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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments focus on Vamanan (US 2017/0215065 A1) while the rejection is a 35 U.S.C. 103 obvious-type rejection of Wang (US 2018/0160298 A1) in view of Vamanan. Further, applicant’s amendments have introduced ambiguity since the newly added limitation “wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode” includes “the IEs” and it is unclear whether “the IEs” refers to “subset of IEs” or “IEs of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE”, or both/all. In greater detail, applicant argues A) on pages 9-10 of the remarks filed 9/26/2025 that Vamana, cited to teach the limitation wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE, does not teach the limitation since “Vamanan only generally describes that a UE may provide a subset of operating capabilities (normal mode, low data rate mode, stationary mode, etc.) when entering certain modes - rather than "wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE," as required by the amended claim language.” Applicant then argues on pages 9-10 B) “However, while the reference generally notes that the UE may provide a subset of operating capabilities when entering certain modes, it does not disclose or define any "information elements (IEs)" as part of the signaling much less "wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode," by the amended claim language.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A), claim language merely indicates “wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE”, and Vamanan clearly discloses the limitation with “The UE 302 responds with UE capability information 322 identifying the subset of operating capabilities associated with the selected temporary operating mode” in para. 31, which also discloses one operating mode as “normal mode”, and that RRC signaling is performed, while para. 30 also indicates “RRC connection setup complete 314 message may indicate that UE 302 is selecting a low data rate operating mode”, thus, taken together with cited para. 30-32 and Fig. 3 and Wang, teaches identifying UE support for a subset of IEs of normal coverage UEs. Applicant appears to ascribe some type of limited interpretation not commensurate with claim language. In particular, claim language merely indicates “UE support for a subset of IEs of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE” and thus, a subset of operating capabilities includes support for a subset of IEs of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE.
Regarding B), notwithstanding the ambiguities indicated above, while Vamanan does not explicitly disclose UE capability info 322 is an IE per se, Vamanan clearly discloses communication between the UE and BS includes RRC which includes IEs, and cited para. 30-32 clearly indicates capabilities transmitted via RRC message, which Vamanan also discloses in para. 17. Cited Wang also discloses capability information and IEs being requested, particularly cited para. 88 and Fig. 8 step M805. Further, newly added limitation “wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode” is taught with Wang with (TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" information element (IE) including appropriate UE capability; para. [68, 70]) as cited on pages 3-4 of the OA of 7/28/2025, along with para. [18, 51, 62, 85] describing reduced bandwidth, reduced peak data rate, lower voice codec rate (thus, capabilities that differ between coverage mode), which applicant has not address/refuted.
In light of the above, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Based on apparent interpretations by the applicant, the examiner respectfully recommends amendments, supported by the original disclosure, so that limitations clearly refer to elements that are included, elements that are explicitly excluded, and clearly delineate limitations regarding support of IEs and limitations regarding support of (UE) capabilities, to advance prosecution. To support compact prosecution and convey reasonable interpretation of applicant’s claim language, an alternative rejection of claim 1 using different prior art is additionally included.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: lines 9-10 includes “between different coverage mode” which should be “between different coverage modes”.
Regarding claim 11: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 30: the claim is interpreted and objected to for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: lines 9-10 includes newly added limitation “wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode”, however, lines 8-9 includes “a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE” which is unclear as to whether “the IEs” refer to “a subset of” or “of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE”, or both/all. Examination continued on the assumption some type of differentiation of/in capabilities between different operating modes is conveyed in IEs.
Regarding claims 2-10: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 11: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-20: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 11, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claims 21: the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 22-30: the claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 21, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-23, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2018/0160298 A1) hereinafter Wang in view of Vamanan et al. (US 2017/0215065 A1, cited as pertinent art in the OA of 5/8/2023) hereinafter Vamanan.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, Fig. 3), comprising: establishing, by the UE, a connection with a base station (UE 110 attaches to network via base station 120; para. 70 and Fig. 2); and sending, by the UE to the base station, UE capability information for one or more capabilities in response to a trigger (when cell reselection is triggered from normal coverage to enhanced coverage, related to radio resource control (RRC), UE sends tracking area update (TAU) request to network via base station and TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" information element (IE) including appropriate UE capability; para. 68 and para. 70, TAU request indicates whether UE radio capability information update is needed, step M805; Fig. 8 and para. 88), wherein the UE capability information is based on UE support for the one or more capabilities in a first coverage mode and UE support for the one or more capabilities in a second coverage mode (capability includes first/second UE support for Cat-1+/normal coverage and Cat-M1/enhanced coverage; para. 18 and para. 70), wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode (TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" information element (IE) including appropriate UE capability; para. [68, 70], reduced bandwidth, reduced peak data rate, lower voice codec rate [differing capabilities between different coverage modes]; para. [18, 51, 62, 85]).
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vamanan teaches wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE (UE transmits capability information via RRC messaging [IE] identifying a subset of operating capabilities of normal operating mode capabilities; para. 30-32 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Vamanan to the system of Wang, where Wang’s switching coverage modes (para. 01 and para. 11) along with Vamanan’s limiting capability information size (para. 19) improves system efficiency by restricting use of resources.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the first coverage mode is a non-coverage enhanced mode (capability includes UE support for Cat-1+/normal coverage; para. 18 and para. 70) and the second coverage mode is a coverage enhanced mode (capability includes UE support for Cat-M1/enhanced coverage; para. 18 and para. 70).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 1.
Wang further teaches switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode (UE switches modes when UE moves from normal coverage cell to enhanced coverage cell; para. 70), wherein the trigger includes the switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode (UE sends TAU request when UE switches modes due to cell reselection and UE moves from normal coverage cell to enhanced coverage cell; para. 70).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the connection is a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection (UE in normal / enhanced mode in an RRC connected state; para. 69).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the UE capability information identifies whether UE support for the one or more capabilities in the first coverage mode is different than UE support for the one or more capabilities in the second coverage mode (when cell reselection is triggered, UE sends TAU request to network via base station and TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" IE including appropriate UE capability; para. 68 and para. 70, TAU request indicates whether UE radio capability information update is needed (identifies "whether" capabilities are different by: different), step M805; Fig. 8 and para. 88).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the UE capability information identifies whether UE support for the one or more capabilities in the first coverage mode is the same as UE support for the one or more capabilities in the second coverage mode (when cell reselection is triggered, UE sends TAU request to network via base station and TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" IE including appropriate UE capability; para. 68 and para. 70, TAU request indicates whether UE radio capability information update is needed (identifies "whether" capabilities are same by: not same), step M805; Fig. 8 and para. 88).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the UE capability information identifies whether UE support for the one or more capabilities in the first coverage mode is different than UE support for the one or more capabilities in the second coverage mode (when cell reselection is triggered, UE sends TAU request to network via base station and TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" IE including appropriate UE capability; para. 68 and para. 70, TAU request indicates whether UE radio capability information update is needed (identifies "whether" capabilities are different by: different), step M805; Fig. 8 and para. 88, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or identifies whether UE support for the one or more capabilities in the first coverage mode is the same as UE support for the one or more capabilities in the second coverage mode (when cell reselection is triggered, UE sends TAU request to network via base station and TAU request includes "UE radio capability information needed" IE including appropriate UE capability; para. 68 and para. 70, TAU request indicates whether UE radio capability information update is needed (identifies "whether" capabilities are same by: not same), step M805; Fig. 8 and para. 88).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 including memory (memory 330; Fig. 3 and para. 38-39 and para. 46: Wang); and at least one processor coupled to the memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured (memory 330, processor 320, instructions; Fig. 3 and para. 38-39 and para. 46: Wang).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous 21.
Wang further teaches wherein the first coverage mode is a non-coverage enhanced mode (capability includes Cat-1+/normal coverage; para. 18 and para. 70, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and the second coverage mode is a coverage enhanced mode (capability includes Cat-M1/enhanced coverage; para. 18 and para. 70), or wherein the first coverage mode is a first coverage enhanced mode and the second coverage mode is a second coverage enhanced mode.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 17.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 20.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor of a UE (memory 330, processor 320, instructions; Fig. 3 and para. 38-39 and para. 46: Wang).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 13, 15, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Vamanan, and further in view of Futaki (US 2017/0238302 A1) hereinafter Futaki.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous claim 1. The combination of Wang and Vamanan does not explicitly disclose wherein the first coverage mode is a first coverage enhanced mode and the second coverage mode is a second coverage enhanced mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki teaches wherein the first coverage mode is a first coverage enhanced mode and the second coverage mode is a second coverage enhanced mode (different operations for multiple enhanced coverage mode (ECM) levels, level of ECM is determined; para. 98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Futaki to the modified system of Wang and Vamanan, where Wang and Vamanan’s modified system along with Futaki’s enabling delay tolerant access including in EC mode (para. 07) improves network resource usage by delaying transmission of delay tolerant applications with EC and rejecting connection requests by delay tolerant access when a BS is overloaded.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous claim 4. The combination of Wang and Vamanan does not explicitly disclose Wang does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the UE, a signal from the base station; and determining, by the UE, a property of the signal, wherein the switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode is based on the property of the signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Futaki teaches receiving, by the UE, a signal from the base station (UE acquires radio quality of downlink (DL) reference signal (RS) for reference signal received power (RSRP) / reference signal reception quality (RSRQ); para. 92-95 and para. 100, Fig. 1 showing UE 12 and BS 13); and determining, by the UE, a property of the signal (UE acquires DL radio quality including RSRP/RSRQ; para. 92-95 and para. 100), wherein the switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode is based on the property of the signal (UE determines necessity of ECM based on radio quality; para. 66, UE determines necessity after connection establishment; para. 97, UE executes ECM after determination (switching from first to second coverage mode); para. 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Futaki to the modified system of Wang and Vamanan, where Wang and Vamanan’s modified system along with Futaki’s enabling delay tolerant access including in EC mode (para. 07) improves network resource usage by delaying transmission of delay tolerant applications with EC and rejecting connection requests by delay tolerant access when a BS is overloaded.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Vamanan, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2018/0070282 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/384,890, filed 9/8/2016, and US Provisional Application No. 62/412,423, filed 10/25/2016) hereinafter Su.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wang and Vamanan teaches the limitation of previous claim 1. Wang further teaches switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode (UE sends TAU request when UE switches modes due to cell reselection and UE moves from normal coverage cell to enhanced coverage cell; para. 70).
The combination of Wang and Vamanan does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the UE, a UE capability request from the base station based on switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode, wherein the trigger includes the receipt of the UE capability request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Su teaches receiving, by the UE, a UE capability request from the base station based on switching from the first coverage mode to the second coverage mode (serving cell (BS) advertises supported coverage modes in master information blocks (MIB) / system information block (SIB), UE determines radio conditions of reference signal from serving cell, UE triggers serving cell to provide normal/extended coverage mode and UE adjusts to operate in corresponding normal/extended coverage mode based on coverage characteristics/parameters in MIB/SIB (UE receives MIB/SIB as UE capability request to determine what coverage mode to operate in to match with and request from serving cell); para. 70-73), wherein the trigger includes the receipt of the UE capability request (UE uses coverage information in MIB/SIB to determine to perform TAU procedure (TAU procedure initiated/triggered by receipt of MIB/SIB) to update mobility management entity (MME) / eNodeB (BS) of coverage mode of UE; para. 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Su to the modified system of Wang and Vamanan, where Wang and Vamanan’s modified system along with Su’s adapting to conditions (para. 08-09) improves user experience by reducing power consumption.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 16.
Claim(s) 1 is/are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2016/0338005 A1, made of record in the OA of 9/3/2019) hereinafter Lim, in view of Burbidge et al. (US 2016/0227514 A1, made of record as pertinent art in the OA of 3/3/2025) hereinafter Burbidge.
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) (user equipment (UE) in wireless communication network; para. [6-7, 23-26] and Fig. 2), comprising: establishing, by the UE, a connection with a base station (UE performs and completes attach or tracking area update (TAU) procedure with eNB; para. 60 and Fig. 2 [where “establishing” is not temporally limited to any particular time]); and sending, by the UE to the base station, UE capability information for one or more capabilities in response to a trigger (send low complexity/cost (LC) indicator [UE capability information] at power on [trigger] or detecting change in coverage mode [trigger]; para. [47, 61] and Fig. 2, UE provides capability change [UE capability information for one or more capabilities] in TAU or power on; para. 47), wherein the UE capability information is based on UE support for the one or more capabilities in a first coverage mode and UE support for the one or more capabilities in a second coverage mode (UE provides capability change [support for first/second coverage modes and corresponding capabilities] indicating LC or enhanced coverage mode capability via radio resource control (RRC) message; para. 47-48).
While Lim discloses RRC messages [at least suggesting IEs], Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE, wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Burbidge teaches wherein the UE capability information identifies UE support for a subset of information elements (IEs) of a normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced, UE (RRC message includes UECapabilityInformation [IE] to indicate its capabilities [UECapabilityInformation same for normal/enhanced coverage, thus support for subset of IEs where a subset including all elements of a set is considered an improper subset]; para. [27, 39] -- alternatively, newly defined IE designated for use to convey EC capability information; para. 40, UE operates with limited capabilities including reception/transmission/data rate capabilities; para. 24, EC-capable UEs performing standard procedures [normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced UE]; para. [24, 32, 34], eNB determines whether UE is EC-capable based on received capability information; para. 35), wherein the IEs are defined to indicate capabilities that differ between different coverage mode (newly defined IE designated for use to convey EC capability information [indicate capabilities that differ]; para. 40, eNB determines whether UE is EC-capable based on received capability information; para. 35 -- alternatively, RRC message includes UECapabilityInformation [IE] to indicate its capabilities [UECapabilityInformation defined for capabilities]; para. [27, 39], UE operates with limited capabilities including reception/transmission/data rate capabilities; para. 24, EC-capable UEs performing standard procedures [normal coverage, non-coverage enhanced UE]; para. [24, 32, 34], eNB determines whether UE is EC-capable based on received capability information; para. 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Burbidge to the system of Lim, where Lim’s paging for different types of modes of operation of UEs (para. 05) along with Burbidge’s reducing of radio resource waste associated with paging of EC-capable UEs (para. 38) improves the system by increasing resource efficiency in paging of UEs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edge et al. (US 2012/0208537 A1) discloses extended capability transfer between a user equipment and a wireless network.
Weisstein, (MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource) discloses improper subset.
US Provisional Application No. 62/384,890 (Su), having been made of record in the OA of 6/16/2022, and US Provisional Application No. 62/412,423 (also Su), having been made of record in the OA of 1/27/2024, are not included in the instant OA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474