DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims foreign priority to a Chinese application filed on 15 Oct 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
The Reply finds “Lee does not disclose or inherently require that a search space ‘comprises M1 PDCCH candidate sets in a period’ and another search space ‘comprises M2 PDCCH candidate sets in a period.’” Reply, 11. As previously noted, a CORESET in Lee may be interpreted as a search space. Non-final Act. at 3 (citing Lee, ¶59). Lee teaches two CORESETs, CORESET A and CORESET B. Lee, figure 6 (i.e. two search spaces). The two CORESETs each comprise 4 PDCCH candidates. Ibid. (see items 630 and 635). As shown in figure 5, CORESET 520 consists of 8 resource element groups (REGs) 530 all sharing the same symbol width. Lee, figure 5 and ¶56 (all parts of the CORESET are “in a period,” where the period is the duration of one or more symbols). In sum, Lee teaches at least two CORESETs (i.e. search spaces), where each CORESET has 4 PDCCH candidates within a period of symbols.
The Reply also contends “no teaching in Lee that the first information indicates an association between PDCCH candidate sets (as opposed to PDCCH candidates) nor that such candidate sets are defined per time period.” Reply, 11.
This argument is premised on the belief that an association based on a smaller granularity (i.e. individual PDCCH candidates) cannot render obvious an association based on a larger granularity (i.e. sets of PDCCH candidates. The indication of Lee can indicate a one-to-one mapping or a one-to-many mapping of PDCCH candidates “between CORESET A and CORESET B.” Lee, ¶¶65-66 (emphasis added). To the Examiner, this constitutes an “association” between individual PDCCH candidates and also an association between the search spaces or CORESETs to which the PDCCH candidates belong.
Initially, regarding the arguments against the motivation to combine, the Examiner notes that outside of “the first information,” the most recent claim amendments do not appear to reference any of the previously referenced claim terms. For example, the most recent claim amendments recite, in part, “an association relationship” twice, “M1 PDCCH candidate sets,” “M2 PDCCH candidate sets,” and “an i-th PDCCH candidate set.” None of these terms require antecedent basis with elements previously required in claim 1.
As for the motivation to combine, the Reply alleges “Lee’s candidate-level-only indication” is “structurally incompatible” with “Gong’s repetition-based model.” Reply, 13. Lee’s indication is transmitted via generic RRC signaling. It is unclear to the Examiner why the TRPs of Gong could not receive this RRC signaling, when the TRPs of Lee do. The motivation for the TRPs of Lee to use the same CORESET (i.e. frequency resources), as taught by Gong, is to limit interference by having both TRPs schedule duplicate transmissions. Nothing in the record indicates that the TRPs of Lee “are structurally incompatible” with transmitting duplicate transmission, as taught by Gong.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 11 June 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200029310) in view of Moon (US 20200280971) or in the alternative, Lee (of record) in view of Gong (US 20200154467) and Moon (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Lee teaches a communication method, a terminal device comprising a transceiver, processor, and memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which stores computer-executable instructions, so that a processor implements the method comprising:
acquiring, by a terminal device, first information (Lee, ¶64 – UE receives RRC message with an indication),
wherein the first information is used to indicate an association relationship of physical downlink control channels (PDCCH) transmitted by N transmission-reception points, and the N is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Lee, ¶65 – the indication indicates candidate PDCCHs in different CORESETs that correspond to one another; Lee, ¶64 – each CORESET is associated with one of two TRPs in figure 6);
receiving, by the terminal device, the PDCCHs based on the first information (Lee, ¶72 and figure 6 - UE receives and decodes multiple PDCCHs in accordance with the RRC message);
wherein the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between different search spaces (Lee, ¶59 – each CORESET is a different search space for the UE to find PDCCH; Lee, ¶65 – as a result, by indicating PDCCHs in different CORESETS that correspond to one another, the indication also indicates an association between PDCCHs in different search spaces)1
. . .
wherein multiple search spaces correspond to a same frequency domain resource set (Lee, ¶56 and figure 5 – search spaces within CORESET 520 occupy resource blocks in the frequency domain, where the vertical axis is the frequency domain; Lee, figure 6 – in 630 and 635, the PDCCH candidates are stacked within the same vertical frequency);
the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between PDCCHs in at least two search spaces (Lee, ¶59 – CORESET may correspond to a search space; Lee, figure 6 – indication indicates an association between the PDCCH candidates in CORESET A and CORESET B);
wherein the multiple search spaces comprise a first search space and a second search space (Lee, figure 6 and ¶59 – CORESET A and CORESET B are a first and second search space), and
the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between an i-th PDCCH candidate . . . in the first search space and an i-th PDCCH candidate . . . in the second search space (Lee, figure 6 – in 620 and 625, PDCCH candidates in one CORESET are associated with PDCCH candidates in another CORESET),
i ≤ M1 and i ≤ M2. Lee, figure 6 (each CORESET has at least 2 candidate PDCCHs, where 2 is less than or equal to the number of CORESETs [i.e. search spaces, which is 2]).
In the alternative, Lee also teaches
. . . different transmission-reception points correspond to different PDCCH candidate sets (Lee, ¶66 and item 625 in figure 6 – TRP A indicates PDCCH candidates 1-4, while TRP B indicates PDCCH candidates 1 and 2), and
the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between different PDCCH candidate sets (Lee, ¶¶64, 66 - indication in RRC message provides the corresponding pairs of PDCCH candidates),
wherein the N transmission-reception points comprise a first transmission-reception point and a second transmission-reception point (Lee, figures 5 and 6 – TRP A and TRP B);
the first transmission-reception point corresponds to a first PDCCH candidate set, and the second transmission-reception point corresponds to a second PDCCH candidate set (Lee, ¶66 and item 625 in figure 6 – TRP A indicates PDCCH candidates 1-4, while TRP B indicates PDCCH candidates 1 and 2);
the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between the first PDCCH candidate set and the second PDCCH candidate set (Lee, ¶¶64, 66 - indication in RRC message provides the corresponding pairs of PDCCH candidates);
wherein the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between an i-th PDCCH in the first PDCCH candidate set and an i-th PDCCH in the second PDCCH candidate set (Lee, ¶65 and element 620 in figure 6 - the PDCCH candidate 2 in CORESET A for TRP A corresponds to PDCCH candidate 2 in CORESET B for TRP B, where 2 is less than or equal to the at least 4 PDCCHs in each candidate set); wherein the i is less than or equal to a number of PDCCHs comprised in the first PDCCH candidate set, and the i is less than or equal to a number of PDCCHs comprised in the second PDCCH candidate set (Ibid. with PDCCH candidate 2, is less than the 4 PDCCHs in each set);
Though Lee teaches both TRPs supporting the same radio access technology and thus the set of frequencies licensed for the RAT (Lee, ¶¶35, 47-48), Lee does not explicitly teach (1) “wherein the N transmission-reception points correspond to a same frequency domain resource set” or (2) “the first search space comprises M1 PDCCH candidate sets in a period, the second search space comprises M2 PDCCH candidate sets in a period.” However, regarding (1), Gong teaches two TRPs (Gong, figure 31A) that transmit control information in the same CORESET. Gong, ¶464. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the two TRPs, taught by Lee, to use the same CORESET, as taught by Gong, in order to have both TRPs schedule duplicate transmissions, which may limit interference. Gong, ¶¶464-465.
Regarding (2), the combination of Lee and Gong teaches different CORESETs (i.e. different search spaces) with multiple PDCCH candidates in a period of time. Lee, ¶66 and item 625 in figure 6 (CORESET A comprises PDCCH candidates 1-4 and CORESET B comprises PDCCH candidates 1 and 2; Lee, ¶56 and figure 5 – all resource blocks within a CORESET share the same symbol width 515 [i.e. a period of time]). But the combination of Lee and Gong does not explicitly teach the first and second search spaces comprising PDCCH candidate “sets” in a period. However, Moon teaches two search spaces for a terminal in two different periods. Moon, ¶307. The terminal monitors for PDCCHs in both periods. Ibid. This configuration creates groups or sets of PDCCH candidates. Ibid. (“second PDCCH group” and “third PDCCH group”). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include two periods, as taught by Moon, within the search spaces, taught by Lee, in order to dynamically adjust the terminal’s PDCCH monitoring at different time periods, which is required when operating over an unlicensed band. Id. at ¶283.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the method according to claim 1 . . . [and] the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between different PDCCH candidates in a same aggregation level. Lee, ¶65 (PDCCH candidates in CORESET A and CORESET B have the same aggregation level, 4). Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein the N transmission-reception points correspond to a same frequency domain resource set,” though Lee does teach both TRPs supporting the same radio access technology and thus the set of frequencies licensed for the RAT. Lee, ¶¶35, 47-48. However, Gong teaches two TRPs (Gong, figure 31A) that transmit control information in the same CORESET. Gong, ¶464. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the two TRPs, taught by Lee, to use the same CORESET, as taught by Gong, in order to have bot TRPs schedule duplicate transmissions, which may limit interference. Gong, ¶¶464-645.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the method according to claim 7, but does not explicitly teach “wherein, in time domain, the M.sub.1 PDCCH candidate sets are arranged sequentially, and the M.sub.2 PDCCH candidate sets are arranged sequentially.” However, Moon teaches sequentially mapping the PDCCH candidates for search space sets within a time slot. Moon, ¶358. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to sequentially arrange the PDCCH candidates, as taught by Moon, within the CORESETs/search space sets, taught by Lee, in order to ensure all PDCCH candidates can be monitored by the UE in a slot. Id. at ¶359.
Regarding claim 10, Lee also teaches wherein one search space is associated with at least two frequency domain resource sets (Lee, ¶59 – each CORESET includes one or more search spaces, where a search space is a set of CCE locations that may include a PDCCH; Lee, ¶56 – CORESET comprising multiple resource blocks in the frequency domain; Lee, ¶57 e.g. CORESET [search space] 520 comprises two CCEs [frequency domain resource sets] 525); and the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between PDCCHs corresponding to the at least two frequency domain resource sets. Lee, ¶65 (indication provides a correspondence between PDCCH candidate locations [i.e. CCE locations that may include a PDCCH] in two CORESETs [i.e. at least two CCEs]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee also teaches wherein the first information is pre-configured or stipulated by a protocol. Lee, ¶64 (indication is included in a radio resource control [RRC is a layer 3 protocol] message); Lee, figure 10 (the indication is configured and transmitted before it is used to decode PDCCH candidates).
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Moon (of record) or Lee in view of Gong and Moon (both of record), further in view of Noh (US 20200305134).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee, Gong, and Moon teaches the method according to claim 10 . . . [and] the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between PDCCH candidates in the third PDCCH candidate set and PDCCH candidates in the fourth PDCCH candidate set. Lee, ¶65-66 (elements 620 and 625 in figure 6 show a relationship between PDCCH candidates in each CORESET, transmitted by different TRPs). Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein different control resource sets (CORESET) are frequency division multiplexing (FDM); the at least two frequency domain resource sets comprise a first frequency domain resource set and a second frequency domain resource set, the first frequency domain resource set corresponds to a third PDCCH candidate set, and the second frequency domain resource set corresponds to a fourth PDCCH candidate set.” However, Noh teach frequency-division-multiplexing CORESETs 1210 and 1215, where each CORESET includes a PDCCH from its respective TRP. Noh, figure 12 and ¶256. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use FDM, as taught by Noh, when transmitting the PDCCH candidates, taught by Lee, Gong, and Moon, in order to permit a multi-PDCCH transmission in frequency range 1 where the TRPs use the same QCL. Id. at ¶257.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee, Gong, Moon, and Noh also teaches wherein the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between an i-th PDCCH candidate in the third PDCCH candidate set and an i-th PDCCH candidate in the fourth PDCCH candidate set, the i is a positive integer less than or equal to P, and the P is a number of PDCCH candidates comprised in the search space. Lee, ¶65 and figure 6 (indication information 620 provides an association between each PDCCH candidate transmitted by TRP A and each PDCCH candidate transmitted by TRP B, where 4 is the number of PDCCH candidates in each search space and that equals the number of PDCCH candidates that have an association).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee, Gong, and Moon teaches the method according to claim 10, . . . [and] the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between an i-th first PDCCH candidate set in the T first PDCCH candidate sets and an i-th second PDCCH candidate set in the T second PDCCH candidate sets, and the i is a positive integer less than or equal to the T. Lee, ¶65-66 (elements 620 and 625 in figure 6 show a relationship between PDCCH candidates in each CORESET, transmitted by different TRPs). Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein the at least two frequency domain resource sets comprise a first frequency domain resource set and a second frequency domain resource set, the first frequency domain resource set corresponds to T third PDCCH candidate sets, the second frequency domain resource set corresponds to T fourth PDCCH candidate sets, and the T is an integer greater than or equal to 1.” However, Noh teaches two CORESETs 1210 and 1215, where each CORESET includes a PDCCH from its respective TRP. Noh, figure 12 and ¶256. Noh also teaches PDCCH monitoring that is based on the CORESET group ID, which is used to define which PDCCHs the UE will monitor. Id. at ¶¶11, 290. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use define PDCCH candidate sets based on CORESET groups, as taught by Noh, when transmitting the PDCCH candidates, taught by Lee, in order to comply with the restriction on the processing time needed by the UE to execute PDCCH monitoring. Id. at ¶255.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee, Gong, and Moon teaches the method according to claim 1, . . . [and] the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between PDCCH candidates in the first search space and PDCCH candidates in the second search space. Lee, ¶65-66 (elements 620 and 625 in figure 6 show a relationship between PDCCH candidates in each CORESET, transmitted by different TRPs); see also id. at ¶59 for each CORESET being a different search space for the UE to find PDCCHs. Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein a first search space is associated with a first frequency domain resource set, and a second search space is associated with a second frequency domain resource set.” However, Noh teach frequency-division-multiplexing CORESETs 1210 and 1215, where each CORESET includes a search space for a candidate PDCCH from its respective TRP. Noh, figure 12 and ¶256. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use FDM, as taught by Noh, when transmitting the CORESETs, taught by Lee, in order to permit a multi-PDCCH transmission in frequency range 1 where the TRPs use the same QCL. Id. at ¶257.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee, Gong, Moon, and Noh also teaches wherein the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between a third PDCCH candidate set in the first search space and a fourth PDCCH candidate set in the second search space (Lee, figure 6 – indications 620 and 625 provide the associated of PDCCH candidates within each CORESET); wherein, in time domain, the fourth PDCCH candidate set is a PDCCH candidate set closest to the third PDCCH candidate set and after the first PDCCH candidate set. Noh, figure 12 (case #2) and ¶259 (distance 1230 between each CORESET, which each contain at least one PDCCH candidate, is smaller than a predetermined value). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to define associate CORESETs within the same slot, as taught by Noh, when defining the PDCCH candidates for monitoring, as taught by Lee, in order to enable the base station to change beams when transmitting the PDCCHs. Noh, ¶257.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Moon or Lee in view of Gong and Moon (all of record), further in view of Noh (US 20200305134) and Su (US 20230071462).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee, Gong, Moon, and Noh teaches the method according to claim 11, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the third PDCCH candidate set comprises Q first PDCCH candidate sub-sets, and the fourth PDCCH candidate set comprises Q second PDCCH candidate sub-sets; the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between an i-th first PDCCH candidate sub-set in the third PDCCH candidate set and an i-th second PDCCH candidate sub-set in the fourth PDCCH candidate set.” However, Su teaches two subsets in each of two CORESETs. Su, figure 4C. Each sub-set includes at least two search spaces for PDCCH candidates. Su, ¶284. In one example, a search space consists of two PDCCH candidates and a second search space that consists of three PDCCH candidates, where PDCCH candidates in one search space are associated with a PDCCH candidates in the other search space. Su, ¶285. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to divide the PDCCH candidates, taught by the combination of Lee and Noh, into subsets with each CORESET, as taught by Su, in order to send multiple PDCCH candidates for a TCI state, which improves the relability of DCI transmissions sent via the PDCCH. Su, ¶155.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee, Gong, Moon, and Noh teaches the method according to claim 14, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the i-th third PDCCH candidate set comprises S PDCCH candidates, and the i-th fourth PDCCH candidate set comprises S PDCCH candidates, the S is an integer greater than or equal to 1; the first information is further used to indicate an association relationship between a j-th PDCCH candidate in the i-th first PDCCH candidate set and a j-th PDCCH candidate in the i-th second PDCCH candidate set, and the j is an integer less than or equal to the S.” However, Su teaches two subsets in each of two CORESETs. Su, figure 4C. Each sub-set includes at least two search spaces for PDCCH candidates. Su, ¶284. In one example, a search space consists of two PDCCH candidates and a second search space that consists of three PDCCH candidates, where PDCCH candidates in one search space are associated with a PDCCH candidates in the other search space. Su, ¶285. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to divide the PDCCH candidates, taught by the combination of Lee and Noh, into subsets with each CORESET, as taught by Su, in order to send multiple PDCCH candidates for a TCI state, which improves the reliability of DCI transmissions sent via the PDCCH. Su, ¶155.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Moon or Lee in view of Gong and Moon (all of record), in view of Noh (US 20200305134) and further in view of Cai (US 20220361013).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Noh teaches the method according to claim 16, . . . the first information is used to indicate an association relationship between an i-th PDCCH candidate set in the K.sub.1 PDCCH candidate sets and an i-th PDCCH candidate set in the K.sub.2 PDCCH candidate sets, i≤K.sub.1, and i≤K.sub.2. Lee, figure 6 (indication 620 and 625 show the association relationship between PDCCH candidate sets for each TRP).
The combination of Lee and Noh does not explicitly teach “wherein a period of the first search space comprises K.sub.1 PDCCH candidate sets, a period of the second search space comprises K.sub.2 PDCCH candidate sets, the K.sub.1 is an integer greater than or equal to 1, and the K.sub.2 is an integer greater than or equal to 1” or “wherein, in time domain, the K.sub.1 PDCCH candidate sets are arranged sequentially, and the K.sub.2 PDCCH candidate sets are arranged sequentially.” However, Cai teaches a UE that receives two search space configurations. Cai, ¶242. Each search space configuration provides a PDCCH monitoring period and a quantity of PDCCH candidates. Cai, ¶243. The PDCCH(s) found within the first and second search space are sequential to each other in the time domain. Cai, figure 4a (first search space [with first candidate PDCCHs] runs from T1 to T2, while the second search space [with the second candidate PDCCHs] runs from T2 to T3). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two different search space configurations for different time periods, as taught by Cai, when executing the multi-TRP PDCCH repetitions, taught by the combination of Lee, Gong, Moon, and Noh, in order to enable the UE to reduce power consumption needed for PDCCH monitoring. Cai, ¶8.
Conclusion
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
1 The first two wherein clauses in claim 1 have an “or” between them. As a result, the second wherein clause is optional, which triggers the alternative obviousness rejection.
Prosecution Insights