay transmission whose per-path QoS is monitored, reported, and budgeted. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(A), (C), and (D).
Regarding claim 6, XU teaches the method of claim 1.
XU is silent to teaching that wherein the QoS information further comprises an aggregate maximum bit rate (AMBR) for at least one of the first wireless communication device, the second wireless communication device, or a bearer.
In the same field of endeavor, SRINIVASAN teaches a method wherein the QoS information further comprises an aggregate maximum bit rate (AMBR) for at least one of the first wireless communication device, the second wireless communication device, or a bearer (AMBR per UE and/or session ¶[0097]; QoS_AI tolerances include "an Aggregated Maximum Bit Rate, AMBR, per remote UE or session" ¶[0244], [0359], [0368], claim 42 → AMBR for the second WCD (remote UE), satisfying the "at least one of." Per-remote-UE granularity of the parameters is confirmed at ¶[0203], [0251] (remote-UE-specific tolerances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-path transmission method of XU to incorporate the QoS assistance information, per-link QoS status reporting, and remote-terminal buffer status reporting of SRINIVASAN. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to obtain XU's stated objective — improved reliability and data rate for a terminal device served over multiple paths (XU ¶[0005], [0007], [0031], [0045]) — by giving XU's access network device the per-link QoS and buffer information on which its own path-determination, path-quantity, and split/duplication decisions depend (XU ¶[0007], [0194], [0201]–[0202], [0228], [0247]). The combination is nothing more than the use of a known technique (SRINIVASAN's per-link QoS tolerance signaling and relay-side status reporting) to improve a comparable method (XU's direct-plus-indirect multi-path transmission) in the same way it improves relayed transmissions in SRINIVASAN, yielding the predictable result of multi-path relay transmission whose per-path QoS is monitored, reported, and budgeted. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(A), (C), and (D).
Regarding claim 8, XU teaches the method of claim 1.
XU is silent to teaching that comprising receiving, by the first wireless communication device from a second wireless communication device, link status information for a first path.
In the same field of endeavor, SRINIVASAN teaches a method comprising: receiving, by the first wireless communication device from a second wireless communication device, link status information for a first path ("the UE receives a BSR report from the one or more remote UEs" ¶[0187], claim 21; and "a BSR report is received from one or more remote UEs, wherein based on the BSR report received from the remote UE, the relay entity determines that it cannot support this size of data requested" ¶[0393], with the worked example at ¶[0389] (remote UE reports 10 packets against the relay's 8-packet capacity). Because claim 13 defines available buffer size of the second WCD as species of "link status information," the BSR from the remote UE reads on the genus. Additional support: the relay/QoS manager uses "certain link information, like a hop count, a link measurement, a UE location" ¶[0372]; "overall link information may be provided to a QoS manager" ¶[0352]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-path transmission method of XU to incorporate the QoS assistance information, per-link QoS status reporting, and remote-terminal buffer status reporting of SRINIVASAN. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination in order to obtain XU's stated objective — improved reliability and data rate for a terminal device served over multiple paths (XU ¶[0005], [0007], [0031], [0045]) — by giving XU's access network device the per-link QoS and buffer information on which its own path-determination, path-quantity, and split/duplication decisions depend (XU ¶[0007], [0194], [0201]–[0202], [0228], [0247]). The combination is nothing more than the use of a known technique (SRINIVASAN's per-link QoS tolerance signaling and relay-side status reporting) to improve a comparable method (XU's direct-plus-indirect multi-path transmission) in the same way it improves relayed transmissions in SRINIVASAN, yielding the predictable result of multi-path relay transmission whose per-path QoS is monitored, reported, and budgeted. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(A), (C), and (D).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of XU and SRINIVASAN teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising sending, by the first wireless communication device to the wireless communication node, the link status information for the first path (SRINIVASAN teaches the relay UE determines the status of the sidelink and "send[s] the status of the sidelink towards a network entity, like a base station" ¶[0117], [0299], [0412]; Fig. 7(a) blocks 410/412 and Fig. 7(b) status 414 to gNB 413 ¶[0301]. The status may be a QoS Measurement Report (QoS_MR) carrying the measurement result of QoS parameters on the sidelink ¶[0131], [0314], [0332]; Fig. 10, QoS_MR 442 transmitted to RAN 404a ¶[0337]. Signaled by RRC or MAC CE ¶[0128], [0320], [0346]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of XU and SRINIVASAN teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the link status information further comprises a data rate over the first path for a Uu link or inter-UE link (SRINIVASAN teaches the measured/reported QoS parameters include GFBR and MFBR ¶[0092]–[0093], [0239]–[0240]; "the relay UE 400 may measure one or more QoS parameters associated with the predefined or negotiated QoS for the sidelink 406 between the remote UE 402 and the relay UE 400 … one or more of the above mentioned rates may be measured … the UE may provide the measurement results in the QoS_MR" ¶[0316]. The sidelink is the PC5/inter-UE link ¶[0122], claim 3. Uu-link condition reporting is also contemplated: "information about the Uu interface condition, if needed, may be send using the QNC notification" ¶[0105]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of XU and SRINIVASAN teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the data rate is for at least one of the first wireless communicate device, the second wireless communication device, or a bearer (SRINIVASAN teaches Per-remote-UE (i.e., second WCD) reporting: Figs. 13(a)/13(c) show measurement/failure reports keyed to destination ID₁…ID_n ¶[0347], and "the MAC CE indicates which remote UE tolerances cannot be met" ¶[0347]; "the QoS_FR indicates which of the sidelinks connecting the remote UEs to the UE do not fulfil … the predefined or negotiated QoS" ¶[0133], claim 9. Per-flow/aggregated reporting (Fig. 13(b), aggregated flow ID) additionally reads on a bearer-level rate under BRI ¶[0347], [0205]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of XU and SRINIVASAN teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the link status information further comprises available buffer size of the second wireless communication device (SRINIVASAN teaches BSR report received from the remote UE ¶[0187], [0393], claim 21 — a BSR conveys the buffer size/amount of data available at the reporting UE, and ¶[0389] quantifies it (relay's 8-packet capacity vs. the remote UE's reported 10 packets). Independently, the QoS_AI parameter list includes "a queuing load or capacity or capability per remote UE or session" ¶[0245], [0360], claim 42, and the early-BSR criteria include "a queuing capability or capacity of the UE for data to be received or to be sent" ¶[0185], claim 21).
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 20, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2, 3 and 5, respectively.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU and SRINIVASAN as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mattam (US 20200275314 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of XU and SRINIVASAN teaches the method of claim 8.
The combination of XU and SRINIVASAN is silent to teaching that wherein the link status information further comprises a spectrum efficiency of the first path for a Uu link or inter-UE link.
In the same field of endeavor, Mattam teaches a method wherein the link status information further comprises a spectrum efficiency of the first path for a Uu link or inter-UE link (Mattam discloses, ¶[0049], "The network parameters include at least one of spectrum efficiency (SE), UL block error rate (BER), BO statistics, amount of data arrival, latency, PDCP PDU data type, number of uplink grants allocated, scheduling rate and subcarrier spacing (SCS)"); ¶[0037]–[0038] and FIG. 3 (step 311) compute the split ratio X = fn(num of RBs, spectral efficiency) for primary ÷ fn(num of RBs, spectral efficiency) for secondary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-path transmission method of XU, in which a terminal device transmits a first data flow through a direct network communication path and an indirect network communication path (XU ¶[0044], ¶[0372], FIG. 9 step S720), to evaluate the spectrum efficiency of each such path — including the direct, i.e. Uu, path — and to apportion the data flow between the paths on that basis, as taught by Mattam (¶[0031], ¶[0037]–[0038], ¶[0049], FIG. 3 step 311). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the transmission rate of the split data flow and to avoid pushing data onto the weaker leg, which is the express purpose XU itself identifies for splitting a flow across multiple paths (XU ¶[0007], ¶[0031], ¶[0045]) and the express benefit Mattam attributes to its spectral-efficiency-based split (Mattam ¶[0053]–[0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240064603 A1; US 20260040379 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights