DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 12/26/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 15-18, 20-27, and 30 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18, 25, 27, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4, 10, 12-14, 19, 26, and 28-29 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
In the previous Office Action, claim 11 was objected to for various informalities. Applicant has amended claim 11 to correct this issue. As such, the corresponding claim objection to dependent claim 11 is withdrawn.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 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 16, and 25, Applicant asserts that Larsson, Hosseini, and Park, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest at least the amended claim feature: “wherein the indicated first quantity of bits is M bits and the value of M is indicated in the configuration information to indicate an increased number of entries of a channel quality indicator (CQI) table in accordance with the modified transmission parameter table,” as previously recited in dependent claims 2 and 26. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 9-10.
For context, Applicant provides support for its contested claim subject matter at paras. [0018], [0069], [0072], [0084]-[0085], and Figs. 3 and 4. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. However, the supporting citations and Figures describe independent concepts:
1. signaling, i.e., configuration information, indicating a size of a parameter table relating to modulation order; and/or
2. making modifications to an existing transmission parameter table, i.e., via entry replacement.
For example, supporting para. [0018] describes that the size of a transmission parameter table can be associated with a first number of bits for signaling a transmission parameter index value of a corresponding parameter table, i.e., a CQI or MCS table index value that relates to the size of the corresponding CQI or MCS index table. Para. [0018] also recites that modifications can be made to a configured transmission parameter table to replace one or more entries in the transmission parameter table of a first modulation order with one or more replacement entries of a second modulation order.
The Examiner notes that replacing entries associated with a first, lower modulation order, with entries of a second, higher modulation order, can result in a modified transmission parameter table’ entry size being unchanged. However, in this scenario, the number of entries of the first modulation order would be lower and the number of entries of the second modulation order would be respectively higher. The concept of modifying an existing CQI table by down-sampling entries of lower modulation order to make room for a similar number of entries associated with a higher modulation order is fairly taught by Larsson, at paras. [0048]-[0053], [0064], [0057]-[0059], and [0077], as well as Fig. 6.
Larsson describes that DCI/UCI formats are relatively inflexible and describes the benefit of direct parameter table entry replacement is that its implementation can avoid modifying existing control information formatting, i.e., UCI formatting, at paras. [0010] and [0048]. Applicant recapitulates this teaching of Larsson in its Arguments. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 10-11.
Applicant’s additional identified supporting paras. [0069], [0072], and [0084]-[0085], similarly describe that parameter tables, i.e., CQI or MCS tables, associated with higher modulation orders, i.e., 1024 or 4096 QAM, can have different numbers of entries, where the higher the modulation order of a parameter table, i.e., CQI or MCS tables, the larger its size. These citations describe that a number of bits used to indicate a larger parameter table will be larger in bit-size as well. Notably, Larsson teaches as much, describing a 4-bit CQI value would have 2X entries in a CQI table, such that with x=4, the number of entries being 16… and so on (for a 5-bit MCS value, when x=5, the number of entries of the MCS table is similarly 25 = 32 entries). Thus, Larsson also describes that its higher modulation order parameter tables generally have a larger number of entries compared to its smaller modulation order parameter tables, at paras. [0002]-[0010].
Applicant’s para. [0073], directly following indicated supporting para. [0072], additionally describes the concept of parameter table entry replacement as: “…in order to reduce control information 215 overhead and provide signaling for higher modulation orders, one or more tables may be modified to replace lower modulation order entries,” which is likewise taught by Larsson, as previously explained.
The contested claim subject matter recites: “…M bits …indicated in the configuration information to indicate an increased number of entries of a channel quality indicator (CQI) table in accordance with the modified transmission parameter table,” and the Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that a modified CQI table can have a relative, increased number of entries for higher modulation order, as compared to a number of entries of the higher modulation order that were previously present in the CQI table, prior to modification.
In this case, the higher modulation order entries may have simply replaced an equal number of lower modulation order entries which were removed, as this is described in Applicant’s supporting disclosure, i.e., at paras. [0072]-[0073]. The Examiner’s interpretation is reasonable, as it is fully supported by Applicant’s own disclosure. If Applicant intends to argue the above interpretation of their amended claims is unreasonable, the Examiner requires that Applicant provide explicit support for an alternative interpretation of this claim limitation within their original disclosure.
In summary, the Examiner does not argue against Applicant’s characterization of Larsson, in its response (Applicants Remarks at pp. 10-11), but instead the Examiner believes that Applicant has not provided proper support that its contested claim language should be interpreted any differently from that which is already taught/suggested by the prior art combination of record under §103, including Larsson. In this regard, the Examiner would like to know where in Applicant’s disclosure is there any teaching of a modified CQI table simply having an increased number of entries, as compared to the same CQI table, prior to the modification? This seems to only result in a larger size CQI table that could be problematic from a technical perspective, as DCI/UCI formatting may also require modification. In this regard, the Examiner would like to know, what is the benefit of having a larger CQI table modified to merely have more entries, as opposed to a CQI table modified to have replacement entries with the purpose of maintaining control information format, etc.?
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are determined not to be persuasive with respect to each of independent claims 1, 16, and 25.
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. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. 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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 15-18, 22-25, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2016/0337150 A1, Larsson et al. (hereinafter “Larsson”) in view of US PG Pub 2019/0238257 A1, Hosseini et al., (hereinafter “Hosseini”), in further view of US PG Pub 2020/0412431 A1, Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 1, Larsson recites:
A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (paras. [0043]-[0046]; wireless device 110 of Figs. 3 and 15), comprising:
transmitting to a network entity, an indication of a capability of the UE to support one or more second modulation orders (paras. [0004], [0100], and [0107] —a UE can transmit signaling to a network node to indicate that it is capable to communicate employing 256QAM modulation);
receiving, from the network entity based at least in part on the indication, configuration information that indicates: a subset of entries that is fewer than a set of default entries of a transmission parameter table and additional entries corresponding to the one or more second modulation orders, wherein entries of a modified transmission parameter table correspond to the subset of entries and the additional entries ([0048]-[0053], [0057]-[0059], [0077] and [0100]; Fig 6 —a network can configure a UE with an appropriate CQI table for reporting channel quality/feedback, such as the 256QAM CQI table of Fig. 6, which is a modified CQI table corresponding to the default, Rel-8 CQI table of Fig. 6 —notably, the modified 256QAM table has a subset of the entries (for index 1 to 4) present in the default, Rel-8 CQI table for modulation order 2, and additional entries than that of the default CQI table for modulation order 8 (for index 13 to 15), as is plainly depicted in Fig. 6)
a first quantity of bits for signaling a transmission parameter index value that corresponds to an entry of the modified transmission parameter table corresponding to one or more transmission parameters (paras. [0004], [0014], [0048]-[0053], and [0057]; and Table 6 —a UE can be configured to select a 4-bit CQI value to identify a CQI index to the network, corresponding to a modified CQI table, i.e., such as the 256QAM CQI table of Fig. 6, having various combinations of modulation order, coding-rate, and spectral efficiency transmission parameters),
wherein the indicated first quantity of bits is M bits and a value of M is indicated in the configuration information to indicate a number of entries of a channel quality indicator (CQI) table in accordance with the modified transmission parameter table (paras. [0036]-[0039], [0048]-[0053], [0064], and [0077]; and Fig. 6 —a number of higher order modulation entries, i.e., 256QAM entries, in a CQI table can be increased, while down-sampling lower order modulation entries based in part on bit value —Applicant’s disclosure describes a similar entry replacement solution at paras. [0018] and [0072]); and
transmitting to the network entity, control information that includes a first quantity of bits that indicates a first transmission parameter index value of a first entry of the modified transmission parameter table corresponding to one or more first transmission parameters for communications between the network entity and the UE (paras. [0011]-[0014], [0048]-[0053], and [0057]; and Table 6 —a UE can transmit/report a 4-bit CQI value to the network, to identify a CQI index, to control selection of a corresponding entry in the modified CQI table, i.e., the 256QAM CQI table of Fig. 6, having various combinations of modulation order, coding-rate, and spectral efficiency parameters, to use for UE-network communications),
wherein the control information is determined based at least in part on a measurement of a reference signal from the network entity (paras. [0004] and [0011]; and Fig. 4 —the CQI value/index, control information, can be determined based on a measurement of a network DLRS, i.e., a measured SINR value, RS quality correspondence of Figs. 1-2).
However, Larsson does not explicitly teach:
the indication of the capability indicating the UE supports a specific modulation order being higher than some other modulation orders; and
wherein the indicated first quantity of bits indicates a higher number of entries of a channel quality indicator (CQI) table.
Hosseini does teach:
transmitting, to a network entity, a UE capability indication to support one or more second modulation orders higher than one or more first modulation orders (paras. [0113]-[0115] —the UE can transmit MCS capability information to the base station for one or more TTIs —the MCS modulation order capability can be associated with a higher modulation order, i.e., for 1024QAM (dl-1024QAM-slot-r15), as compared to other lower mod orders, such as those associated with 256QAM); and
wherein an indicated first quantity of bits indicates a higher number of entries of a channel quality indicator (CQI) table (paras. [0006], [0025], [0122], and [0058] —a bit value indicated in an IE of a DCI signaled from a BS can be used to identify the CQI table which has a higher number of entries than that of a another CQI table associated with lower modulation order, i.e., a 5-bit CQI index can indicate an entry of a 32-entry CQI table associated with a higher modulation order, and a 4-bit CQI index can indicate an entry of a 16-entry CQI table associated with a lower modulation order).
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 Larsson’s CQI index reporting to a network BS with UE capability reporting supporting one or more modulation orders higher than one or more other modulation orders, where higher modulation order CQI tables can be larger than lower order CQI tables, as taught by Hosseini.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE to report both its MCS capability and its channel quality RS measurements to a BS, in order to more efficiently select the correct MCS to employ for UE-BS communications, as recognized by Hosseini (paras. [0025], [0058], and [0113]-[0117]).
Larsson and Hosseini do not explicitly teach:
receiving, from the network entity based at least in part on the indication, configuration information that indicates a first quantity of bits for signaling a transmission parameter index value that corresponds to an entry of the modified transmission parameter table.
Park does teach:
receiving, from a network entity based on capability information, configuration information that indicates a first quantity of bits for signaling a transmission parameter index value that corresponds to an entry of the modified transmission parameter table (paras. [0366]-[0373] and [0382]-[0384] —a bit quantity, i.e., M/W, corresponding to a M/W-bit transmission parameter table, i.e., a CQI/MCS table can be sent to a UE by a network base station, where the M/W bit value corresponds to an entry of the table).
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 Larsson in view of Hosseini’s CQI reporting to a network BS supporting one or more higher modulation orders, with configuration of a quantity of bits for transmission of the CQI value by indexing the corresponding CQI table based on bit-width, as taught by Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE select a modified CQI table to use for CQI reporting based on a table bit-width/quantity indication configured from the network, as recognized by Park (paras. [0366]-[0373] and [0382]-[0384]).
Hosseini does teach:
wherein a first quantity of bits is M bits and a value of M is indicated in configuration information to indicate an increased quantity of entries of a channel quality indicator (CQI) table in accordance with a modified transmission parameter table.
(paras. [0006], [0025], [0122], and [0058] —a bit value indicated in an IE of a DCI signaled from a BS can be used to identify the CQI table, which has a number of entries, (i.e., 2 to the Mth power; a 4-bit CQI index would correspond to 2 to the 4th power = 16, which indicates a 16 entry CQI table, such as Larsson Table 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 Larsson and Park’s first number of bits to be indicated a designated value in configuration information, as taught by Hosseini.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable precise indication of a number of bits for an increased number of entries of a CQI table, as recognized by Hosseini (paras. [0006], [0025], [0122], and [0058]).
With respect to Claim 3, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Larsson does not explicitly teach:
receiving, from the network entity, second control information that includes a second quantity of bits that indicates a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on an entry in a MCS table that corresponds to an index value provided in the second quantity of bits, and wherein the second quantity of bits is N bits and a value of N is indicated in the configuration information to indicate an increased number of entries of the MCS table in accordance with the modified transmission parameter table.
Hosseini does teach:
receiving, from the network entity, second control information that includes a second quantity of bits that indicates a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on an entry in a MCS table that corresponds to an index value provided in the second quantity of bits, and wherein the second quantity of bits is N bits and a value of N is indicated in the configuration information to indicate an increased number of entries of the MCS table in accordance with a modified transmission parameter table. (paras. [0006], [0025], [0122], and [0058] —a bit value indicated in an IE of a DCI signaled from a BS can be used to identify the MCS table, which has a number of entries, (i.e., 2 to the Nth power; a 5-bit MCS index would correspond to a 2 to the 5th power = 32, which indicates a 32 entry MCS table, such as Larsson Table 2).
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 Larsson’s control information to include a second number of bits that indicates a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on an entry in a MCS table, as taught by Hosseini.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable precise indication of a number of bits for an increased number of entries of a MCS table, as recognized by Hosseini (paras. [0006], [0025], [0122], and [0058]).
With respect to Claim 9, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the transmission parameter table is the CQI table or modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table that includes entries associated with a plurality of modulation orders including one or more of a quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) modulation order, a 16 quadrature amplitude multiplexing (QAM) modulation order, a 64QAM modulation order, a 256QAM modulation order, a 1024QAM modulation order, a 4096QAM modulation order, or any combinations thereof (Larsson: paras. [0013]-[0017]; Fig. 6 —the transmission parameter table can be a CQI table corresponding to a 256QAM modulation order —when alternative terms such as “or” and “one or more of” are provided to refer to more than one alternative claim limitations, only one alternative need be examined on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above).
With respect to Claim 11, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a predetermined number of entries of the set of default entries corresponding to the one or more first modulation orders are replaced with the additional entries corresponding to the one or more second modulation orders include higher modulation orders than the one or more first modulation orders (Larsson: paras. [0038], [0048], and [0052]-[0054]; Fig. 4 —the CQI table for a lower modulation order, i.e., QPSK, 16QAM, or 64QAM, can be modified by to accommodate a higher modulation order i.e., 256QAM, by replacing entries in the table accordingly —the modification can be predetermined to avoid modifying the UCI format, i.e., to keep the same size CQI table w/the same number of entries).
With respect to Claim 15, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the additional entries are provided for the CQI table (Larsson: paras: [0038], [0048]-[0049], and [0052]-[0054]; CQI Tables of Figs. 4 and 6 —down-sampling can be applied to lower modulation order entries of the CQI table, to facilitate adding higher modulation order entries, while maintaining UCI size/format), and where a corresponding plurality of entries for a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table are also modified based at least in part on the additional entries for the CQI table (Larsson: paras: [0038], [0064]-[0067]; MCS Tables of Figs. 7, and 9-11 —down-sampling can likewise be applied to lower modulation order entries of an MCS table, to facilitate adding higher modulation order entries, while maintaining DCI size/format —this can be done for low SINR regions, identified through corresponding CQI signaling, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 16, this claim was amended to recite similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 16 is directed to a method performed by a network device (Larsson: paras. [0043]-[0046]; network node/BS 120 of Figs. 3 and 16). As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to Claim 17, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the first quantity of bits is based at least in part on a size of the modified transmission parameter table or a number of entries of the modified transmission parameter table (Larson: para. [0004]; Table 1; Figs. 4 and 6 —the 4-bit CQI value corresponds to the number of entries: 16 combination of modulation schemes and coding rates in the CQI table —This also directly relates to the data size of the table —Applicant’s specification, at para. [0072], lines 7-13, recites (in part): “…one or more of a CQI indication field or MCS indication field may include a number of bits that is based on a size of the configured tables…,” noting further that a Legacy MCS index is 5 bits and a Legacy CQI index is 4 bits, corresponding to table size).
With respect to Claim 18, this claim was amended to recite similar features to dependent claims 2 and 3. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claims 2 and 3.
With respect to Claim 22, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the one or more modifications to the transmission parameter table include a predetermined number of entries of the first modulation order are replaced with entries of the second modulation order, and wherein the second modulation order is a higher modulation order than the first modulation order (Larsson: paras. [0038], [0048], and [0052]-[0054]; Fig. 4 —the CQI table for a lower modulation order, i.e., QPSK, 16QAM, or 64QAM, can be modified by to accommodate a higher modulation order i.e., 256QAM, by replacing entries in the table accordingly —the modification can be predetermined to avoid modifying the UCI format, i.e., to keep the same size CQI table w/the same number of entries).
With respect to Claim 23, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 22, wherein the predetermined number of entries of the first modulation order are a subset of entries of the first modulation order (Larsson: paras: [0038], and [0052]-[0054] —at the same SNR a subset number of entries for 64QAM, can be replaced with a subset number of entries for 256QAM, within the modified CQI table).
With respect to Claim 24, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches:
The method of claim 23, wherein the subset of entries of the first modulation order each have a lower spectral efficiency than one or more entries of the first modulation order that are outside of the subset of entries (Larsson: paras: [0038], [0041], and [0052]-[0054]; efficiency column of Table 1; SE column in CQI Table of Fig. 4 —256QAM has a higher SE than 64QAM, para [0053]).
With respect to Claim 25, the claim recites similar features to independent Claim 1, except Claim 25 is directed to an apparatus for wireless communications at a UE, comprising one or more processors, one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (Larsson: paras. [0094]-[0097]; wireless device 110 w/processor 1520, memory 1530, and transceiver 1510 of Fig 15). As such, Claim 25 is rejected under § 103 over Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park based on the same rationale explained above for Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 27, the claim recites similar features to Claim 3. As such, Claim 27 is rejected under § 103 over Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park based on the same rationale explained above for Claim 3.
With respect to Claim 30, the claim recites similar features to Claim 15. As such, Claim 30 is rejected under § 103 over Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park based on the same rationale explained above for Claim 15.
Claims 5-8, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park, in further view of US PG Pub 2015/0117568, Wang et al. hereinafter (“Wang”).
With respect to Claim 5, Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park teaches the method of claim 1 with the indication of the subset of entries of the transmission parameter table.
Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication of the subset of entries of the transmission parameter table is provided in a bitmap that indicates available entries of the transmission parameter table.
Wang does teach:
wherein an indication of a subset of entries of a transmission parameter table is provided in a bitmap that indicates available entries of the transmission parameter table. (Wang: paras. [0041], and [0056]-[0057]; 702 of Fig. 7 —the indication is a bitmap of available sub-table entries, as depicted in Fig. 8).
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 Larsson in view of Hosseini and Park’s CQI sub-table indication, with the bitmap sub-table indications taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a more precise selection of an index value of a modified transmission parameter table via bitmap, as recognized by Wang (paras. [0056]-[0058] and [0060]).
With respect to Claim 6, Larsson in view of Hosseini, Park and Wang teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the configuration information indicates two or more different bitmaps that indicate different available entries of the transmission parameter table (Wang: paras. [0066]-[0069]; Figs. 8 and 9a-b —multiple bitmaps 801/802/803 can be utilized to indicate different entries/indices of a CQI table).
With respect to Claim 7, Larsson in view of Hosseini, Park and Wang teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein a first bitmap of the two or more different bitmaps is selected when the communications between the network entity use a first frequency range (Wang: paras. [0078]-[0081]; Fig. 9b —bitmap 1, 905, can indicate a first sub-band 907 differential CQI value/table —a sub-band is a partial frequency band of a larger frequency range, and a sub-band CQI is specific to a particular frequency range), and a second bitmap of the two or more different bitmaps is selected when the communications between the network entity use a second frequency range (Wang: paras. [0078]-[0081]; Fig. 9b —bitmap 2, 906, can indicate a second sub-band 908 differential CQI value/table).
With respect to Claim 8, Larsson in view of Hosseini, Park and Wang teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the bitmap is provided in radio resource control signaling, in a medium access control (MAC) control element, in downlink control information (DCI), or any combinations thereof, and indicates entries of one or more of the CQI table or modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table (Wang: para. [0057] —the bitmap can be provided in RRC signaling —when the alternative term “or” is provided to refer to alternative claim limitations, only one alternative need be examined on the merits, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above).
With respect to Claim 20, the claim recites similar features to Claim 5. As such, Claim 20 is rejected under § 103 over Larsson in view of Hosseini, Park and Wang based on the same rationale explained above for Claim 5.
With respect to Claim 21, the claim recites similar features to Claim 7. As such, Claim 21 is rejected under § 103 over Larsson in view of Hosseini, Park and Wang based on the same rationale explained above for Claim 7.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights