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 .
Priority
Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. MPEP 211.05.
The following features are considered newly added via continuation-in-part and are given the effective filing date of February 11, 2025:
wherein the initial target position is estimated by:
computing position lines of potential target positions reachable from a target position based on a target velocity vector for at least three CSI Doppler frequency measurements based on a sequence of CSIcm,n;
computing position intersections of the position lines; and
modifying the target position to minimize differences of the position intersections.
wherein the target position is modified to a least sum of squares solution for the position intersections.
wherein the Viterbi algorithm determines points on the position line using a branch metric
PNG
media_image1.png
36
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for each receiver wherein x.sub.next and y.sub.next are coordinates of a next point on the position line and x.sub.near and y.sub.near are coordinates of a near point to the next point.
The following features were considered newly added via continuation-in-part to application 18212344 and are given the effective filing date of June 21, 2023.
receiving a combined signal comprising a target signal reflected by a target and a transmitter signal not reflected by the target, wherein the transmitter signal is comprised of a plurality of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) subcarrier signals;
calculating a signal Fourier transform for the combined signal to obtain the complex symbols z.sub.m [n], where where n is the pilot subcarrier index, m is an OFDM symbol index;
estimating a sequence of channel state information (CSI) cm,n for pilot indices of the pilot subcarrier index for the OFDM subcarrier signals of the combined signal as
PNG
media_image2.png
55
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
estimating CSI over for non-pilot OFDM subcarriers of the combined signal to obtain CSI for a sequence of M OFDM symbols;
computing a CSI Fourier transform for the sequence of CSI for a plurality of OFDM subcarriers;
estimating a mean Fourier transform by averaging the CSI Fourier transform of the CSI over at least one OFDM subcarriers;
estimating a CSI Doppler frequency by matching a Fourier transform template to the CSI Fourier transform; and
computing each of a target position and a target velocity vector for the target within a field of interest from the CSI Doppler frequency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-12, 15-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12474463 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by or would have been obvious over the reference claims as discussed below.
Instant claims 1, 12, 20 are anticipated by reference claims 1 and 8.
Instant claims 5, 11, 16 are anticipated by reference claim 1.
Instant claims 6, 17 are anticipated by reference claim 2.
Instant claims 7, 18 are anticipated by reference claim 1.
Instant claims 8, 19 are anticipated by reference claim 1.
Instant claims 9 is anticipated by reference claim 3.
Instant claims 10 is anticipated by reference claim 7.
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, 12, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard.
Regarding claim 1,
US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard teaches:
A method comprising:
detecting, by use of a processor, that a target is present; ([0004] – “Conventional methods of tracking TBMs employ a network of distributed radar sensors to detect and track TBMs.)
estimating an initial target position; ([0004] – “Conventional methods of tracking TBMs employ a network of distributed radar sensors to detect and track TBMs. The radar sensors provide positional information in terms of range (distance from the object to the sensor), and angular data (azimuth and elevation), and Doppler velocity information on detected TBMs). and
tracking the target position from channel state information (CSI) Doppler frequency measurements using at least one of an extended Kalman filter, a Viterbi algorithm, and a particle filter. ([0004] – “In order to estimate the "target state", expressed in estimates of position, velocity, and in some cases acceleration of the object to be tracked, as well as the corresponding accuracy, conventional filtering techniques such as extended Kalman filtering, IMM filtering, batch filtering etc are used. These filtering techniques use full measurement vectors containing range, angular and Doppler information.”)
Regarding claim 4,
US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
wherein the Viterbi algorithm determines points on the position line using a branch metric
PNG
media_image1.png
36
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for each receiver wherein x.sub.next and y.sub.next are coordinates of a next point on the position line and x.sub.near and y.sub.near are coordinates of a near point to the next point. (In regard to claim 4, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., " at least one of an extended Kalman filter, a Viterbi algorithm, and a particle filter." If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, De Waard teaches extended Kalman filtering as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 4 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., the Viterbi algorithm.
Regarding claim(s) 12, 20,
Claim(s) 12, 20 is/are apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium claims corresponding to claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 12, 20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim(s) 15,
Claim(s) 15 is/are apparatus claims corresponding to claim(s) 4, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 15 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 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, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard in view of US 20170350956 A1 to Karlov.
Regarding claim 2,
US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
De Waard does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, US 20170350956 A1 to Karlov teaches:
wherein the initial target position is estimated by:
computing position lines of potential target positions reachable from a target position based on a target velocity vector for at least three CSI Doppler frequency measurements based on a sequence of CSIcm,n; ([0053] – “As shown in block 502 of FIG. 5B, the measurement data (both angular positions and angular rates) is generated for the multiple targets in two or more focal planes, located at different sensors/observers (Obs 1 and Obs 2). The LOS and the rates of LOS motion are calculated for multiple target for each sensor, in block 504.”)
computing position intersections of the position lines; (Figs. 5; [0054] – “In block 506 for each target, the two or more associated LOSs are intersected”) and
modifying the target position to minimize differences of the position intersections. (Figs. 5; [0054] – “In block 506 for each target, the two or more associated LOSs are intersected utilizing the generalized dynamic closest approach (e.g., a generalized dynamic triangulation as shown in FIG. 5A both for the target-LOS and boresight-LOS), so that the intersection point P.sub.min has the minimum sum of distances (d.sub.1 and d.sub.2) to each LOS. The closest intersection points for each target are the triangulated estimates of the targets positions and velocities in the three dimensional coordinate system.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Karlov’s known technique to De Waard’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) De Waard teaches a base method of target tracking; (2) Karlov teaches a specific technique of triangulation for target tracking; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved accuracy; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3,
De Waard in view of Karlov teaches:
The method of claim 2, (see rejection of claim above)
Karlov further teaches:
wherein the target position is modified to a least sum of squares solution for the position intersections. (Figs. 5; [0054] – “In block 506 for each target, the two or more associated LOSs are intersected utilizing the generalized dynamic closest approach (e.g., a generalized dynamic triangulation as shown in FIG. 5A both for the target-LOS and boresight-LOS), so that the intersection point P.sub.min has the minimum sum of distances (d.sub.1 and d.sub.2) to each LOS. The closest intersection points for each target are the triangulated estimates of the targets positions and velocities in the three dimensional coordinate system.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Karlov’s known technique to De Waard’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) De Waard teaches a base method of target tracking; (2) Karlov teaches a specific technique of triangulation for target tracking; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved accuracy; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 13-14,
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are apparatus claims corresponding to claim(s) 2-3, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 13-14 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 2-3.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard in view of US 20170350956 A1 to Karlov and further in view of US 20240192311 A1 to Sakhnini in view of US 20060115011 A1 to Tsuruta and further in view of US 20240142623 A1 to Russo.
Regarding claim 5,
US 20100013697 A1 to De Waard teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
De Waard does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Sakhnini teaches:
the method further tracking the target position by:
receiving a combined signal (Fig. 1, Fig. 7; [0055-59] – “The RX-AP 109 may simultaneously receive the communication pilot signal 102, the radar pilot signal 104, and the multipath component 106,” [0102]) comprising a target signal reflected by a target (Fig. 1; [0054-55] – “the IO 105 may cause the multipath component 106 of the radar pilot signal 104. The RX-AP 109 may receive… the multipath component 106”) and a transmitter signal not reflected by the target, (Fig. 1; [0054-55] – “The RX-AP 109 may receive the communication pilot signal 102, the radar pilot signal 104”) wherein the transmitter signal is comprised of a plurality of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) subcarrier signals; ([0065] – “the UE 101 and the TX-AP 103 may use OFDM waveforms. FIG. 2 shows the time-frequency distribution of the subcarriers over several OFDM symbols. Each square may correspond to a subcarrier or a resource element of the OFDM system 200.”)
calculating a signal Fourier transform for the combined signal to obtain the complex symbols z.sub.m.[n], where where n is the pilot subcarrier index, m is an OFDM symbol index; ([0066-68] – “For example, the block 201 in the channel estimation block may correspond to 3 subcarriers and 4 symbols, i.e., 12 resource elements or 12 orthogonal pilot sequences. In this regard, a pilot sequence may be a sequence of complex numbers representing a code that may be spread in time or frequency, which may be used to aid channel estimation.”)
estimating a sequence of channel state information (CSI) cm,n for pilot indices of the pilot subcarrier index for the OFDM subcarrier signals of the combined signal as
PNG
media_image2.png
55
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3; [0073] – “de-spreading pilot sequences. FIG. 3 shows the channel estimation for three channel estimation blocks 301, 302, 303, which may correspond to the channel estimation block of FIG. 2 such as the block 201. The channel estimation scheme 300 may comprise elementwise multiplication of the channel estimation blocks 301, 302, 303 with a conjugate code 304 and a further summation, which may result in the channel estimates 305.”)
estimating CSI over for non-pilot OFDM subcarriers of the combined signal to obtain CSI for a sequence of M OFDM symbols; (Figs. 3-4; [0079] – “L channel estimates, such as the set 401, each comprising K channel coefficients estimated from K channel estimation blocks.”)
computing a CSI Fourier transform for the sequence of CSI for a plurality of OFDM subcarriers; (Fig. 4; [0080] – “RX-AP 109 may perform a fast Fourier transform (FFT) across the channel estimates, which may also be referred to as the range FFT since it generates a set of range profiles. Afterwards, the RX-AP 109 may perform a FFT across the L TDD frames, thereby generating a set of Doppler profiles. The combined image may result in a range-Doppler map 402, which may comprise K range bins and L Doppler bins.”)
estimating a CSI Doppler frequency by (Fig. 4; [0080] – “RX-AP 109 may perform a fast Fourier transform (FFT) across the channel estimates, which may also be referred to as the range FFT since it generates a set of range profiles. Afterwards, the RX-AP 109 may perform a FFT across the L TDD frames, thereby generating a set of Doppler profiles. The combined image may result in a range-Doppler map 402, which may comprise K range bins and L Doppler bins.”) and
computing each of a target position and a target velocity vector for the target within a field of interest from the CSI Doppler frequency. ([0080] – “combined image may result in a range-Doppler map 402, which may comprise K range bins and L Doppler bins.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sakhnini known technique to De Waard’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) De Waard teaches a base method of target tracking; (2) Sakhnini teaches a specific technique of target tracking; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved accuracy; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Tsuruta teaches:
estimating a mean Fourier transform by combining the CSI Fourier transform of the CSI over at least one OFDM subcarriers; (Fig. 2A; [0049] – “In an example of the Doppler center frequency estimator shown in FIG. 2, the Doppler components extracted from subcarriers of the pilot signal with the FFT units 211-21n are averaged between subcarriers with an averaging unit 221,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Tsuruta’s known technique to De Waard in view of Sakhnini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) De Waard in view of Sakhnini teaches a base method of Doppler estimation using FFT over a plurality of subcarriers; (2) Tsuruta teaches a specific averaging method of estimating Doppler using FFT over a plurality of subcarriers ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Russo teaches:
estimating a Doppler frequency by matching a Fourier transform template to the Fourier transform; (Fig. 12; [0111] – “A first Fourier transform 1206A of the backscattered signal 1202 can be performed, the results of which can be sent to a first matched filter 1208A that is applied in the frequency domain. The first matched filter 1208A can be generated based at least in part on a second Fourier transform 1206B of the template waveform 1204. The output of the first matched filter 1208A can be used to estimate the Doppler frequency shift 1210 of the backscattered signal 1202.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Russo’s known technique to De Waard in view of Sakhnini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) De Waard in view of Sakhnini teaches a base method of Doppler estimation using FFT over a plurality of subcarriers; (2) Russo teaches the use of matched filter Fourier templates for Doppler estimation; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11,
De Waard in view of Karlov and further in view of Sakhnini in view of Tsuruta and further in view of Russo teaches:
The method of claim 5, (see rejection of claim above)
Tsuruta further teaches:
estimating a mean Fourier transform by averaging the CSI Fourier transform of the CSI over at least one OFDM subcarriers; (Fig. 2A; [0049] – “In an example of the Doppler center frequency estimator shown in FIG. 2, the Doppler components extracted from subcarriers of the pilot signal with the FFT units 211-21n are averaged between subcarriers with an averaging unit 221,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Tsuruta’s known technique to De Waard in view of Sakhnini’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) De Waard in view of Sakhnini teaches a base method of Doppler estimation using FFT over a plurality of subcarriers; (2) Tsuruta teaches a specific averaging method of estimating Doppler using FFT over a plurality of subcarriers ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 16,
Claim(s) 16 is/are apparatus claims corresponding to claim(s) 11, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s)16 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 17-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if double patent rejections are overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record (US 20240192311 A1 to Sahkhnini; US 20060115011 A1 to Tsuruta; US 20240142623 A1 to Russo neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 1-20. See analysis regarding claims 6-7, 9-10 below. Claim(s) 17-18 recite similar limitation(s) to claims 6-7 respectively, and is/are allowed for similar reasons. Dependent claims 8, 19 indicated allowable at least as depending from indicated allowable claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
PNG
media_image3.png
435
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
145
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
wherein the central lobe template is matched to a central lobe of the CSI Fourier transform indicating stationary components, and wherein a side lobe template is matched to side lobes of the Fourier transform indicative of Doppler frequency components
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
The method of claim 1, wherein the CSI Doppler frequency is calculated using a complex ambiguity function.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
PNG
media_image5.png
143
661
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
