DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,2,6,7,9,16, and 22-30 are amended.
Claims 2,8,10-12,18-21,26,28, and 30 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “to active” should be “to activate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “to active” should be “to activate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites “transmit the information via the one or more unicast connections based at least in part on other information received from the set of second UEs via the one or more unicast connections”. The specification does not define what the “other information received” is.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-5,7,9,15,25,27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902).
Re claim 1:
Yoshioka discloses a first user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (Fig. 17):
transmit, to a set of second UEs, information indicating a duplexing pattern of the first UE, wherein the duplexing pattern indicates one or more reception intervals of the first UE and one or more transmission intervals of the first UE (Fig.9A-9C shows a UE transmitting on a PSCCH/PSSCH to a set of UEs and Para.[0134] The communication device 20 may transmit a notification of a TDD configuration by at least one of the physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), the physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSBCH) and Para.[0097] a TDD configuration is dynamically configured for a user equipment by configuring a plurality of candidate patterns of a DL-Flex-UL configuration for the user equipment); and
communicate in accordance with the duplexing pattern (Para.[0083] a part of the TDD configuration is used in a sidelink transmission).
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose obtain a channel occupancy time (COT) and a duplexing pattern within the COT.
Sun discloses obtain a channel occupancy time (COT and a duplexing pattern within the COT (Para. [0012] In some aspects, decoding the at least one COT-SI includes decoding, in an idle state, the at least one COT-SI to determine a partial slot format configuration, and the partial slot format configuration includes at least one of a COT end symbol, a COT duration, whether a slot or symbol is within the COT, a pause start symbol, a pause end symbol, a slot level assignment, a mini-slot level assignment, or a time-division duplexing (TDD) switching pattern and Para.[0077] In this case, the UE 120 may detect a COT start and a COT-SI and may perform one or more responses based at least in part on a slot assignment direction. For example, when the COT start is detected and the COT-SI is detected, an LBT type for UL transmissions inside the COT is category type 2 LBT, but the UE 120 may cancel the CG-UL for a slot assigned to a downlink direction. In contrast, the UE 120 may forgo canceling the slot and use category type 2 LBT for channel access when the slot is assigned to an uplink direction).
Yoshioka and Sun are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include obtaining a COT and a duplex pattern within a COT as taught by Sun in order to improve network and UE performance (Sun Para.[0034]).
Re claim 3:
Yoshioka discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the information indicating the duplexing pattern, are configured to broadcast the information indicating the duplexing pattern (Para.[0072] FIG. 9C is a diagram illustrating an example of a broadcast PSCCH/PSSCH transmission and Para.[0134] The communication device 20 may transmit a notification of a TDD configuration by at least one of the physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), the physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSBCH)).
Re claim 4:
Yoshioka discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the information indicating the duplexing pattern, are configured to groupcast the information indicating the duplexing pattern to the set of second UEs (Para.[0071] FIG. 9B is a diagram illustrating an example of group cast PSCCH/PSSCH transmission and Para.[0134] The communication device 20 may transmit a notification of a TDD configuration by at least one of the physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), the physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSBCH)).
Re claim 5:
Yoshioka discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the information indicating the duplexing pattern, are configured to transmit the information via one or more unicast connections with the set of second UEs (Para.[0070] FIG. 9A is a diagram illustrating an example of unicast Physical Sidelink Shared Channel (PSCCH)/Physical Sidelink Control Channel (PSSCH) transmission and and Para.[0134] The communication device 20 may transmit a notification of a TDD configuration by at least one of the physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), the physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSBCH)).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Yoshioka meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka further discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit sidelink control information modifying the duplexing pattern after the channel occupancy time is obtained (Para.[0079] In TDD of LTE, a communication direction is configured by a UL/DL configuration in a static/semi-static manner. In contrast, in TDD of NR, a communication direction is dynamically switched depending on a traffic state in a cell and Para.[0134] The communication device 20 may transmit a notification of a TDD configuration by at least one of the physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH), the physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSBCH)).
As shown above, Yoshioka discloses a semi-static and dynamic configuration of the TDD configuration. Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose obtain a channel occupancy time, and modify a pattern after obtaining the channel occupancy time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a dynamic TDD configuration would allow a TDD modification after obtaining a channel occupancy because the dynamic TDD configuration is not limited to occurring before obtaining a channel for transmission.
Sun discloses modifying the duplexing pattern after the channel occupancy time is obtained (Para.[0047] That is, in some examples, a UE may function as a scheduling entity, scheduling resources for one or more subordinate entities (for example, one or more other UEs) and Para. [0012] In some aspects, decoding the at least one COT-SI includes decoding, in an idle state, the at least one COT-SI to determine a partial slot format configuration, and the partial slot format configuration includes at least one of a COT end symbol, a COT duration, whether a slot or symbol is within the COT, a pause start symbol, a pause end symbol, a slot level assignment, a mini-slot level assignment, or a time-division duplexing (TDD) switching pattern and Fig. 3D where COT-SI is after COT is obtained).
Yoshioka and Sun are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include modifying a duplexing pattern after COT is obtained as taught by Sun in order to improve network and UE performance (Sun Para.[0034]).
Re claim 9:
Yoshioka discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the information, are configured to transmit the information via static signaling or semi-static signaling (Para.[0094] In a method of semi-statically configuring a TDD configuration).
Re claim 15:
Yoshioka discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the duplexing pattern indicates a selected duplexing pattern of multiple configured duplexing patterns (Para.[0109] Subsequently, the communication device 20 selects a pattern corresponding to the part that can be used in the sidelink communication, in the TDD configuration that is configured in the NR-Uu (for example, the part that is assigned to the uplink (the number of uplink slots, and the like)), from the candidate patterns that are configured in advance, and transmits a notification of the selected pattern to another communication device 20 through the PSBCH).
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 27: Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vogedes (US 20240422725).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose first UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the information via the one or more unicast connections, are configured to transmit the information via the one or more unicast connections based at least in part on other information received from the set of second UEs via the one or more unicast connections.
Vogedes discloses the first UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the information via the one or more unicast connections, are configured to transmit the information via the one or more unicast connections based at least in part on other information received from the set of second UEs via the one or more unicast connections (Fig. 10 ref. 215 SL Direct Communications/PC5 established and ref. 216 ref. LCS procedures and Fig. 11 and Fig. 15 information received and Para.[0127] (MasterInformationBlockSidelink) may include the system information transmitted by a UE and Table 14 MasterInformationBlockSidelink sl-TDD-Config-r16 ).
Yoshioka and Vogedes are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include transmitting on the unicast based on received information as taught by Wang in order to improve positioning sensitivity (Vogedes Para.[0090]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dutta (US 20210267008).
Re claim 13:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka discloses first UE of claim 1, wherein the duplexing pattern indicates one or more transmission intervals in which the first UE does not receive a communication (Para.[0079] In TDD of LTE, a communication direction is configured by a UL/DL configuration in a static/semi-static manner. In contrast, in TDD of NR, a communication direction is dynamically switched depending on a traffic state in a cell).
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose one or more deaf intervals in which the first UE cannot receive a communication.
Dutta discloses one or more deaf intervals in which the first UE cannot receive a communication (Para.[0206] In some examples, the UE 115-a or the UE 115-b, or both, may be configured (e.g., scheduled) with a TDD configuration to manage half-duplex communications between the UE 115-a and the UE 115-b. Sidelink communications between the UE 115-a and the UE 115-b may thus be divided in a time-domain. In other words, at one moment in time either the UE 115-a or the UE 115-b may transmit, or receive, information (e.g., packets) over a connection (e.g., sidelink) between the UE 115-a and the UE 115-b and Para.[0152] half-duplex communications (e.g., a mode that supports one-way communication via transmission or reception, but not transmission and reception simultaneously).
Yoshioka and Dutta are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include deaf intervals as taught by Dutta in order to increase operation efficiency (Dutta Para.[0133]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghozlan (US 20220103333).
Re claim 14:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose the first UE of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the duplexing pattern is based at least in part on a mapping between a UE identifier and the duplexing pattern.
Ghozlan discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the duplexing pattern is based at least in part on a mapping between a UE identifier and the duplexing pattern (Para.[0226] List of Dedicated TDD Configurations, such as Dedicated TDD Configuration and UE ID. In these embodiments, the Dedicated TDD Configuration can indicate a UE-specific TDD DL/UL Configuration. In these embodiments, the UE ID can indicate the identity of the corresponding UE configured with Dedicated TDD Configuration).
Yoshioka and Ghozlan are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include a mapping between UEID and a duplexing pattern as taught by Ghozlan in order to manage cross-link interference (Ghozlan Para.[0036]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo (US 20230189302).
Re claim 16:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose the first UE of claim 1, wherein transmission of the information indicating the duplexing pattern is associated with a unicast connection establishment.
Luo discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein transmission of the information indicating the duplexing pattern is associated with a unicast connection establishment (Para.[0265] If an SL setup condition I is satisfied, then an SL setup operation I is performed and Para.[0272] Optionally, each “SL setup condition I” may include one or a plurality of the following and Para.[0280] The SIB1 message contains the parameter tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and Para.[0008] setting content of a message of 12 bits in a PSBCH of an S-SS/PSBCH block; and transmitting the S-SS/PSBCH block. One bit of the 12 bits is used to indicate whether pattern 1 is used or both of pattern 1 and pattern 2 are used for TDD configuration).
Yoshioka and Luo are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include a transmitting duplexing information associated with connection establishment as taught by Luo in order to achieve effective indication of TDD configuration (Luo Para.[0010]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siomina (US 20140106774).
Re claim 17:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose the first UE of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the duplexing pattern indicates a condition associated with the duplexing pattern.
Siomina discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the duplexing pattern indicates a condition associated with the duplexing pattern (Para.[0195] The configuring/activating may comprise e.g. pattern configuration and/or activation and Para.[0198] The activated pattern(s) may be selected based on and Para.[0200] Measurement requirement or positioning Quality of Service (QoS)).
Yoshioka and Siomina are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include a transmitting duplexing information associated with connection establishment as taught by Siomina in order to perform positioning measurements (Siomina Para.[0002]).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon (US 20200351912).
Re claim 22:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to activate the duplexing pattern based at least in part on a threshold condition being satisfied.
Jeon discloses the first UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to activate the duplexing pattern based at least in part on a threshold condition being satisfied (Para.[0240] The wireless device may receive from the base station, a second message comprising an activation indicator of a grant-free uplink transmission. The wireless device may transmit to the base station via the grant-free resources, at least one packet comprising at least one of the following based on a size of data in a logical channel (or a LCG) and a first threshold: a buffer status report (BSR) indicating a size of the data and the one or more packets. The first message may further comprise the first threshold. The first threshold may be determined based on a size of the grant-free resources. The buffer status report may be a regular BSR).
Yoshioka and Jeon are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include a activating resources based on satisfying a threshold as taught by Jeon in order to improve transmission time processes (Jeon Para.[0219]).
Re claim 23:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose the first UE of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors, to active the duplexing pattern, are further configured to activate the duplexing pattern i when a buffer status report of the first UE is above a threshold.
Jeon discloses the first UE of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors, to active the duplexing pattern, are further configured to activate the duplexing pattern i when a buffer status report of the first UE is above a threshold (Para.[0240] The wireless device may receive from the base station, a second message comprising an activation indicator of a grant-free uplink transmission. The wireless device may transmit to the base station via the grant-free resources, at least one packet comprising at least one of the following based on a size of data in a logical channel (or a LCG) and a first threshold: a buffer status report (BSR) indicating a size of the data and the one or more packets. The first message may further comprise the first threshold. The first threshold may be determined based on a size of the grant-free resources. The buffer status report may be a regular BSR).
Yoshioka and Jeon are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include a activating resources based on a buffer status report satisfying a threshold as taught by Jeon in order to improve transmission time processes (Jeon Para.[0219]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka (US 20220123915) in view of Sun (US 20200314902) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Lopez-Perez (US 20170034837).
Re claim 24:
As discussed above, Yoshioka in view of Sun meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Yoshioka does not explicitly disclose the first UE of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors, to active the duplexing pattern, are further configured to activate the duplexing pattern when a channel state of a channel associated with the first UE is below a threshold.
Lopez-Perez discloses the first UE of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors, to active the duplexing pattern, are further configured to activate the duplexing pattern when a channel state of a channel associated with the first UE is below a threshold (Para.[0007] enable the second node to schedule a pair of UEs for UL-DL communication with the second node such that DL transmissions to the victim UE use a second frequency resource different from the first or avoid scheduling DL connections to the victim UE that fall below a quality of service threshold determined using channel quality measurements obtained from the victim UE for the first and second frequency resources).
Yoshioka and Lopez-Perez are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshioka to include activating resources based on channel state as taught by Lopez-Perez in order to maximize interference cancellation (Lopez-Perez Para.[0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends the amendment to claim 6 satisfies the written description requirement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 6 recites “transmit the information via the one or more unicast connections based at least in part on other information received from the set of second UEs via the one or more unicast connections”. The specification does not define what the “other information received” is.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,7,25,27, and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights