DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 12 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 21 are currently amended; claims 16 and 22 are cancelled; claims 2-15 and 17-20 are previously presented; claim 23 has been added. Claims 1-15, 17-21, and 23 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. (US 2018/0070362 A1), hereafter referred Ryan, in view of Huo et al. (US 2021/0352693 A1), hereafter referred Huo. Ryan was cited by applicant’s IDS filed 19 May 2022.
Regarding claim 1, Ryan teaches a method performed by a processing device for detecting Passive Intermodulation, PIM, the method comprising:
obtaining one or more Performance Measurements, PMs, related to downlink traffic of a communication network (Ryan, [0083]-[0084]; performance measurement PM data may be collected and examples of specific PM counters and aggregate KPIs include RTWP, RSSI, PM data, number of active voice users, number of active data session users, and capacity credits consumed vs capacity credits available);
obtaining one or more measurements related to uplink noise of the communication network (Ryan, [0083]-[0084]; performance measure PM data may be collected and examples of specific PM counters and aggregate KPIs include UL Noise Rise);
determining a relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise (Ryan, [0073]; uplink noise rise at co-site cells may be normalized against cell downlink traffic to investigate possible cases of intermodulation).
Ryan does not expressly teach the determining a relationship comprising determining aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups from an aggressor carrier group and a victim carrier group, wherein each of the aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups comprises a possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination group paired with a possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier, wherein each possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination of a size n from the aggressor carrier group is paired with each possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier from the victim carrier group, where the size n is greater than one and less than the size of the aggressor carrier group; and
detecting the PIM based on the determined relationship,
wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises using several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group.
However, Huo teaches the determining a relationship comprising determining aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups from an aggressor carrier group and a victim carrier group (Huo, Fig. 1 and 5, [0077]-[0082]; the base station may obtain the information about predicted interference of the N downlink carriers of the base station to the uplink carrier), wherein each of the aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups comprises a possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination group paired with a possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier, wherein each possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination of a size n from the aggressor carrier group is paired with each possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier from the victim carrier group, where the size n is greater than one and less than the size of the aggressor carrier group (Huo, [0108]-[0125]; The detailed step of creating the interference information table, where the example uses N downlink carriers and a quantity M uplink carriers allowing for each possible downlink carrier combination being paired with each possible uplink carrier); and
detecting the PIM based on the determined relationship (Huo, [0181]-[0183]; the base station obtains, based on the interference relationship between the one or more downlink scheduling unit combinations on the carriers corresponding to the N downlink signals and each uplink scheduling unit on the carrier corresponding to the uplink signal, information about predicted interference of passive intermodulation signals generated by interaction between the N downlink signals to m uplink scheduling units),
wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises using several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group (Huo, [0181]-[0183]; the base station obtains, based on the interference relationship between the one or more downlink scheduling unit combinations on the carriers corresponding to the N downlink signals and each uplink scheduling unit on the carrier corresponding to the uplink signal, information about predicted interference of passive intermodulation signals generated by interaction between the N downlink signals to m uplink scheduling units).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Huo in order to improve the resource utilization and suppress the interference from the passive intermodulation signals (Huo, [0090]).
Ryan in view of Huo does not expressly teach wherein the several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group comprise, for each of several specific dBm ranges, a count of Transmission Time Intervals (TTIs) with uplink interference withi8n the specific dBm range.
However, Bergstrom teaches wherein the several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group comprise, for each of several specific dBm ranges, a count of Transmission Time Intervals (TTIs) with uplink interference withi8n the specific dBm range (Bergstrom, p. 24; for PRB utilization: in each TTI the PRB utilization is calculated by dividing the number of PRBs used for transmission by the total number of PRBs according to equation 5.1 and for Interference: the interference is calculated according to equation 5.2 and is averaged over time, PRB, and cell and presented in dBm. The combination of this is that the interference measures comprise a calculation that is represented in dBm and is averaged over time and PRB, where the PRB is calculated for each TTI. With all these measures are calculated, it is a matter of user preference for how to represent the data for each aggressor carrier-victim carrier group, where Fig. 5.2 on p. 30 illustrates one such possible representation for the data that looks at the uplink interference received by base stations based on interference against cells with different UE deployment configurations).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to determine system performance to make more efficient bandwidth usage (Bergstrom, p. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Ryan teaches a processing device for detecting Passive Intermodulation, PIM, the processing device comprising:
one or more processors (Ryan, Fig. 2, [0051]; one or more processor devices including a CPU); and
memory comprising instructions (Ryan, Fig. 2, [0051]; the CPU is responsible for executing computer programs stored on volatile and nonvolatile memories and a storage device) to cause the processing device to:
obtain one or more Performance Measurements, PMs, related to downlink traffic of a communication network (Ryan, [0083]-[0084]; performance measurement PM data may be collected and examples of specific PM counters and aggregate KPIs include RTWP, RSSI, PM data, number of active voice users, number of active data session users, and capacity credits consumed vs capacity credits available);
obtain one or more measurements related to uplink noise of the communication network (Ryan, [0083]-[0084]; performance measure PM data may be collected and examples of specific PM counters and aggregate KPIs include UL Noise Rise);
determine a relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise (Ryan, [0073]; uplink noise rise at co-site cells may be normalized against cell downlink traffic to investigate possible cases of intermodulation).
Ryan does not expressly teach the determine a relationship comprising determining aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups from an aggressor carrier group and a victim carrier group, wherein each of the aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups comprises a possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination group paired with a possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier, wherein each possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination of a size n from the aggressor carrier group is paired with each possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier from the victim carrier group, where the size n is greater than one and less than the size of the aggressor carrier group; and
detect the PIM based on the determined relationship,
wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises using several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group.
However, Huo teaches the determining a relationship comprising determining aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups from an aggressor carrier group and a victim carrier group (Huo, Fig. 1 and 5, [0077]-[0082]; the base station may obtain the information about predicted interference of the N downlink carriers of the base station to the uplink carrier), wherein each of the aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups comprises a possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination group paired with a possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier, wherein each possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combination of a size n from the aggressor carrier group is paired with each possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carrier from the victim carrier group, where the size n is greater than one and less than the size of the aggressor carrier group (Huo, [0108]-[0125]; The detailed step of creating the interference information table, where the example uses N downlink carriers and a quantity M uplink carriers allowing for each possible downlink carrier combination being paired with each possible uplink carrier); and
detecting the PIM based on the determined relationship (Huo, [0181]-[0183]; the base station obtains, based on the interference relationship between the one or more downlink scheduling unit combinations on the carriers corresponding to the N downlink signals and each uplink scheduling unit on the carrier corresponding to the uplink signal, information about predicted interference of passive intermodulation signals generated by interaction between the N downlink signals to m uplink scheduling units),
wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises using several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group (Huo, [0181]-[0183]; the base station obtains, based on the interference relationship between the one or more downlink scheduling unit combinations on the carriers corresponding to the N downlink signals and each uplink scheduling unit on the carrier corresponding to the uplink signal, information about predicted interference of passive intermodulation signals generated by interaction between the N downlink signals to m uplink scheduling units).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Huo in order to improve the resource utilization and suppress the interference from the passive intermodulation signals (Huo, [0090]).
Ryan in view of Huo does not expressly teach wherein the several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group comprise, for each of several specific dBm ranges, a count of Transmission Time Intervals (TTIs) with uplink interference withi8n the specific dBm range.
However, Bergstrom teaches wherein the several uplink interference measures per aggressor carrier-victim carrier group comprise, for each of several specific dBm ranges, a count of Transmission Time Intervals (TTIs) with uplink interference withi8n the specific dBm range (Bergstrom, p. 24; for PRB utilization: in each TTI the PRB utilization is calculated by dividing the number of PRBs used for transmission by the total number of PRBs according to equation 5.1 and for Interference: the interference is calculated according to equation 5.2 and is averaged over time, PRB, and cell and presented in dBm. The combination of this is that the interference measures comprise a calculation that is represented in dBm and is averaged over time and PRB, where the PRB is calculated for each TTI. With all these measures are calculated, it is a matter of user preference for how to represent the data for each aggressor carrier-victim carrier group, where Fig. 5.2 on p. 30 illustrates one such possible representation for the data that looks at the uplink interference received by base stations based on interference against cells with different UE deployment configurations).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo to include the above recited limitations as taught by Bergstrom in order to determine system performance to make more efficient bandwidth usage (Bergstrom, p. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic comprise counters (Ryan, [0084]; examples of specific PM counters and aggregate KPIs).
Regarding claim 3, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprise counters (Ryan, [0084]; examples of specific PM counters and aggregate KPIs).
Regarding claim 4, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic comprise a Physical Resource Block, PRB, utilization (Ryan, [0099]; additional normalization metrics may be utilized such as the number of Physical Resource Blocks allocated in an LTE system).
Regarding claim 5, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan does not expressly teach further comprising:
determining which of the possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combinations are causing degradation to which of the possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carriers.
However, Huo teaches further comprising:
determining which of the possible downlink carrier aggressor carrier combinations are causing degradation to which of the possible uplink carrier PIM interference victim carriers (Huo, [0108]-[0125]; The detailed step of creating the interference information table, where the example uses N downlink carriers and a quantity M uplink carriers allowing for each possible downlink carrier combination being paired with each possible uplink carrier).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Huo in order to improve the resource utilization and suppress the interference from the passive intermodulation signals (Huo, [0090]).
Regarding claim 7, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the PIM comprises one or more of the group consisting of: in-line PIM to a radio unit and external PIM (Ryan, [0009]-[0012]; the unintentional interference is detected to be local or external interference to the wireless network).
Regarding claim 8, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic are proportional to radiated power (Ryan, [0084]; PM data that is collected may determine network cells are failing due to high levels of noise energy, such as in Received Total Wideband Power, RSSI on downlink by UEs, Received Signal Code Power and Reference Signal Received Power).
Regarding claim 9, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic are related to normal traffic in the communication network (Ryan, [0102]-[0104]; the metrics are caused by the sum and difference mixing products and harmonics of the transmitted signals that interfere with the receiving signals resulting in interference that is strongly correlated to the traffic of the downlink transmitters).
Regarding claim 10, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic comprise measurements with information of a downlink load on a certain carrier frequency under a given time period (Ryan, [0102]-[0104]; the metrics are caused by the sum and difference mixing products and harmonics of the transmitted signals that interfere with the receiving signals resulting in interference that is strongly correlated to the traffic of the downlink transmitters).
Regarding claim 11, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein detecting the PIM based on the determined relationship comprises predicting a PIM level impact with respect to a downlink traffic load (Ryan, [0102]-[0110]; the embodiment may make the following determination is the detected interference strongly time correlated to downlink traffic from co-site transmitters that could mix to cause problems).
Regarding claim 12, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprise measurements with information of uplink interference on the certain carrier frequency under a given time period (Ryan, [0102]-[0110]; the embodiment may make the following determination is a relatively high level of uplink interference present in a receive channel).
Regarding claim 14, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan does not expressly teach wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises determining levels of interference between the aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups.
However, Huo teaches wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises determining levels of interference between the aggressor carrier-victim carrier groups (Huo, [0181]-[0183]; the base station obtains, based on the interference relationship between the one or more downlink scheduling unit combinations on the carriers corresponding to the N downlink signals and each uplink scheduling unit on the carrier corresponding to the uplink signal, information about predicted interference of passive intermodulation signals generated by interaction between the N downlink signals to m uplink scheduling units).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan to include the above recited limitations as taught by Huo in order to improve the resource utilization and suppress the interference from the passive intermodulation signals (Huo, [0090]).
Regarding claim 15, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Further, Ryan teaches wherein determining the relationship between the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic and the one or more measurements related to uplink noise comprises determining a correlation between them (Ryan, [0100]-[0104]; the normalization metrics may be uplink noise and performed against downlink metrics to aid in the detection of specific sources and see the correlations between the noise rise in the uplink against these different metrics).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hariharan et al. (US 2014/0153418 A1), hereafter referred Hariharan. Hariharan was cited by applicant’s IDS filed 19 May 2022.
Regarding claim 6, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic are already calculated for other reasons.
However, Hariharan teaches wherein the one or more PMs related to downlink traffic are already calculated for other reasons (Hariharan, [0072]; diagnostic measurements can be collected for each antenna during a period of high network traffic and low network traffic).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Hariharan in order to identify and quantify PIM issues (Hariharan, [0073]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Estevez et al. (US 2021/0084655 A1), hereafter referred Estevez.
Regarding claim 13, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 10 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach wherein the carrier frequency can be a mobile carrier frequency span that occupies a certain frequency range.
However, Estevez teaches wherein the carrier frequency can be a mobile carrier frequency span that occupies a certain frequency range (Estevez, [0042]; data transmission rates in cellular networks may be transmitted at higher frequency ranges, such as at 6 GHz or higher).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Estevez in order to meet the demand for increased wireless data traffic and mitigating interference (Estevez, [0002]-[0006]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghozlan et al. (US 2022/0109536 A1), hereafter referred Ghozlan.
Regarding claim 17, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach wherein the outcome of the analysis is a list that for every aggressor carrier-victim carrier group has one or more performance indicators for this aggressor carrier-victim carrier group.
However, Ghozlan teaches wherein the outcome of the analysis is a list that for every aggressor carrier-victim carrier group has one or more performance indicators for this aggressor carrier-victim carrier group (Ghozlan, [0026]-[0027]; remote interference management is used to alleviate the degradation suffered by the downlink and uplink channels and includes mitigation action to identify the aggressors and corresponding victim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Ghozlan in order to verify legitimate victim-aggressor pairs (Ghozlan, [0003]-[0006]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gale et al. (GB 2508383 A), hereafter referred Gale.
Regarding claim 18, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach further comprising: triggering an alarm if the PIM exceeds a threshold.
However, Gale teaches further comprising: triggering an alarm if the PIM exceeds a threshold (Gale, Figure 16, p. 53, lines 1-15; plan for site visit (or plan for use of PIM cancellation resource) when PIM is predicted to pass a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Gale in order to optimize use of PIM cancellers (Gale, p. 53, lines 10-22).
Regarding claim 19, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach further comprising: triggering PIM mitigation functions if the PIM exceeds a threshold.
However, Gale teaches further comprising: triggering PIM mitigation functions if the PIM exceeds a threshold (Gale, Figure 16, p. 53, lines 1-15; plan for site visit (or plan for use of PIM cancellation resource) when PIM is predicted to pass a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Gale in order to optimize use of PIM cancellers (Gale, p. 53, lines 10-22).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wietfeldt et al. (US 2016/0087732 A1), hereafter referred Wietfeldt.
Regarding claim 20, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach further comprising: determining a site map that displays what aggressor carriers, in what directions or on what radio hardware are creating PIM interference.
However, Wietfeldt teaches further comprising: determining a site map that displays what aggressor carriers, in what directions or on what radio hardware are creating PIM interference (Wietfeldt, Fig. 3, [0022]; computing device includes one or more aggressor application transceivers that has an interface that transfers the clock signals and data signals to the victim receiver).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wietfeldt in order to successfully mitigate the effects of EMI within mobile computing devices (Wietfeldt, [0006]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0396621 A1), hereafter referred Park.
Regarding claim 23, Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom teaches the method of claim 1 above. Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom does not expressly teach further comprising: determining a maximum level of PIM for each aggressor carrier-victim carrier group based on the counts of the TTIs.
However, Park teaches further comprising: determining a maximum level of PIM for each aggressor carrier-victim carrier group based on the counts of the TTIs (Park, [0126]; in the TTIs in which base station has scheduled communications with the UE, base station may schedule communications with UEs to meet a maximum interference threshold or reduce the transmit power for beams directed near the UE).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Ryan in view of Huo further in view of Bergstrom to include the above recited limitations as taught by Park in order to support OTA interference coordination among base stations (Park, [0127]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416