DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 09/10/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 24, and 26-29 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, and 23 have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 25 have been cancelled.
NEW claims 26-29 have been added.
Claim Objections
The objection of claim 23 from the previous Office Action is withdrawn herewith in view of Applicant’s corrective claim amendments.
Claim Rejections under §112
The rejection of claim 7 and 17 under §112(d) from the previous Office Action has been obviated by Applicant’s claim amendments, cancelling each of claims 7 and 17.
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 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 11, 23 and 24, Applicant argues that the prior art combination of Yerramalli in view of Lee does not teach/suggest the amended claim features:
wherein in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal corresponding to the resource is used for transmission of the A-type message of the second type of a random access mechanism; and
in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is inconsistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information comprises the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal corresponding to the resource is used for transmission of the A-type message of the second type of a random access mechanism. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 10-11.
In this regard, Applicant argues that the above amendments clearly identify a dynamic behavior for CSI feedback based on specific conditions, and that this dynamic logic based on index consistency is not taught by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant then argues that the Lee reference does not teach/suggest the “core innovation of the present invention,” which is stated to be “controlling signaling transmission to optimize resources.” Id. at p. 12. In this regard, the Examiner must first address the fact that the content of the amended claim subject matter at issue, is now rejected under §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirements.
Specifically, the independent claims of the present application each recite: “wherein in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal…,” which at the very least requires there to be an index of an optimal reference signal that facilitates a consistency determination. “The index of the optimal reference signal” was only previously introduced in the claims in the limitation: “wherein a parameter of the channel state information comprises at least one of …an index of an optimal reference signal,” and the channel state information was recited to have been reported in a reporting step, i.e., from a UE to a BS. The parameter of the CSI was not otherwise defined in the claim other than being “of the channel state information.”
Considering each claim as a whole, the claim limitation at issue first claims that a CSI comprises an index of an optimal reference signal as a parameter thereof. This makes sense as a UE can report a best RS/beam as part of a CSI report. However, the same claim limitation also recites within a wherein clause that “the parameter of the channel station information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal,” “…in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is not consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second-type of random access mechanism.” This does not make sense, as the index of the optimal reference signal of the CSI is itself an integral part of the consistency determination, but the index is later indicated to not be part of the CSI based on the consistency determination.
The Examiner believes portions of the independent claims which were cancelled relating to indication information being used for indicating a parameter comprised in the CSI, were perhaps necessary for being able to understand Applicant’s claimed invention, as recently amended. Regardless, the claims have been interpreted in the present form and have been examined without considering content previously removed therefrom.
As noted above, Applicant argues that its amendments “clearly identify a dynamic behavior for CSI feedback based on specific conditions,” and that “this dynamic logic based on index consistency is not taught by the prior art.” However, the Examiner contends that the “dynamic logic” referred to is in fact not taught in Applicant’s claims, and that substantial claim revision is required to clarify what actually occurs in the alternate cases where “the index of the optimal reference signal” is determined to be consistent or inconsistent with “an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second-type random access mechanism.” Is the index of the optimal reference signal claimed intended to be a parameter indicated in the indication information?
In the present Office Action, Lee is relied upon to substantially teach/suggest the above claim features at issue. In this regard, Lee describe a second type of RA mechanism being a 2-step RA procedure with an A-type message being MsgA, and that UE CSI reporting can be required by configuration from a BS. The configuration of Lee can require beam measurement and CSI reporting of a best beam that is determined to satisfy an RSRP threshold, among configured candidate beams having associated beam indexes. Lee also describes that its CSI reporting can occur via MsgA in a RACH occasion (RO) that is associated with a beam having the largest RSRP, and this beam can be identified by index therein (paras. [0195]-[0196], [0201]-[0212], [0247], and [0225]-[0226]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25).
Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Yerramalli’s CSI parameter reporting of RS CQI with corresponding identification of the optimal RS associated with a highest RSRP for a particular type of RA mechanism, i.e., 2-step or 4-step RA, to better identify and report on a best RS beam for intra-device communications. In this regard, Lee in combination with Yerramalli, fairly teaches/suggests the subject matter of the above-cited claim limitations, as interpreted under the Office’s BRI standard.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments against Lee have been determined not to be persuasive, and Applicant must address the corresponding §112(a) rejections included herewith in its subsequent response.
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. 14. 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 11, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement.
Regarding Claim 1, this amended claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 1 recites, in-part, “1wherein in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal…,” which requires there to be an index of an optimal reference signal for consistency determination.
However, claim 1 later recites if such a consistency (“corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism”) is determined to exist, “the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal…,” which indicates there is no such index parameter of the CSI. This is counter-intuitive, because if you do not have an index of an optimal reference signal in the CSI, how can any consistency determinations be made based on its existence?
For example, initially claim 1 recites that a service node receives CSI information reported from a terminal. The claim also recites that a parameter of the same received CSI optionally includes the index of an optimal reference signal. Next, the above-cited wherein clause1 then indicates that there exists an index of an optimal reference signal, upon which the consistency determination is made. However, the same consistency determination can determine “the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal,” which does not make sense.
Paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s disclosure describes a first indication information, sent from a BS sent to a UE, which can be used to indicate a parameter, i.e., an index of an optimal reference signal, for inclusion in a CSI to be reported from the UE to the BS. Also described is a situation where when one item/parameter is not indicated in the indication information, then corresponding indication content may otherwise be determined based on a preset rule. Id. However, amended claim 1 does not recite that its received indication information includes any information that indicates a parameter comprised in the CSI, as this subject matter was removed from claim 1, by the latest claim amendment. In this regard, the Examiner believes the indication of the CSI parameter received in the indication the information is perhaps what the consistency determination is intended to be based on. As such, the amended claims should be checked for technical correctness.
There does not appear to be any written description in Applicant’s original disclosure adequately supporting the above claim subject matter at issue, for the reasons explained above. Thus, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Further, claim 1 also fails to comply with the enablement requirement as a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and use the claimed invention as recited, for at least the reasons described above. Specifically, claim1 recites a scenario where there is no index of an optimal reference signal in the CSI, while also claiming that determinations are based on the existence of an index of an optimal reference signal in the same CSI. This does not make sense. Thus, claim 1 fails to comply with the enablement requirement.
Applicant is hereby required to provide specific citation support for the amended claim subject matter of claim 1 in its original disclosure, if maintained, and to describe the function of this claim subject matter for context.
Regarding claims 11, 23, and 24, these independent claims recite similar problematic subject matter to independent claim 1, and are therefore also rejected under §112(a) as failing to comply with both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement, for the same reasons described above for claim 1. Applicant is hereby required to provide specific citation support for the amended claim subject matter of claims 11, 23, and 24 in its original disclosure, if maintained, and to describe the function of this claim subject matter for context.
Regarding claims 6, 9, 16, 19, and 26-29, these dependent claims are also rejected under §112(a) as failing to comply with both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement based at least upon their respective dependence from one of independent claims 1 or 11.
The Examiner notes that amended claim limitations, which are not supported by the original disclosure in a corresponding foreign priority document do not receive the priority benefit thereof. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2017/0353976 A1, Yerramalli et al. (hereinafter “Yerramalli”) in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0051733 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Yerramalli teaches:
An information reporting method, applied to a terminal (wireless device 115 of Figs. 1 and 11), comprising:
receiving indication information under a random access mechanism (paras. [0004], [0010], [0061]-[0063], and [0078] —the UE can receive, from the BS, a RACH pre-establishment message with SIB/eSIB information indicating CSI reporting is enabled and resources a UE is to use for determining CSI); and
reporting channel state information according to the indication information (paras. [0004], [0010], [0063]-[0065], and [0070] —the UE can recognize CSI reporting is enable from the indication information and then transmit a corresponding CSI report, relating to the BS indicated resources in a subsequent RACH request message),
wherein a parameter of a the channel state information comprises at least one of a cell index, a subcarrier index, an index of an optimal reference signal reference signal receiving power (RSRP), a channel quality indicator (CQI), a rank indicator (RI), or a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) (paras. [0004] and [0008] —the CSI can include at least one of CQI, PMI, RI, etc. —the terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on the merits of a single claim alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations, section),
However, Yerramalli does not explicitly teach:
wherein the optimal reference signal is a reference signal with a largest measurement power or a reference signal with a largest CQI;
wherein in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal corresponding to the resource is used for transmission of the A-type message of the second type of a random access mechanism; and
in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is inconsistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information comprises the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal corresponding to the resource is used for transmission of the A-type message of the second type of a random access mechanism. Lee does teach:
where an optimal reference signal is a reference signal with a largest measurement power or a reference signal with a largest CQI (paras. [0006]-[0009], and [0222] —the RS with the largest RSRP can be identified to the BS as the optimal/best RS beam —the term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single corresponding claim alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
wherein in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal corresponding to the resource is used for transmission of the A-type message of the second type of a random access mechanism (paras. [0195]-[0196], [0201]-[0212], [0247], and [0225]-[0226]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25 —a second type of RA mechanism is interpreted to be a 2-step RA procedure with an A-type message being MsgA, 2101/2203/S2503, UE CSI reporting can be required by configuration from a BS —configuration can require beam measurement and CSI reporting of a best beam satisfying an RSRP threshold, among configured candidate beams having associated beam indexes, where CSI reporting can occur via MsgA in a RO associated with a beam having the largest RSRP, and this beam can be identified by index —Applicant is hereby required to provide specific support for this claim limitation in its original disclosure, if maintained, in its next response); and
in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is inconsistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by an A-type message of a second type of random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information comprises the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal corresponding to the resource is used for transmission of the A-type message of the second type of a random access mechanism (paras. [0195]-[0196], [0201]-[0212], [0247], and [0225]-[0226]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25 —a second type of RA mechanism is interpreted to be a 2-step RA procedure with an A-type message being MsgA, 2101/2203/S2503, UE CSI reporting can be required by configuration from a BS —configuration can require beam measurement and CSI reporting of a best beam satisfying an RSRP threshold, among configured candidate beams having associated beam indexes, where CSI reporting can occur via MsgA in a RO associated with a beam having the largest RSRP, and this beam can be identified by index —Applicant is hereby required to provide specific support for this claim limitation in its original disclosure, if maintained, in its next response).
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 Yerramalli’s CSI parameter reporting of RS CQI, RI, PMI with corresponding identification of the best RS beam associated with a highest RSRP for a particular type of RA mechanism, i.e., 2-step or 4-step RA, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to identify and report on a best RS beam to improve future intra-device communications, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0195]-[0196], [0201]-[0212], [0247], and [0225]-[0226]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25).
With respect to claim 6, Yerramalli in view of Lee teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the channel state information is obtained by measuring a reference signal, wherein the reference signal comprises at least one of an SSB or a CSI-RS (Yerramalli: paras. [0043], [0061], [0064], and [0075]; and block 204a of Fig. 3 —the RA pre-establishment message for the 2-step RA procedure can include indication of a CSI-RS to be measured by a UE to generate its CSI report —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claim alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 9, Yerramalli teaches the method according to claim 7.
However, Yerramalli does not teach:
in a case of more than one reference signal antenna port, the parameter of the channel state information comprises at least one of the cell index, the subcarrier index, the index of the optimal reference signal, the RSRP of the optimal reference signal, the CQI of the optimal reference signal, the RI of the optimal reference signal, or the PMI of the optimal reference signal.
Lee does teach:
in a case of more than one reference signal antenna port, the parameter of the channel state information comprises at least one of the cell index, the subcarrier index, the index of the optimal reference signal, the RSRP of the optimal reference signal, the CQI of the optimal reference signal, the RI of the optimal reference signal, or the PMI of the optimal reference signal (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0222], and [0286]; multiple antenna ports 108/208 of Fig 26 —an index for a best RS can be indicated by the UE (having multiple antenna ports) in terms of RSRP —the alternative terms “or” and “at least one of” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claim alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section.
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 Yerramalli’s CSI reporting with the parameter configured reporting for a device having more than one reference signal antenna port, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consider multi-antenna port reference signal communications, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0006]-[0007], [0222], and [0286]; and antenna ports 108/208 of Fig 26).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is directed to a method applied from the perspective of a service node (Yerramalli: network base station 105 of Figs. 1 and 7). As such claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 9. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 9.
With respect to claim 23, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 23 is directed to a terminal comprising at least one processor and a storage apparatus configured to store an executable program (Yerramalli: terminal device 115 with processor 1125 and memory 1130 storing programs 1135 of Fig. 11). As such claim 23 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 24, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 11, except claim 24 is directed to a service node comprising at least one processor and a storage apparatus configured to store an executable program (Yerramalli: base station 105 with processor 725 and memory 730 storing programs 735 of Fig. 7). As such claim 24 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 11.
With respect to claim 26, Yerramalli teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication information is used for indicating that the terminal reports the channel state information through an A-type message of a second-type random access mechanism, and the A-type message comprises a random access preamble and the channel state information, wherein in a case of the second-type random access mechanism, the indication information is a downlink broadcast message, and wherein the indication information comprises first indication information used for indicating a parameter comprised in the channel state information reported by the terminal wherein the indication information is used for indicating that the terminal reports the channel state information through an A-type message of a second-type random access mechanism, and the A-type message comprises a random access preamble and the channel state information.
However, Lee does teach:
wherein the indication information is used for indicating that the terminal reports the channel state information through an A-type message of a second-type random access mechanism, and the A-type message comprises a random access preamble and the channel state information (paras. [0209]-[0212], [0222], and [0231]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25 —configuration information S2501 can include indication information of a 2-step RACH procedure indicating the UE should report CSI via MsgA along with a PRACH preamble 2101),
wherein in a case of the second-type random access mechanism, the indication information is a downlink broadcast message (paras. [0070], [0101]-[0102], and [0256]; and Figs. 8 to 13 —indication information for a 2-step RACH procedure can be broadcast via SSB or RRC signaling, such as MIB and SIB), and
wherein the indication information comprises first indication information used for indicating a parameter comprised in the channel state information reported by the terminal (paras. [0042], [0209]-[0212], [0222], and [0231]-[0234]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25 —the configuration information can include an indication parameter for CSI reporting by a UE during the 2-step RA procedure, such as power, power step-ramping, preambletransmax parameters, etc.) wherein the indication information is used for indicating that the terminal reports the channel state information through an A-type message of a second-type random access mechanism, and the A-type message comprises a random access preamble and the channel state information (paras. [0209]-[0212], [0222], and [0231]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25 —configuration information S2501 can include indication information of a 2-step RACH procedure indicating the UE should report CSI via MsgA along with a PRACH preamble 2101).
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 Yerramalli’s RA solution with the 2-step RA mechanism including indication of CSI parameters for UE reporting, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better configure CSI reporting for a 2-step RA procedure, where a MsgA includes preamble and CSI report messaging, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0042], [0209]-[0212], [0222], and [0231]-[0234]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25).
With respect to claim 27, Yerramalli in view of Lee teaches:
The method according to claim 26, wherein a reference signal to be measured for the terminal to calculate the channel state information is a reference signal corresponding to a resource occupied by the A-type message of the second-type random access mechanism (Yerramalli: paras. [0209]-[0212], [0222], and [0231]; and Figs. 21, 22, and 25 —configuration information S2501 can include indication information indicating the RS to be measured/reported, and this can correspond to the RO for the MsgA of a of a 2-step RACH procedure) wherein the reference signal comprises at least one of a synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel block (SSB), or a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) (Yerramalli: paras. [0043], [0061], [0064], and [0075]; and block 204a of Fig. 3 —the RA pre-establishment message for the 2-step RA procedure can include indication of a CSI-RS to be measured by a UE to generate its CSI report —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claim alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 28, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 26. As such, claim 28 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 26.
With respect to claim 29, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 27. As such, claim 29 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Yerramalli in view of Lee, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 27.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461