DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on pages 9-10 of Remarks, that “In the previous Response filed June 25, 2025, Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 15 to explicitly recite that "the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service." The Examiner responded by introducing the Yang reference to the combination of Pudukoli and Hou to specifically teach this new limitation. Applicant respectfully submits that the combination fails to teach or suggest all the features of independent claims 1 and 15, particularly due to a fundamental misinterpretation of the Yang reference. The Examiner asserts that Yang teaches the claimed "latency variance requirement" by citing paragraph [0092], which states that a Mobile Broadband (MBB) RAN slice is associated with a "variable latency requirement." This, however, appears to be a misinterpretation of Yang's disclosure. Yang's use of the descriptive adjective "variable" in paragraph [0092] and the corresponding Figure 8 is merely an observation that the latency for a standard MBB service is not fixed, not strictly controlled, and allowed to fluctuate. This is in stark contrast to the Applicant's claimed "latency variance requirement," which is a prescriptive technical parameter for controlling the statistical dispersion of latency to prevent such fluctuation.”
On the contrary, the phrase “latency variance requirement” does not appear in Applicant’s specification, and Applicant’s specification has only one instance of “latency variance” used in relation to a requirement. Specifically, the specification, at page 13 lines 3-16, reads “Thus, some communication networks are typically dimensioned and configured to provide services (e.g., for MBB traffic) with high throughput and relatively relaxed latency requirements. Although latency is typically considered in such communication networks (e.g., in relation to transmission control protocol, TCP, throughput and ramp-up times), predictable latency (i.e., low latency variance) is typically not required. One explanation to the latter is that the timing requirements in some human-machine interaction (e.g., web-browsing and video streaming) is quite relaxed and rather large latency variations can be hidden with buffers. For latency sensitive services, however, extensive use of buffers is not possible due to the
nature of the applications (e.g., quick reaction times required for gaming, fast control
response required for vehicle tele-operation, etc.). Typically, a latency spike will have negative impact on the application experience/performance for latency sensitive services. Some example events in a communication network that may cause latency spikes include handovers, slow fading dips, and fast fading dips.” [emphasis added]. The specification further reads, at page 13 line 28 to page 14 line 2, “For MBB services and voice services, these handover interruptions typically do not negatively affect the quality of the services, since the latency caused by the interrupt can be hidden with buffer management. For latency sensitive services, however, the length of these handover interruptions may be in the same order of magnitude as the latency requirements of the service, and a handover can negatively affect the quality of the service.” [emphasis added]. Therefore, “the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” in claim 1 is interpreted as referring to a degree of predictability of the latency that affects the quality of service. Yang states, in paragraph [0092]: “The MBB RAN slice may include MBB UE device sessions serviced by the 5G NR base station. As shown in RAN slice table 800, the MBB RAN slice may be associated with a medium importance requirement, a variable latency requirement, and a variable throughput requirement. The latency and throughput requirements for the MBB RAN slice may depend, for example, on QoS classes associated with particular MBB UE device sessions.” [emphasis added]. Therefore, Yang discloses “a latency variance requirement for the service” in the sense that is disclosed in the specification of the instant invention.
Applicant asserts, on pages 10-11 of Remarks, that “In essence, Yang classifies the different RAN slices (810) with three different properties including i) importance, ii) latency and iii) throughput. Notably, the latency and throughput properties can be LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH or VARIABLE. Moreover, a RAN slice database 430 shown in Figure 5 of Yang includes the RAN slice requirements 530 corresponding to the properties/requirements of table 800 of Yang. The properties in table 800 (requirements 530 in Figure 5) defines requirements on how to use and/or reserve resources (550) and how to treat and/or schedule (540) traffic for a particular slice. For example, for a URLLC slice (see table 800 in Figure 8), the LATENCY is LOW which requires prioritized treatment in the scheduler to avoid queuing of the data in gNB/RAN. The opposite is true for the MTC. With regard to VARIABLE latency, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this as effectively indicating a 'don't care' or 'best effort' latency behavior. In contrast, the Applicant's specification makes clear that the claimed subject matter is directed to latency-sensitive services that are distinct from, and more demanding than, standard MBB services. In fact, paragraph [0076] of the specification explicitly notes that for traditional MBB traffic, predictable latency (i.e., low latency variance) is typically not required because "rather large latency variations can be hidden with buffers." Yang's disclosure of "variable" latency for MBB services is a perfect description of this problem or characteristic that the Applicant's claimed subject matter seeks to solve for a different class of service. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Yang's "variable" latency as a characteristic of a non- latency-sensitive service to be avoided, not as a teaching of a "latency variance requirement" to be implemented for a sensitive service as set forth in the independent claims. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Yang's disclosure teaches away from the claimed subject matter rather than suggesting it. It is further submitted that the underlying combination of Pudukoli and Hou remains deficient for the reasons stated in the Applicant's Response of June 25, 2025. Pudukoli is directed to expediting an in-progress roam event to meet a "target maximum delay" by adjusting packet queue priorities. This is a threshold-based control for a single event. This is fundamentally different from the Applicant's claimed "latency variance requirement," which, as supported by the specification and dependent claim 13, relates to controlling the statistical consistency of latency over time. A "maximum delay" is not a "variance requirement." Pudukoli's mechanism of adjusting packet queues to finish a roam event faster is logically distinct from Hou's mechanism of modifying signal level thresholds to prevent a future handover from being triggered. It is respectfully submitted that there is no persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would combine these disparate disclosures. In summary, the Examiner's rejection relies on a misinterpretation of the newly cited Yang reference. Yang's "variable latency" describes a characteristic of a different, non-latency- sensitive service class (MBB), which is the opposite of the claimed "latency variance requirement" a specific control parameter used to maintain latency stability for latency- sensitive services. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 should be withdrawn.”
On the contrary, as outlined above, paragraph [0092] of Yang explicitly states that the variable latency requirement of the MBB RAN slice depends on QoS classes that are associated with particular MBB UE device sessions. Therefore, this variable latency requirement is associated with various levels of service, which corresponds to the understanding of “a latency variance requirement for the service” that is provided by the specification of the instant invention. Therefore, Yang does not teach away from the claimed subject matter.
Applicant asserts, on page 11 of Remarks, that “It is further submitted that the underlying combination of Pudukoli and Hou remains deficient for the reasons stated in the Applicant's Response of June 25, 2025. Pudukoli is directed to expediting an in-progress roam event to meet a "target maximum delay" by adjusting packet queue priorities. This is a threshold-based control for a single event. This is fundamentally different from the Applicant's claimed "latency variance requirement," which, as
supported by the specification and dependent claim 13, relates to controlling the statistical consistency of latency over time. A "maximum delay" is not a "variance requirement." Pudukoli's mechanism of adjusting packet queues to finish a roam event faster is logically distinct from Hou's mechanism of modifying signal level thresholds to prevent a future handover from being triggered. It is respectfully submitted that there is no persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would combine these disparate disclosures.”
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya nor Hou is relied on for disclosing a “latency variance requirement”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yang clearly indicates that the variable latency requirement facilitates the accommodation of services of various QoS classes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0296632 (hereinafter Pudukoli Subrahmanya), in view of Hou, U.S. Patent No. 9,271,212 (herein Hou), further in view of Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0170052 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses a method for latency control in a communication network (disclosed is a method for dynamically prioritizing events according to latency in a communication network, according to Abstract, [0063], [0067]), the method comprising:
identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device associated with the communication network, wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded (data plane packets [“service”] associated with a client device in the communication network are identified, according to [0063], whereby the magnitude of the difference [“deviation”] between an expected latency [“latency requirement of the service”] and an actual latency [“internal latency performance of the communication network”] is bounded by thresholds, according to [0067]); and
dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service (the priority of future transactions in a roam event, associated with a handoff, is dynamically adjusted, according to [0017]-[0018], [0024]).
Pudukoli Subrahmanya does not expressly disclose that the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover, nor that the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service.
Hou discloses that the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover (the criteria for triggering a request to hand over a wireless device can be modified according to current network conditions, according to column 9 lines 12-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya with Hou such that the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent handover of a wireless device to an access node with an unfavorable signal level (Hou: column 9 lines 12-29).
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya nor Hou expressly discloses that the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service.
Yang discloses that the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service (an MBB RAN (mobile broadband radio access network) slice [“service”] is associated with a variable latency requirement, according to [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou with Yang such that the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accommodate various QoS classes (Yang: [0092]).
Claim 15 recites an apparatus for latency control in a communication network, the apparatus comprising controlling circuitry (Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses a client device (which necessarily comprises controlling circuitry), according to [0022]-[0023], Fig. 1 [element 105B]) configured to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses that dynamically adjusting the one or more handover criteria is performed only for user devices associated with services with bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network (the dynamic priority adjustment for the roam event is performed based on the comparison of the expected latency and the actual latency, according to [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: adjusting a handover measurement configuration of the user device; and adjusting a handover decision criterion for the user device (the priority of future transactions in the roam event is dynamically adjusted [“adjusting a handover decision criterion for the user device”], according to [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting one or more handover related values (the priority of future transactions in the roam event is dynamically adjusted, according to [0017]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses that identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device, wherein the deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, comprises one or more of: detecting that a service class identifier is indicative of the service; detecting that a bearer dedicated for low latency requirements is assigned for the service; and determining that a traffic pattern of the service matches a latency sensitive traffic pattern (a given type of event has a corresponding predefined latency tolerance [“determining that a traffic pattern of the service matches a latency sensitive traffic pattern”], according to [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses that the latency control comprises one or more of: decrease of latency variance associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a maximum latency associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a number of latency events associated with the communication network for the user device, that exceed a latency threshold value; and decrease of an average latency associated with the communication network for the user device (latency control is performed such that a user device is assigned a lower target maximum delay [“decrease of a maximum latency associated with the communication network for the user device”], according to [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit (disclosed is a computer product that includes logic encoded in a non-transitory medium, said logic executable by operation of one or more computer processors, according to [0015]).
Claim 16 does not differ substantively from claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 19 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 20 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
6. Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Hwang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0238272 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises switching from a first handover criterion to a second handover criterion, wherein the first handover criterion corresponds to a first handover probability and the second handover criterion corresponds to a second handover probability which is lower than the first handover probability.
Hwang discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises switching from a first handover criterion to a second handover criterion, wherein the first handover criterion corresponds to a first handover probability and the second handover criterion corresponds to a second handover probability which is lower than the first handover probability (a handoff hysteresis level [“handover criterion”] can be adaptively updated in the mobile telecommunication system, according to [0099], whereby the handoff hysteresis level that minimizes a wrong handoff probability is determined, according to [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Hwang such that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises switching from a first handover criterion to a second handover criterion, wherein the first handover criterion corresponds to a first handover probability and the second handover criterion corresponds to a second handover probability which is lower than the first handover probability.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent throughput loss or the decrease of quality of service (Hwang: [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises associating the user device with a handover inertia and/or reducing a probability of handover.
Hwang discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises associating the user device with a handover inertia and/or reducing a probability of handover (a handoff hysteresis level can be adaptively updated in the mobile telecommunication system, according to [0099], whereby the handoff hysteresis level that minimizes a wrong handoff probability is determined [in the specification of the pending application, “handover inertia” is defined as “a reduced probability of handover.” at page 20 lines 14-16], according to [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Hwang such that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises associating the user device with a handover inertia and/or reducing a probability of handover.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent throughput loss or the decrease of quality of service (Hwang: [0099]).
Claim 17 does not differ substantively from claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Murphy, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0313317 (hereinafter Murphy).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: decreasing a signal quality threshold value for serving cell; and increasing a signal quality threshold value for target cell.
Murphy discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: decreasing a signal quality threshold value for serving cell; and increasing a signal quality threshold value for target cell (handover is prevented by decreasing a value of a signal strength threshold for a source base station, according to [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Murphy such that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: decreasing a signal quality threshold value for serving cell; and increasing a signal quality threshold value for target cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce a handover rate (Murphy: [0039]).
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ji et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0069756 (hereinafter Ji).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting a signal quality difference threshold value for signal quality differences between serving cell and target cell.
Ji discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting a signal quality difference threshold value for signal quality differences between serving cell and target cell (a signal quality difference threshold is adjusted in order to delay handover, according to [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Ji such that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting a signal quality difference threshold value for signal quality differences between serving cell and target cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to mitigate interference over a set of resources (Ji: [0032]).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Suga, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0115541 (hereinafter Suga).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises excluding, in a load balancing procedure, the user device from consideration for handover.
Suga discloses that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises excluding, in a load balancing procedure, the user device from consideration for handover (as part of a load balancing procedure, handover parameters are adjusted in order to prevent a mobile station from undergoing a handover, according to [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Suga such that dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises excluding, in a load balancing procedure, the user device from consideration for handover.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the efficient use of wireless resources (Suga: [0003]).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Janssens, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0310234 (hereinafter Janssens).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly discloses that the bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network comprises one or more of: a ratio between a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network falling within a bounding range; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being in a same order of magnitude; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being equal; and a required end-to-end round-trip-time of the service falling within a time range specified relative to an internal round-trip-time of the communication network.
Janssens discloses that the bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network comprises one or more of: a ratio between a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network falling within a bounding range; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being in a same order of magnitude; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being equal; and a required end-to-end round-trip-time of the service falling within a time range specified relative to an internal round-trip-time of the communication network (for a reader device in a mobile communication network, an actual response time is required to not exceed an expected response time by more than 10% (for a reader device in a mobile communication network, an actual response time is required to not exceed an expected response time by more than 10% [“a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being in a same order of magnitude”], according to [0052], [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Janssens such that the bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network comprises one or more of: a ratio between a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network falling within a bounding range; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being in a same order of magnitude; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being equal; and a required end-to-end round-trip-time of the service falling within a time range specified relative to an internal round-trip-time of the communication network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the risk of relay attacks (Janssens: [0002]-[0004]).
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Park et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0254088 (hereinafter Park), further in view of Andrews et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0037544 (hereinafter Andrews).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, nor Yang expressly disclose that the service has a maximum allowable latency which is lower than that of mobile broadband, MBB, services and/or higher than that of ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC, services.
Park discloses the service has a maximum allowable latency which is lower than that of mobile broadband, MBB, services (a service requires a delay that is less than that for eMBB service, according to [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang with Park such that the service has a maximum allowable latency which is lower than that of mobile broadband, MBB, services.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accommodate services that are sensitive to delay time (Park: [0142]).
Neither Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, Yang, nor Park expressly discloses that the service has a maximum allowable latency which is higher than that of ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC, services.
Andrews discloses that the service has a maximum allowable latency which is higher than that of ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC, services (a traffic flow has a latency that exceeds the latencies of URLLC traffic flows, according to [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pudukoli Subrahmanya as modified by Hou as modified by Yang as modified by Park with Andrews such that the service has a maximum allowable latency which is higher than that of ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC, services.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accommodate traffic flows that have higher throughput or bandwidth requirements (Andrews: [0030]).
Double Patenting
12. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
13. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 in view of Pudukoli Subrahmanya, further in view of Hou, further in view of Yang. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing independent claim 1 of the pending application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771:
Pending Application 18/011,984
U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771
“A method for latency control in a communication network, the method comprising:”
“A method for latency control in a communication network, the method comprising:”
“identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device associated with the communication network, wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, wherein the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service; and”
“identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device associated with the communication network, wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded …”
“dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service, wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.”
Claim 1 of the pending application 18/011,984 encompasses the same subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771, except the pending application recites “wherein the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” and “dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service, wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.” Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses “dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service” (the priority of future transactions in a roam event, associated with a handoff, is dynamically adjusted, according to [0017]-[0018], [0024]), Hou discloses “wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover” (the criteria for triggering a request to hand over a wireless device can be modified according to current network conditions, according to column 9 lines 12-29), and Yang discloses “the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” (an MBB RAN (mobile broadband radio access network) slice [“service”] is associated with a variable latency requirement, according to [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 with Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang to arrive at claim 1 of the pending application 18/011,984 in order to enable roam events to occur without connectivity drops or delays (Pudukoli Subrahmanya: [0002]).
A similar analysis applies to claim 15 of the pending application 18/011,984 in relation to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
Claim 2 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting the one or more handover criteria is performed only for user devices associated with services with bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network.” which corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. A similar analysis applies to claim 16 of the pending application 18/011,984 in relation to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
Claim 5 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: adjusting a handover measurement configuration of the user device; and adjusting a handover decision criterion for the user device.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 19 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 6 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting one or more handover related values.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 20 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 10 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device, wherein the deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, comprises one or more of: detecting that a service class identifier is indicative of the service; detecting that a bearer dedicated for low latency requirements is assigned for the service; and determining that a traffic pattern of the service matches a latency sensitive traffic pattern.” which corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
Claim 11 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network comprises one or more of: a ratio between a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network falling within a bounding range; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being in a same order of magnitude; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being equal; and a required end-to-end round-trip-time of the service falling within a time range specified relative an internal round-trip-time of the communication network.” which corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
Claim 12 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the service has a maximum allowable latency which is lower than that of mobile broadband, MBB, services and/or higher than that of ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC, services.” which corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
Claim 13 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the latency control comprises one or more of: decrease of latency variance associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a maximum latency associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a number of latency events associated with the communication network for the user device, that exceed a latency threshold value; and decrease of an average latency associated with the communication network for the user device.” which corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
Claim 14 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit.” which corresponds to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771.
14. Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 in view of Hwang.
None of claims 3-4 and 17-18 corresponds to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. However, the features of each of these claims are disclosed by Hwang, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
15. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 in view of Murphy.
Claim 7 does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. However, the features of claim 7 are disclosed by Murphy, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
16. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 in view of Ji.
Claim 8 does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. However, the features of claim 8 are disclosed by Ji, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
17. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771 in view of Suga.
Claim 9 does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,771. However, the features of claim 9 are disclosed by Suga, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
18. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 in view of Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing independent claim 1 of the pending application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914:
Pending Application 18/011,984
U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914
“A method for latency control in a communication network, the method comprising:”
“A method for accommodation of latency variation in a communication network, the method comprising:”
“identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device associated with the communication network, wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, wherein the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service; and”
“identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device associated with the communication network, wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded;”
“dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service, wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.”
Claim 1 of the pending application 18/011,984 encompasses the same subject matter as claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914, except the pending application recites “wherein the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” and “dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service, wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.” Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses “dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service” (the priority of future transactions in a roam event, associated with a handoff, is dynamically adjusted, according to [0017]-[0018], [0024]), Hou discloses “wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover” (the criteria for triggering a request to hand over a wireless device can be modified according to current network conditions, according to column 9 lines 12-29), and Yang discloses “the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” (an MBB RAN (mobile broadband radio access network) slice [“service”] is associated with a variable latency requirement, according to [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 with Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang to arrive at claim 1 of the pending application 18/011,984 in order to enable roam events to occur without connectivity drops or delays (Pudukoli Subrahmanya: [0002]).
A similar analysis applies to claim 15 of the pending application 18/011,984 in relation to claim 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914.
Claim 2 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting the one or more handover criteria is performed only for user devices associated with services with bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 16 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 5 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: adjusting a handover measurement configuration of the user device; and adjusting a handover decision criterion for the user device.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 19 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 6 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting one or more handover related values.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 20 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 10 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device, wherein the deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, comprises one or more of: detecting that a service class identifier is indicative of the service; detecting that a bearer dedicated for low latency requirements is assigned for the service; and determining that a traffic pattern of the service matches a latency sensitive traffic pattern.” which corresponds to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914.
Claim 11 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network comprises one or more of: a ratio between a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network falling within a bounding range; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being in a same order of magnitude; a latency requirement parameter value of the service and an internal latency performance parameter value of the communication network being equal; and a required end-to-end round-trip-time of the service falling within a time range specified relative an internal round-trip-time of the communication network.” which corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914.
Claim 12 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the service has a maximum allowable latency which is lower than that of mobile broadband, MBB, services and/or higher than that of ultra-reliable low latency communication, URLLC, services.” which corresponds to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914.
Claim 13 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the latency control comprises one or more of: decrease of latency variance associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a maximum latency associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a number of latency events associated with the communication network for the user device, that exceed a latency threshold value; and decrease of an average latency associated with the communication network for the user device.” which corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914.
Claim 14 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit.” which corresponds to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914.
19. Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 in view of Hwang.
None of claims 3-4 and 17-18 corresponds to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, the features of each of these claims are disclosed by Hwang, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
20. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 in view of Murphy.
Claim 7 does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, the features of claim 7 are disclosed by Murphy, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
21. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 in view of Ji.
Claim 8 does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, the features of claim 8 are disclosed by Ji, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
22. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914 in view of Suga.
Claim 9 does not correspond to any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,463,914. However, the features of claim 9 are disclosed by Suga, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
23. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Pudukoli Subrahmanya in view of Hou in view of Yang. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in copending application 18/033,646 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing independent claim 1 of the pending application and claim 11 of copending application 18/033,646:
Pending Application 18/011,984
Copending Application 18/033,646
“A method for latency control in a communication network, the method comprising:”
“identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device associated with the communication network, wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, wherein the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service; and”
“identifying that the application service session is for a service wherein a deviation between a latency requirement of the service and an internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded.”
“dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service, wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.”
Claim 1 of the pending application 18/011,984 encompasses the same subject matter as claim 11 of the copending application 18/033,646, except the pending application recites “wherein the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” and “dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service, wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover.” Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses “dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria for the user device associated with the service” (the priority of future transactions in a roam event, associated with a handoff, is dynamically adjusted, according to [0017]-[0018], [0024]), Hou discloses “wherein the one or more handover criteria is associated with triggering a handover” (the criteria for triggering a request to hand over a wireless device can be modified according to current network conditions, according to column 9 lines 12-29), and Yang discloses “the latency requirement includes a latency variance requirement for the service” (an MBB RAN (mobile broadband radio access network) slice [“service”] is associated with a variable latency requirement, according to [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 11 of the copending application 18/033,646 with Pudukoli Subrahmanya, Hou, and Yang to arrive at claim 1 of the pending application 18/011,984 in order to enable roam events to occur without connectivity drops or delays (Pudukoli Subrahmanya: [0002]).
A similar analysis applies to claim 15 of the pending application 18/011,984 in relation to claim 11 of the copending application 18/033,646.
Claim 2 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting the one or more handover criteria is performed only for user devices associated with services with bounded deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 16 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 5 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises one or more of: adjusting a handover measurement configuration of the user device; and adjusting a handover decision criterion for the user device.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 19 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 6 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamically adjusting one or more handover criteria comprises adjusting one or more handover related values.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above. A similar analysis applies to claim 20 of the pending application 18/011,984.
Claim 10 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein identifying that a service is currently associated with a user device, wherein the deviation between the latency requirement of the service and the internal latency performance of the communication network is bounded, comprises one or more of: detecting that a service class identifier is indicative of the service; detecting that a bearer dedicated for low latency requirements is assigned for the service; and determining that a traffic pattern of the service matches a latency sensitive traffic pattern.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
Claim 13 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “The method of claim 1, wherein the latency control comprises one or more of: decrease of latency variance associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a maximum latency associated with the communication network for the user device; decrease of a number of latency events associated with the communication network for the user device, that exceed a latency threshold value; and decrease of an average latency associated with the communication network for the user device.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
Claim 14 of the pending application 18/011,984 reads “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a data processing unit and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit.” which does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, Pudukoli Subrahmanya discloses this feature, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
24. Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Hwang.
None of claims 3-4 and 17-18 corresponds to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, the features of each of these claims are disclosed by Hwang, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
25. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Murphy.
Claim 7 does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, the features of claim 7 are disclosed by Murphy, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
26. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Ji.
Claim 8 does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, the features of claim 8 are disclosed by Ji, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
27. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Suga.
Claim 9 does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, the features of claim 9 are disclosed by Suga, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
28. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Janssens.
Claim 11 does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, the features of claim 11 are disclosed by Janssens, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
29. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application 18/033,646 in view of Park and Andrews.
Claim 12 does not correspond to any of the claims of copending application 18/033,646. However, the features of claim 12 are disclosed by Park and Andrews, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
30. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645