DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s filing a Response dated 05/28/2024
The instant application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 08/28/2019. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 9,749,030 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Response to Arguments
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on the Double Patenting rejection, Applicant states on page 4 of their Response that, “Applicant respectfully reserves any response thereto until the rejection is no longer provisional or there are no remaining rejections.”
Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection will stand.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23 – 26, 28 – 31, 33 – 36, and 38 - 40 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are towards claim language that is no longer present in the amendment claims. However, the Examiner will respond in general to cover the overall concept and what is specifically claimed.
Applicant argues that Liao does not use the expression “CSI collision” nor the use of assigning priority to CSI configuration index.
As to this argument, it is clearly seen in multiple sections cited in the office action that Liao teaches “CSI collision”. Even if the phrase is not specifically stated as “CSI collision”, (e.g., 1:64 – 6, “It is thus desirable to have a detailed priority rule to decide for which DL CC the configured periodic CSI reporting will be transmitted when there is periodic CSI reporting collision across the multiple DL CCs.”, 3:37 – 41, “For example, if CSI reporting is configured for DL PCELL, SCELL #1, and SCELL #2 at the same time slot (e.g., in a given subframe), then CSI reporting collision occurs. As a result, CSI reporting is sent for one DL CC, and dropped for the other two CCs.”, 3:42 – 46, “In one novel aspect, priority rules are defined for periodic CSI reporting for carrier aggregation. First, UE 101 estimates the channel and obtains CSI for each of the activated downlink CCs. Next, based on the priority rules, a prioritized DL CC is determined for CSI reporting when collision occurs across multiple activated DL CCs.”, 7:52 et seq., “For a given subframe, in case of collision of CSI report, the UE selects a prioritized serving cell based on the priority rules.”). It is noted that the last cited area states the same claim language as was previously stated, e.g., “in case of collision”. This is not an exhaustive list of the occurrence of the teachings regarding “CSI collision”.
As also seen in the cited areas of the rejection, Liao teaches prioritizing CSI with specific indexes. The Examiner’s “excessive interpretation” still reads on the claim language. An index is merely a number given a specific value or weight, as is indicated by the Applicant’s claims. It does not matter what the weight is, only that in the realm of priority, it is understood that a specific hierarchy is read from each index and an order is given. This is specifically taught by Liao. It is not clear if the Applicant means that the index is “reported” with other the “first CSI”. As claimed, what is reported is a “first CSI” which is different than CSI configuration information. The BRI stems from the claim limitation, “reporting, by the UE, first CSI corresponding to first CSI configuration information”. The term corresponding is very broad and can be interpreted as anything linking the first CSI to the CSI configuration information. It is noted that the CSI configuration information is not specifically reported, only the first CSI. The use of the terms “corresponding” and “associated with” are used throughout the claim and may have different interpretations.
As to Applicant’s other arguments, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 New Matter Rejection
Claims 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 38 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
Independent claims 21, 26, 31, and 36 teach the amended limitations of, “a plurality of CSI configuration information for a serving cell…based on a priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information, wherein the priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information is determined based on a first configuration index included in the first configuration information and a second CSI configuration index included in second CSI configuration information, in response to a collision between the first CSI corresponding to the first CSI configuration information and second CSI corresponding to the second CSI configuration information among the plurality of CSI configuration information”. This limitation does not appear in the specification. The collision is based on two cells attempting to communicate to the UE, as is known in the art, and one is selected based on priority criteria, see cited areas in the rejection. As the claim is written, it would appear that there is only one serving cell that collides with itself. This is not supported by the specification. The sections of the specification describe collisions occurring between 2 or more serving cells based on priority/ index. It is unclear as to how CSI configuration information could collide with itself based on the Applicant’s explanation of the invention in the arguments.
All dependent claims are rejected for at least their dependency on the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 38 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 21, 26, 31, and 36 teach the amended limitations of, “a plurality of CSI configuration information for a serving cell…based on a priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information, wherein the priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information is determined based on a first configuration index included in the first configuration information and a second CSI configuration index included in second CSI configuration information, in response to a collision between the first CSI corresponding to the first CSI configuration information and second CSI corresponding to the second CSI configuration information among the plurality of CSI configuration information”. This limitation does not appear in the specification. The collision is based on two cells attempting to communicate to the UE, as is known in the art, and one is selected based on priority criteria, see cited areas in the rejection. As the claim is written, it would appear that there is only one serving cell that collides with itself. This is not supported by the specification. The sections of the specification describe collisions occurring between 2 or more serving cells based on priority/ index. It is unclear as to how CSI configuration information could collide with itself based on the Applicant’s explanation of the invention in the arguments.
All dependent claims are rejected for at least their dependency on the above rejected independent claims.
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 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 38 – 40 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.
Claims 21, 26, 31, and 36 recites the limitation “the second CSI configuration information” and “second CSI”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims are rejected for at least their dependency on the above rejected independent claims.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 21 – 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 – 40 of copending Application No. 16/554,180 (reference application hereinafter, “ ‘180”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘180 application claims the similar limitations with added features, i.e., the instant application is a broader version of the ‘180 application.
Claim 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 38 – 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 24 of copending Application No. 16/552,732 (reference application hereinafter, “ ‘732”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘732 application claims the similar limitations with added features.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 23 – 26, 28 – 31, 33 – 36, and 38 – 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0076028, hereinafter “Ko”, in view of Liao et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,817,647, herein after “Liao”, in further view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,554,281, hereinafter “Lee”.
Claim 21:
A method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), the method comprising:
identifying, by a user equipment (UE), a plurality of CSI configurations for a serving cell, the CSI configuration information being associated with channel measurement resource information, interference measurement resource information, a CSI configuration index, and information for a CSI report type; and
Ko disclose a method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶. [0008], [0011] — [0016]). Ko disclose implicitly identifying, by a user equipment, a plurality of CSI configurations, CSI configuration including channel measurement information, interference measurement information, an index for the CSI configuration, and information for a period and an offset, “The UE may transmit the DL channel state measurement results (RI, PMI, CQI, etc.) through the CSI-RS… a UE may generate CSIs for one or more DL cells. Each CSI may include one or more CQIs calculated on the basis of precoding information that is determined by a combination of an RI, a first PMI, a second PMI, and a combination of first and second PMIs of one or more DL carriers”, (Fig. 35, ¶¶ [0596] — [0601]; ¶¶ [0011] — [0016]; [0147] — [0156], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, ¶¶ [0190] — [0194], calculates SINR in consideration of interferences, ¶¶ [0225] — [0226]; “transmission cycle is one time… the offset” Fig. 20, Fig. 21, ¶¶ [0196] — [0197]). Ko further teaches the information being for serving cells, (e.g., ¶¶ 0451 – 0455 et seq., 0541 et seq., 0580 – 0599).
However, it is not clearly found that Ko teaches a interference measurement resource information. As closely interpreted by the Examiner, and in light of the rejections stated above, Lee teaches multiple interference measurement resource information and resource information for interference and CSI configuration indexing, (e.g., ¶¶ 11:59 et seq., 14:41 – 15:40 et seq., 16:27 – 39, 20:46 – 60 & 28:56 et seq., “In one or more embodiments, the UE may be explicitly provided with a list of at least one interference measurement resource (IM-CSI-RS or IMR) for each type of CSI (or CSI process) that the UE may have to report.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee with Ko because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 40 et seq.).
reporting, by the UE, first CSI corresponding to first CSI configuration information for the serving cell among the plurality of CSI configuration information for the service cell on a physical uplink channel, based on a priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information, wherein the priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information is determined based on a first configuration index included in the first configuration information and a second CSI configuration index included in second CSI configuration information, in response to a collision between the first CSI corresponding to the first CSI configuration information and second CSI corresponding to the second CSI configuration information among the plurality of CSI configuration information,
Ko teaches multiple instances of reporting/ feedback using PUCCH “based” on an index in the case of a collision, (e.g., Fig. 27 – 34 and supporting areas of those figures, & ¶¶ 0011 – 0021, 0172 et seq., 0390 – 0393, 0440 et seq.). It should be noted that the term “based” is very broad and can be interpreted in many different lights. Ko teaches reporting the CSI configuration information that is of higher priority between two CSIs, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011 – 0021, 0445 – 0480). It can be further seen that the CSI configuration information includes an CSI configuration index in determining which CSI is dropped, (e.g., 0433 – 0436 et seq., “may be denoted by two different indexes (i.e., I1 and I2). The indexes can also be interpreted as seen in paragraphs 0553 – 0557 et seq., Table 73.
Liao specifically teaches a specific priority is given to specific indexes of CSI configuration information with regards to specific cells and in response to a collision, the specific priority given to specific indexes are received while others are dropped, (e.g., 5:36 – 6:30 et seq.).
As also seen in Liao, there are specific priorities given to multiple indexes. Liao is directed to,
“a method of determining priority rules for periodic CSI reporting in carrier aggregation. A UE obtains CSI feedback for multiple downlink CCs in a multi-carrier wireless communication network. Each downlink CC is associated with a feedback mode, and each feedback mode comprises a set of feedback types to be reported to a base station at time slots configured by an upper layer. The UE then determines a prioritized downlink CC for CSI reporting based on priority levels of the feedback types to be transmitted for each downlink CC at a given time slot. The UE then transmits the corresponding CSI feedback for the prioritized downlink CC at the given time slot via a feedback channel over a primary uplink CC.”
The cited area of Liao, and supporting figures 3 – 5, it is seen that a plurality of CSIs are grouped in “Feedback Type” and again grouped into “Feedback Modes”. All of which have associated numbers and therefore can be interpreted as CSI configuration indexes. Liao states in column 5, lines 56 et seq., “a priority rule based on Feedback node, e.g., priority of feedback Mode 1-0 > 1-1 > 2-0”, i.e., this can be interpreted as Mode 1-0 has a priority of 1, Mode 1-1 has a priority of 1.1, and Mode 2-0 has a priority of 2, where the lower the priority index number, the more important the CSIs of that Mode is. This interpretation reads specifically on the claimed priority indexing based on CSI configurations. Liao goes into a further priority rule as seen in the lower part of Figure 5 with Type 3 > Type 4 > Type 2 > Type 1, also see Figure 6 for other examples. This is regardless of the CC index. Even though CC indexing is used in other embodiments it is not specifically needed in this example and is only an added layer of determination if needed, see Figure 8 and supporting areas of the specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Lee because giving priority to a specific message to be received results in the predictable result of that message getting priority to being received first while lower priority messages are not received first. This would also have the predictable result of performing the function of priority which is to give precedence over another. It would also be obvious to one of skill in the art to utilize priority type indexing/ rules because by using such priority rules for CSI reporting, each activated DL CC gets substantially equal opportunity for CSI reporting over time, without favor/disfavor any particular DL CC, (e.g., Liao, 5:31 – 35).
wherein the first CSI corresponding to the first CSI configuration information for the serving cell is acquired based on the first channel measurement resource information, the interference measurement resource information, the first information for the CSI report type, and associated with the first CSI configuration for the serving cell.
Ko disclose a method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶. [0008], [0011] — [0016]). Ko disclose implicitly identifying, by a user equipment, a plurality of CSI configurations, CSI configuration including channel measurement information, an index for the CSI configuration, “The UE may transmit the DL channel state measurement results (RI, PMI, CQI, etc.) through the CSI-RS… a UE may generate CSIs for one or more DL cells. Each CSI may include one or more CQIs calculated on the basis of precoding information that is determined by a combination of an RI, a first PMI, a second PMI, and a combination of first and second PMIs of one or more DL carriers”, (Fig. 35, ¶¶ [0596] — [0601]; ¶¶ [0011] — [0016]; [0147] — [0156], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, ¶¶ [0190] — [0194], calculates SINR, ¶¶ [0225] — [0226]; “transmission cycle is one time… the offset” Fig. 20, Fig. 21, ¶¶ [0196] — [0197]). Ko further teaches the information being for serving cells, (e.g., ¶¶ 0451 – 0455 et seq., 0580 – 0599). Ko disclose a method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶. [0008], [0011] — [0016]).
However, it is not clearly found that Ko teaches a interference measurement resource information. As closely interpreted by the Examiner, and in light of the rejections stated above, Lee teaches multiple interference measurement resource information and resource information for interference and CSI configuration indexing, (e.g., ¶¶ 11:59 et seq., 14:41 – 15:40 et seq., 16:27 – 39, 20:46 – 60 & 28:56 et seq., “In one or more embodiments, the UE may be explicitly provided with a list of at least one interference measurement resource (IM-CSI-RS or IMR) for each type of CSI (or CSI process) that the UE may have to report.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee with Ko and Liao because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 40 et seq.).
Claim 26 teaches similar limitations as claim 21 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 31 and 36 teach similar limitations as claim 1 with the added limitations of a transceiver and controller. Ko teaches these and other limitations similarly stated in claim 1, see above cited areas, and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 23:
A method of claim 21, wherein the channel measurement information is for a channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS).
Ko teaches CSI-RS, (e.g., ¶¶ 0164 et seq.).
Claims 28, 33, and 38 teach similar limitations as claim 23 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 24:
A method of claim 21, wherein the second CSI corresponding to the second CSI configuration information among the plurality CSI configurations information is not reported based on the first information for the CSI report type and the first CSI configuration index, in case of the collision between the first CSI and second CSI.
Ko teaches multiple instances of reporting/ feedback the case of a collision, (e.g., Fig. 27 – 34 and supporting areas of those figures, & ¶¶ 0011 – 0021, 0172 et seq., 0390 – 0393, 0440 et seq.). Furthermore, Ko teaches this limitation of not reporting based on type and index when a collision occurs, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011, “precoding matrix index (PMI)… wherein the CQI is calculated based on precoding information determined by a combination of the first and second PMI; determining, when two or more CSIs collide … low priority and is dropped.” & 0541 – 0557 et seq., 0580 – 0599).
The limitation of, “in case of”, which can be interpreted as alternative language in a method claim. Therefore, “in the case of” this limitation not occurring in a method step, i.e., in the alternate case where a collision does not happen, this limitation does not happen and therefore under BRI, the reporting step does not need to happen, See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Claims 29, 34, and 39 teach similar limitations as claim 24 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Furthermore, Ko teaches this limitation of not reporting based on type and index when a collision occurs, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011, “precoding matrix index (PMI)… wherein the CQI is calculated based on precoding information determined by a combination of the first and second PMI; determining, when two or more CSIs collide … low priority and is dropped.” & 0541 – 0557 et seq., 0580 – 0599).
Claim 25:
A method of claim 21, wherein CSI corresponding to a CSI configuration information with a lowest index has a priority among the plurality CSI configurations.
Ko teaches this limitation where in the lowest priority for each of CSI (RI, PMI, CQI) is determined and are given specific priorities, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011, “precoding matrix index (PMI)… wherein the CQI is calculated based on precoding information determined by a combination of the first and second PMI; determining, when two or more CSIs collide … low priority and is dropped.” & 0553 – 0557 et seq.).
Claims 30, 35, and 40 teach similar limitations as claim 24 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferee:
/Roland Foster/, Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992