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 Amendment
Claims 1, 7, 16 and 22 are amended. Claim 20 are cancelled. Claim 31 is added. Claims 1-19 and 21-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 1/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-19 and 21-30, have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 7-9, 12-13, 16, 22-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi (US. Pub. No. 2020/0083934 A1) in view of Tan et al. (US. Pub. No. 2025/0112599 A1) and further in view of Nilsson et al. (US. Pub. No. 2025/0279817 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nammi discloses a user equipment (UE) (See Nammi Par. [49] and Fig. 8; MIMO Receiving device 820, which is a user equipment UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories (See Fig. 8; Memory 826); and one or more processors, coupled to one or more memories (See Fig. 8; Processor 824), the one or more processors individually or collectively, configured to cause the UE to: communicate, via a wireless access link, with a network node (See Par. [46], [65], [94] of Nammi for a reference to establishing the wireless link 815 between MIMO transmit device 802, and MIMO receiving device 820):
Subsequently, receive, from a network node, an indication of a non-linearity level associated with a plurality of transmit antennas (See Fig. 8; Antennas 804) of the network node (See Par. [47]-[48] and Fig. 8; 810 of Nammi for a reference to a non-linear model identifier 806 is provided to map a non-linear response of non-linear devices 808. Non-linear response is provided in a message 810 to MIMO receiving device 820), wherein the indication is received after the UE establishes the wireless access link with the network node (See Par. [46] of Nammi for a reference to message 810 can be transmitted as part of physical layer signaling over wireless link 815 [This implies that the wireless link 815 is established first, since message 810 is transmitted over an existed [established] link]); and
selectively perform non-linearity correction for a downlink communication received from the network node based at least in part on the indication of the non-linearity level (See Par. [46], [49]-[50] and Fig. 8 of Nammi for a reference to non-linear function data included in message 810 are used to select non-linear usage code 832, which is used to properly decode the received signal from receiving antennas 822 which is affected by non-linear distortion caused by the non-linear devices 808 in the MIMO TX device 802).
Nammi does not explicitly disclose the indication of a non-linearity level is transmitted via a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises indications of per transmit antenna non-linearity levels for the plurality of transmit antennas.
However, Tan discloses the indication of a non-linearity level is transmitted via a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (See Par. [37], [57] of Tan for a reference to the power amplifier (PA) model parameters, including the PA non-linearity are estimated at the gNB, and can be signalled to the UE via physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tan to Nammi. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving the UE’s PA linearity, PA efficiency and network’s communication functions with their node. (Tan; Par. [97]).
The combination of Nammi and Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises indications of per transmit antenna non-linearity levels for the plurality of transmit antennas.
However Nilsson discloses wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises indications of per transmit antenna non-linearity levels for the plurality of transmit antennas (See Par. [97]-[100] and Fig. 6 of Nilsson for a reference to the UE signals [Sends] antenna group information to the gNB, The antenna group information contains, among other parameters, an indication of non-linear or non-planar array of transmit antennas).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nilsson to the combination of Nammi and Tan. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving data rate, latency and coverage through the accurate non-linearity measurements. (Nilsson; Par. [208]).
Regarding claim 7, Nammi discloses a network node for wireless communication (See Nammi; Fig. 8; MIMO TX device 802), comprising: one or more memories (See Fig. 8; Memory 826); and one or more processors, coupled to one or more memories (See Fig. 8; Processor 824), the one or more processors individually or collectively, configured to cause the network node to: communicate, via a wireless access link, with a network node (See Par. [46], [65], [94] of Nammi for a reference to establishing the wireless link 815 between MIMO transmit device 802, and MIMO receiving device 820):
Subsequently, transmit, to the UE, an indication of a non-linearity level associated with a plurality of transmit antennas (See Fig. 8; Antennas 804) of the network node (See Par. [47]-[48] and Fig. 8; 810 of Nammi for a reference to a non-linear model identifier 806 is provided to map a non-linear response of non-linear devices 808. Non-linear response is provided in a message 810 to MIMO receiving device 820), wherein the indication is received after the UE establishes the wireless access link with the network node (See Par. [46] of Nammi for a reference to message 810 can be transmitted as part of physical layer signaling over wireless link 815 [This implies that the wireless link 815 is established first, since message 810 is transmitted over an existed [established] link]); and
Nammi does not explicitly disclose the indication of a non-linearity level is transmitted via a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises indications of per transmit antenna non-linearity levels for the plurality of transmit antennas.
However, Tan discloses the indication of a non-linearity level is transmitted via a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) (See Par. [37], [57] of Tan for a reference to the power amplifier (PA) model parameters, including the PA non-linearity are estimated at the gNB, and can be signalled to the UE via physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tan to Nammi. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving the UE’s PA linearity, PA efficiency and network’s communication functions with their node. (Tan; Par. [97]).
The combination of Nammi and Tan does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises indications of per transmit antenna non-linearity levels for the plurality of transmit antennas.
However Nilsson discloses wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises indications of per transmit antenna non-linearity levels for the plurality of transmit antennas (See Par. [97]-[100] and Fig. 6 of Nilsson for a reference to the UE signals [Sends] antenna group information to the gNB, The antenna group information contains, among other parameters, an indication of non-linear or non-planar array of transmit antennas).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nilsson to the combination of Nammi and Tan. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving data rate, latency and coverage through the accurate non-linearity measurements. (Nilsson; Par. [208]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson, specifically Nammi discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
cause the network node to store a measured non-linearity level associated with the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node, wherein the indication of the non-linearity level includes an indication of the measured non-linearity level associated with the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node (See Par. [58] and Fig. 10; 1004 of Nammi for a reference to storing, by the system, the signal data indicative of the non-linear response of non-linear devices).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson, specifically Nammi discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the network node to measure the non-linearity level associated with the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node (See Par. [58], [35]-[36] of Nammi for a reference to determining/measuring the non-linear response of the non-linear devices by estimating the non-linear model identifier 210 that employ algorithms to estimate the non-linear response).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson, specifically Nammi discloses wherein the one or more processors, to measure the non-linearity level associated with the transmit antennas of the network node, are configured to:
cause the network node to receive respective non-linearity measurements from a plurality of connected UEs in a cell associated with the network node (See Par. [58], [34]-[36] of Nammi for a reference to determining/measuring the non-linear response of the non-linear devices by estimating the non-linear model identifier 210 that employ algorithms to estimate the non-linear response. Multiple non-linear responses from multiple non-linear devices are received); and
cause the network node to determine an average non-linearity level for the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node based at least in part on the respective non-linearity measurements received from the plurality of connected UEs (See Par. [34]-[35], [40], [60] of Nammi for a reference to the received non-linear response are aggregated and averaged to determine the average non-linear response).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson, specifically Nammi discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
cause the network node to receive, from the plurality of connected UEs, requests for respective uplink grants for transmitting the respective non-linearity measurements to the network node (See Par. [47]-[48], [85] and Fig. 8; 810 of Nammi for a reference to a non-linear model identifier 806 is provided to map a non-linear response of non-linear devices 808. Non-linear response is provided in a message 810 to MIMO receiving device 820 in response to an access request); and
cause the network node to transmit, to the plurality of connected UEs, the respective uplink grants for transmitting the respective non-linearity measurements to the network node (See Par. [58], [35]-[36], [85] of Nammi for a reference to determining/measuring the non-linear response of the non-linear devices by estimating the non-linear model identifier 210 that employ algorithms to estimate the non-linear response).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 7.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 9.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 12.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 13.
5. Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Tan et al. in view of Nilsson et al. and further in view of Burke (US. Pub. No. 2022/0196823 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication received from the network node, are configured to cause the UE to: selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication received from the network node based at least in part on a comparison of a channel noise level and the non-linearity level.
However, Burke discloses cause the UE to: selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication received from the network node based at least in part on a comparison of a channel noise level and the non-linearity level (See Par. [56]-[60] of Burke for a reference to comparing the goodness of fit (GOF) statistics nonlinear fit to the GOF statistics for the channel noise. If the comparison indicates that the GOF non-linear fit is superior (greater than) the GOF channel noise by a specified threshold value, producing a non-linear fit result to declare a target detection and produce a better characterization of the data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Burke to the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving the estimation of non-linear fit result that improves the characterization of data. (Burke; Par. [58]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 2.
6. Claims 3-6, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Tan et al. in view of Nilsson et al. in view of Burke and further in view of Petrovic et al. (US. Pub. No. 2018/0241347 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication received from the network node based at least in part on the comparison of the channel noise level and the non- linearity level, are configured to cause the UE to: receive the downlink communication without performing non-linearity correction for the downlink communication, in connection with a determination that a difference between the channel noise level and the non-linearity level satisfies a first threshold; or selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication based at least in part on a measured error vector magnitude (EVM) of the downlink communication received from the network node, in connection with a determination that the difference between the channel noise level and the non-linearity level does not satisfy the first threshold.
However, Petrovic discloses cause the UE to: selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication based at least in part on a measured error vector magnitude (EVM) of the downlink communication received from the network node, in connection with a determination that the difference between the channel noise level and the non-linearity level does not satisfy the first threshold (See Par. [60], [70], [78]-[79] of Petrovic for a reference to measuring power level parameter such as error vector magnitude (EVM), and Signal-to-Noise (SNR) ratio. A linearization algorithm [correction] is performed through adjusting non-linearity pre-distortion coefficients, when the comparison of non-linearity pre-distortion and SNR does not meet a peak envelop threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication based at least in part on the measured EVM of the downlink communication received from the network node, are configured to cause the UE to: receive the downlink communication without performing non-linearity correction for the downlink communication, in connection with a determination that the measured EVM satisfies a second threshold; or perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication, in connection with a determination that the measured EVM of the downlink communication does not satisfy the second threshold.
However, Petrovic discloses perform non-linearity correction for the downlink communication, in connection with a determination that the measured EVM of the downlink communication does not satisfy the second threshold (See Par. [60], [70], [78]-[79] of Petrovic for a reference to measuring power level parameter such as error vector magnitude (EVM), and Signal-to-Noise (SNR) ratio. A linearization algorithm [correction] is performed through adjusting non-linearity pre-distortion coefficients, when the comparison of non-linearity pre-distortion and SNR does not meet a peak envelop threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the second threshold is based at least in part on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) used by the UE to receive the downlink communication.
However, Petrovic discloses wherein the second threshold is based at least in part on a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) used by the UE to receive the downlink communication (See Par. [33], [39]-[41] of Petrovic for a reference to the peak envelop threshold [Second Threshold] is determined based on the modulation techniques (Schemes) of the downlink signal received by the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to receive the downlink communication without performing non-linearity correction for the downlink communication, are configured to cause the UE to: disable non-linearity correction for a slot in which the downlink communication is received.
However, Petrovic discloses wherein the one or more processors, to receive the downlink communication without performing non-linearity correction for the downlink communication, are configured to cause the UE to: disable non-linearity correction for a slot in which the downlink communication is received (See Par. [61], [78] of Petrovic for a reference to dedicated time slots are used for linearization calibration [Correction] process, enabling the use of test signals without interfering with normal data signal traffic [Correction is disabled in slots receiving data signal traffic]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 6.
7. Claims 10-11 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Tan et al. in view of Nilsson et al. and further in view of Lin (US. Pub. No. 2009/0135885 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to measure the non-linearity level associated with the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node, are configured to: perform a real-time measurement of the non-linearity level based at least in part on a comparison of a digital signal and an analog signal using a respective feedback chain per transmit power amplifier of the network node.
However, Lin discloses cause the network node to perform a real-time measurement of the non-linearity level based at least in part on a comparison of a digital signal and an analog signal using a respective feedback chain per transmit power amplifier of the network node (See Par. [100], [143] of Lin for a reference to the non-linear amplitude comparator 139 compares the amplitude of the digital signal 123 and the analog reference signal 110, in relation to the feedback signal 112. The digital decision output the analog final error correction output 115 to modulate the variable gain amplifier 137).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin to the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving the latency delay time of the analog phase comparators by comparing only a single reference signal with single feedback signal. (Lin; Par. [143]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to perform the real-time measurement of the non-linearity level, are configured to: cause the network node to determine, using the respective feedback chain per transmit power amplifier of the network node, an error vector magnitude (EVM) between the digital signal and another digital signal generated from the analog signal.
However, Lin discloses cause the network node to determine, using the respective feedback chain per transmit power amplifier of the network node, an error vector magnitude (EVM) between the digital signal and another digital signal generated from the analog signal (See Par. [100], [143] of Lin for a reference to that based on the comparison between the digital signal 123 and the analog signal 110, the final error correction output is determined to modulate the gain amplifier).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin to the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by improving the latency delay time of the analog phase comparators by comparing only a single reference signal with single feedback signal. (Lin; Par. [143]).
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 10.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 11.
8. Claims 14-15 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Tan et al. in view of Nilsson et al. and further in view of Petrovic et al..
Regarding claim 14, Nammi discloses wherein the one or more processors, to receive the respective non-linearity measurements, are configured to receive, from the plurality of connected UEs (See Par. [58], [34]-[36] of Nammi for a reference to determining/measuring the non-linear response of the non-linear devices by estimating the non-linear model identifier 210 that employ algorithms to estimate the non-linear response. Multiple non-linear responses from multiple non-linear devices are received).
the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson does not explicitly disclose the respective non-linearity measurements and respective values of a quality metric associated with the respective non-linearity measurements, and wherein the one or more processors cause the network node to determine the average non-linearity level for the transmit antennas of the network node, are configured to: determine a weighted average of the respective non-linearity measurements weighted by the respective values of the quality metric associated with the respective non-linearity measurements.
However, Petrovic discloses the respective non-linearity measurements and respective values of a quality metric associated with the respective non-linearity measurements (See Par. [56] of Petrovic for a reference to the measurement performance metrics and signals used for calibration may include signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio), and wherein the one or more processors to determine the average non-linearity level for the transmit antennas of the network node, are configured to:
cause the network node to determine a weighted average of the respective non-linearity measurements weighted by the respective values of the quality metric associated with the respective non-linearity measurements (See Par. [54], [56]-[58] of Petrovic for a reference to measuring the average of performance metrics [including SNR] of signals received from multiple UEs to determine the pre-distortion [non-linearity] level of multiple UEs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the quality metric is a received signal-to- noise ratio (SNR).
However, Petrovic discloses wherein the quality metric is a received signal-to- noise ratio (SNR) (See Par. [56] of Petrovic for a reference to the measurement performance metrics and signals used for calibration may include signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 14.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 15.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Nammi, Tan, Nilsson and Burke does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises a quantized value of an average error vector magnitude (EVM) associated with the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node.
However, Petrovic discloses wherein the indication of the non-linearity level comprises a quantized value of an average error vector magnitude (EVM) associated with the plurality of transmit antennas of the network node (See Par. [60], [63], [71], [79] of Petrovic for a reference to the non-linearity indication contains an average value of error vector magnitude (EVM) value for each transmit antenna).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Petrovic to the combination of Nammi, Tan and Nilsson. The motivation of combination would be improving the system’s performance, by reducing the cost and power consumption of the user terminal while meeting desired performance specification. (Petrovic; Par. [6]).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xiong et al. (US. Pub. No. 2024/0151842 A1) discloses a scanning method and system for measuring microwave vibration and deformation measurements.
Gutman et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0189162 A1) discloses techniques for adaptation of power control based on non-linear interference analysis.
Kim (US. Pub. No. 2020/0412423 A1) discloses a base station for performing linearization based on a signal beam-formed by a plurality of antennas, and an operating method thereof.
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights