DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 10/30/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-15, 43-48, and 50-52 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 9, 44, and 50 have been amended.
Claims 5, 11-13, 16-42, 49 have been cancelled.
NEW claim 52 has been added.
Rejections under §112
Claim 12 was rejected under §112(a) based on the written description and enablement requirements in the previous Office Action. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Therefore, this rejection of claim 12 has been rendered moot, and is accordingly withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 44, Applicant argues that none of the cited references of the previous Office Action, taken alone or in combination, fairly teach/suggest the amended claim feature of: “…caus[ing] a user equipment device (UE) to: …randomly select the time value from the time range based on the random seed,” and where “time information includes a random seed and an indication of a time range.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s above claim amendments have warranted a new grounds of rejection in the instant Office Action under §103, namely the addition of Chou.
For context, Applicant’s disclosure describes that a UE can perform a timer-based conditional handover (CHO) using a network provided time range [t1,t2], during which time a NTP can be visible to a UE (para. [00185]). Then, the UE can randomly select a value T within the time range [t1,t2] to set the timer value for a CHO procedure (para. [00186]). In different embodiments/alternatives, the UE can use either a random seed or a UE-specific (RNTI-based) random value with which to select the T value (Id. at paras. [00190], [00194], and [00201]-[00202]). In either scenario, it does not appear that any particular embodiment of randomly determining a T value of the designated time range [t1,t2] is any better than any other embodiment for doing the same, as “the randomization of the selection of the value T [only] serves to spread over time the processing load of conditional handovers for UEs that receive the same time range [t1,t2],” (Id. at para. [00187]).
With respect to the claim subject matter at issue, Liberg-101 is relied upon to teach/suggest receiving a CHO condition including time information (paras. [0058], [0143], and [0177] —a UE can be provided with network un/availability or wait times for a serving cell of an NTN —Applicant’s Specification similarly describes time information being equivalent to a wait time for load balancing purposes, at para. [00209]), in response to receiving the condition for the CHO execution, initiating a timer with a time value based, at least in part, on the time information (paras. [0059]-[0064], and [0147] —a network availability timer can be initiated based on the network un/availability or wait times), and in response to expiration of the timer executing a CHO from the serving cell to the target cell of the network (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179] —when the unavailable time of the timer has expired, the UE can then resume various CHO procedures for the purpose of cell selection or cell reselection (i.e., handing over to a target cell)).
It would be obvious to modify Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on a network cell un/availability, wait-time timer, as taught in Liberg-101, to better determine when a satellite is available for service at a UE location and to avoid collision with other locally operating UEs.
Kim, is then relied upon to teach/suggest the additional claim feature at issue where “the time information includes a random seed and an indication of a time range, and wherein the time value is randomly selected from the time range based on the random seed.” In this regard, Kim describes a means of congestion control, where a UE wait time value selection can be randomized within a predetermined time range, and a UE may set a corresponding back-off/wait-time timer value in accordance with the randomly selected time value within the allocated time range (paras. [0114] and [0137]). Thus, the feature of randomly selecting a time value for a wait-time timer within a designated time range is fairly taught/suggested by Kim, and this is equivalent to that which recited in Applicant’s claims.
None of Mahalingham, Liberg-101, nor Kim specifically describe a UE performing the random time value selection from a network-provided time range. Thus, the Examiner agrees with Applicant, at least in part, that this newly claimed UE-autonomous process is not explicitly taught/suggested by the prior art reference combination provided in the previous Office Action under §103. However, Chou is fairly relied upon to remedy this deficiency, by describing that a network can provide a UE with a predefined time range, (0, 1), and a threshold value relating to a prohibit timer. Chou’s UE may then autonomously select a random time value within the predetermined network-provided range for triggering a RA process (para. [0123]). Thus, Chou sufficiently reads on the contested amended claim feature of: a UE being configured to randomly select a time value from a network provided time range.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101 and Kim’s network cell availability time selection having randomization via a random seed, with a random time selection occurring autonomously at a UE device, as described in Chou, instead of at a network device, to enable randomized wait time selection (before a cell reselection) to occur autonomously at a UE. In this regard, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure even describes different types of randomized wait time selection process alternatives, without particularly favoring one embodiment over the other. For example, Applicant’s disclosure also describes an alternative where “the network may provide a UE-specific random value to the UE,” based on an RNTI, as opposed to selection with a random seed (paras. [00185]-[00187], [00190], [00194], and [00201]-[00202]). In this regard, it would seem like the method of randomization of a time value selection is perhaps somewhat inconsequential to outcome of the random time selection.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claims 1, 9, and 44 are either determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection applied under §103, i.e., the combination with Chou.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 15, 44-47, and 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2021/0376915 A1, Mahalingam et al. (hereinafter “Mahalingam”) in view of US PG Pub 2023/0060101 A1, Liberg et al. (hereinafter “Liberg-101”), in further view of US PG Pub 2015/0131437 A1, Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”), in yet further view of US PG Pub. 2018/0139778 A1, Chou et al. (hereinafter “Chou”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Mahalingam teaches:
An apparatus comprising:
memory; and processing circuitry in communication with the memory (apparatus 102 memory 130/132 and processor 118 of Fig. 1B) and configured to cause a user equipment (UE) to:
receive, from a base station via non-terrestrial platform (NTP) corresponding to a serving cell located in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), conditions for a conditional handover (CHO) execution, wherein the conditions for the CHO execution include at least a measurement index and a configuration comprising region information and size parameters (paras. [0087], [0090]-[0094] and [0098]-[0099]; GEO, MEO and LEO footprints of Fig. 2; Constellations and Elevation Angles of Fig. 5A-B —a satellite can broadcast system information (SI) to a UE within its footprint —regional information can be associated with satellites area identifiers (TAC/RNA, etc.), and a size parameter can correspond to a spotbeam coverage area/footprint, which can differ based on satellite altitude, type (GEO/MEO/LEO), etc. —a network-provided elevation angle threshold can correspond to a measurement index —Applicant’s specification also describes a provided elevation angle threshold as being associated with a measurement index, at para. [00213]),
wherein the region information indicates a region for the serving cell and a region for a target cell in the NTN (paras. [0087], [0090], [0092]-[0094] and [0099]; and Figs. 5A-B —regional information of a serving satellite cell and any other neighboring satellite constellation/cell, such as a potential target cell, can be indicated in SI by: TAC/RAN codes, ephemeris data, elevation angle, geo-fencing information, etc. —basic Pythagorean methods can yield other related coverage area/distance metrics), and
wherein the size parameter indicates a size of a neighborhood of a boundary of the region of the serving cell and a size of a neighborhood of a boundary of the region of the target cell (paras. [0099], and [0109]-[0112] —geographic location and geofencing information can indicate the size and location of a neighborhood of a boundary of the region —a particular satellite can be associated with a sweep width and a footprints; multiple footprints can be associated with a geo-fence; and multiple geo-fences can be part of a larger geographic Zone); and
based at least in part on measurements performed based on the measurement index, execute a CHO of the UE from the serving cell to the target cell of the NTN (paras. [0073], [0090], [0094]-[0096], [0098]-[0099], and [0102]-[0103]; and Figs. 5A-B —a WTRU can determine its location to be at a spotbeam, footprint, or constellation, edge location, and as a result, can reselect to a target cell with preferred cell service/coverage based on a variety of factors or measurements —for example, a minimum elevation angle (provided as a measurement index in SI, See Fig. 6) can be compared to a current (i.e., measured) elevation angle for the UE, to determine whether to execute a handover from a serving cell to a target cell, See para. [0092]).
Mahalingam does not teach:
the received conditions including time information; and
in response to receiving conditions for the CHO execution, initiating a timer with a time value based, at least in part, on the time information.
in response to expiration of the timer executing a CHO from the serving cell to the target cell of the NTN.
Liberg-101 does teach:
receiving a CHO condition including time information (paras. [0058], [0143], and [0177] —a UE can be provided with network un/availability or wait times for a serving cell of an NTN —Applicant’s Specification similarly describes time information being equivalent to a wait time for load balancing purposes, at para. [00209]); and
in response to receiving the condition for the CHO execution, initiating a timer with a time value based, at least in part, on the time information (paras. [0059]-[0064], and [0147] —a network availability timer can be initiated based on the network un/availability or wait times).
in response to expiration of the timer executing a CHO from the serving cell to the target cell of the network (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179] —when the unavailable time of the timer has expired, the UE can then resume various CHO procedures for the purpose of cell selection or cell reselection (i.e., handing over to a target cell)).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on network cell un/availability or wait-time timer expiration of Liberg-101.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve satellite CHO selection by utilizing a network un/availability timer as another condition to determine when one or more satellites may be available for service at a UE location, as recognized by Liberg-101 (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179]).
Mahalingam and Liberg-101 do not teach:
time information including a random seed and an indication of a time range, and a time value that is randomly selected from the time range based on the random seed.
Kim does teach:
receiving time information including a random seed and an indication of a time range, and randomly selects a time value from the time range based on the random seed (paras. [0114] and [0137] —a wait time value for a timer can be randomized by a UE randomly selecting a time value within a predetermined range, which the Examiner interprets to equivalent to randomization via a random seed).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101’s network cell availability timer indication with the randomized wait time selection taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable randomized wait time selection before a cell reselection to avoid interference/congestion, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0114] and [0137]).
However, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101 and Kim does not explicitly teach:
That the UE is configured to randomly select the time value from the time range.
Chou does teach:
a UE being configured to randomly select a time value from a network provided time range (para. [0123] —a RAN can provide a UE with a predefined time range, (0, 1), relating to a prohibit timer; a UE may then, autonomously select a random time value within the predetermined network provided range for triggering a RA process).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101 and Kim’s network cell availability time selection randomization via a random seed, with random time selection occurring autonomously at a UE device, as described by Chou.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable randomized wait time selection before a cell reselection to occur autonomously at a UE, as recognized by Chou (para. [0123]).
With respect to Claim 2, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the NTP is a satellite or a high altitude platform (HAP) (Mahalingam: para. [0074]; GEO/MEO/LEO satellites of Fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 6, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the processing circuitry is in communication with a GPS receiver (Mahalingam: apparatus 102 GPS chipset 136 coupled to processor 118 of Fig. 1B),
wherein the GPS receiver is configured to determine a current location of the apparatus in response to a request from the processing circuitry (Mahalingam: paras. [0031] and [0038] —GPS chipset 136 of WTRU 102 (Fig. 1B) is configured to determine a current location of the WTRU when requested by processor 118).
With respect to Claim 7, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said execution of the conditional handover includes testing a condition on signal quality of the target cell (Mahalingam: paras. [0094] and [0098] —RSRQ can be evaluated for a candidate target as part of a conditional handover).
With respect to Claim 8, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the region of the serving cell corresponds to a coverage area of the serving cell (Mahalingam: paras. [0109], and [0110]-[0111]; GEO/MEO/LEO spotbeams of Fig. 2; Fig. 8 —a region or coverage area can correspond to a footprint or spotbeam of a serving cell).
With respect to Claim 9, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 9 is directed to a processor comprising a memory and processing circuitry in communication with the memory, causing a UE to perform (Mahalingham: WTRU 102 w/processor 118 and memory 130/132 of Fig1B). As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches the apparatus of claim 9
However, Mahalingham does not explicitly teach:
wherein the time information includes an indication of the time value.
Liberg-101 does teach:
wherein the time information includes an indication of the time value (paras. [0059]-[0064], and [0147] —a timer’s time value is associated with time information).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on network cell un/availability or wait-time timer expiration of Liberg-101.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve satellite CHO selection by utilizing a network un/availability timer as another condition to determine when one or more satellites may be available for service at a UE location, as recognized by Liberg-101 (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179]).
With respect to Claim 15, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
However, Mahalingham does not explicitly teach:
wherein said execution of the conditional handover includes verifying a validity of a condition on signal quality of the target cell.
Liberg-101 does teach:
wherein said execution of the conditional handover includes verifying a validity of a condition on signal quality of the target cell (paras. [0059]-[0064], and [0147] —signal quality can be used to determine a particular cell’s viability for handover).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on network cell un/availability or wait-time timer expiration of Liberg-101.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve satellite CHO selection by utilizing a network un/availability timer as another condition to determine when one or more satellites may be available for service at a UE location, as recognized by Liberg-101 (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179]).
With respect to Claim 44, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1/9, except claim 44 is directed to a method-type claim, as opposed to an apparatus. As such, claim 44 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1/9.
With respect to Claim 45, this claim recites similar features to those included within independent claim 9, i.e., time information being associated with a serving cell. As such, claim 45 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 9.
With respect to Claim 46, this claim recites similar features to those included within independent claims 1/9. As such, claim 46 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou, for the same reasons explained above for independent claims 1/9.
With respect to Claim 47, this claim recites similar features to those included within independent claims 1/9. As such, claim 47 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou for the same reasons explained above for independent claims 1/9.
With respect to Claim 50, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches the method of claim 44.
However, Mahalingham does not explicitly teach:
wherein the UE receives data from the NTP via downlink transmission, and wherein the UE forwards data to the earth based network node of the communication network.
Liberg-101 does teach:
wherein the UE receives data from the NTP via downlink transmission, and wherein the UE forwards data to the earth based network node of the communication network (paras. [0066], [0143], [0155], [0179], and [0247]; and Fig. 1 —a UE can receive DL data from a NTN including various parameters indicating when the NTN network is un/available —NTN satellites can map to terrestrial BSs to which a UE can directly communicate (i.e., transmit data/measurements to), para. [0150] —when a NTN service becomes available the UE can resume communications by sending feedback data to network node/BS, as pictured in Fig. 1).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on network cell un/availability or wait-time timer expiration of Liberg-101.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve satellite CHO selection by utilizing a network un/availability timer as another condition to determine when one or more satellites may be available for service at a UE location, as recognized by Liberg-101 (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179]).
With respect to Claim 51, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches:
The method of claim 44, wherein executing the conditional handover includes testing a condition on signal quality of the target cell (Mahalingam: paras: [0003]-[0004], [0073]-[0074], [0094], [0098]-[0099], and [0103] —cell reselection/handover can be based on evaluating/comparing RSRP/RSRQ measurement results among target cells).
With respect to Claim 52, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
However, Mahalingham does not explicitly teach:
wherein the time information is associated with the serving cell.
Liberg-101 does teach:
wherein time information provided to a UE is associated with a serving cell (paras. [0058], [0143], and [0177] —a UE can be provided with network un/availability or wait times for a serving cell of an NTN —Applicant’s Specification also describes time information being equivalent to a wait time for load balancing purposes, at para. [00209]).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on network cell un/availability or wait-time timer expiration of Liberg-101.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve satellite CHO selection by utilizing a network un/availability timer as another condition to determine when one or more satellites may be available for service at a UE location, as recognized by Liberg-101 (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179]).
Claims 3, 4, 14, 43, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou, in further view of US PG Pub 2022/0046498 A1, Cheng et al. (hereinafter “Cheng”).
With respect to Claim 3, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101 and Kim teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou does not teach:
wherein the region information and the size parameters are received as part of a reconfiguration message of a radio resource control (RRC) protocol.
Cheng does teach:
target cell information for a CHO that is received as part of a reconfiguration message of a radio resource control (RRC) protocol (paras. [0138], and [0154]-[0160] —an RRC reconfiguration message can contain parameters used to determine a viable target cell).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, and Chou’s regional location and size information analysis for performing a CHO, with the target cell information RRC reconfiguration messaging, as taught by Cheng.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for information useful for making a CHO decision to be sent to a UE via RRC messaging, as recognized by Cheng (para. [0138]).
With respect to Claim 4, Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, Chou, and Cheng teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
However, Mahalingham does not explicitly teach:
wherein the region information and the size parameters are received as part of a measurement index of the reconfiguration message.
Liberg-101 does teach:
wherein the region information and the size parameters are received as part of a measurement index of the reconfiguration message (Liberg-101: paras. [0098]-[0099] —the network-provided elevation angle threshold can correspond to a measurement index; Cheng: paras. [0119]-[0120], [0138], and [0171]; Index of SSBs Table 2 —an index of an SSB used to measure can also be interpreted to be a measurement index).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mahalingam’s satellite CHO handover execution based on a measurement index comparison with the satellite CHO handover execution (i.e., cell reselection) based on network cell un/availability or wait-time timer expiration of Liberg-101.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve satellite CHO selection by utilizing a network un/availability timer as another condition to determine when one or more satellites may be available for service at a UE location, as recognized by Liberg-101 (paras. [0147], [0155], and [0179]).
With respect to Claim 14, this claim recites similar subject matter to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 14 is similarly rejected under §103, based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, Chou, and Cheng, for the same reasons described above for claim 4.
With respect to Claim 43, this claim recites similar subject matter to dependent claims 3/4. As such, claim 43 is similarly rejected under §103, based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, Chou, and Cheng, for the same reasons described above for claims 3/4.
With respect to Claim 48, this claim recites similar features to those recited in dependent claim 3. As such, claim 48 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Mahalingam in view of Liberg-101, Kim, Chou, and Cheng, for the same reasons explained above for claim 3.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418