DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2024/0147524)
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches method of uplink feedback for mobile terminated (MT) data transmission (Figure 3A, see specifically UE 102), comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a base station (BS), a message indicating transitioning of the UE from a radio resource control (RRC) connected state to an RRC inactive state (¶ [0091], see specifically RRC release); and
transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, UE feedback associated with downlink transmission in the RRC inactive state (¶ [0137], see specifically HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission in an inactive state.)
Regarding Claim 2, Wu teaches further comprising receiving, while in the radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, a downlink transport block, wherein the user equipment (UE) feedback is associated with the downlink transport block (¶ [0137], see specifically MAC PDU.)
Regarding Claim 3, Wu teaches the user equipment (UE) feedback is one of a positive acknowledgement and a negative acknowledgement (¶ [0137], see specifically HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission in an inactive state.)
Regarding Claim 4, Wu teaches the positive acknowledgement and the negative acknowledgement are hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgements (¶ [0137], see specifically HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission in an inactive state.)
Regarding Claim 5, Wu teaches receiving, while in the radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, a notification of downlink data transmission in the RRC inactive state, wherein the user equipment (UE) feedback is associated with the notification (¶ [0137], see specifically NDI.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2024/0147524) in view of Wu (US 2024/0244700)
Note: For purposes of examination, this reference will be referred to as Wu2.
Regarding Claim 6, A method of uplink feedback for mobile terminated (MT) data transmission(Figure 3A, see specifically UE 102), comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a base station (BS), a message indicating transitioning of the UE from a radio resource control (RRC) connected state to an RRC inactive state (¶ [0091], see specifically RRC release); and
transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, UE feedback associated with downlink transmission in the RRC inactive state (¶ [0137], see specifically HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission in an inactive state);
receiving, while in the radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, a notification of downlink data transmission in the RRC inactive state (¶ [0137], see specifically NDI.),
Wu fails to explicitly teach wherein the user equipment (UE) feedback is associated with the notification wherein the notification is via a paging message.
Wu2 from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the notification is via a paging message (¶ [0075], see specifically paging).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use a paging message in the system of Wu as taught by Wu2.
The motivation is that the same inventor wrote both of these documents within a month of each other, and they are a further improvement to the same system, therefore one of ordinary skill would realize that the inventor improved on his own system and combine the original system with the improvement to further improve the underlying system.
Regarding Claim 7, Wu teaches the user equipment (UE) feedback is one of a positive acknowledgement and a negative acknowledgement (¶ [0137], see specifically HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission in an inactive state.)
Regarding Claim 8, Wu teaches the positive acknowledgement and the negative acknowledgement are hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgements (¶ [0137], see specifically HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission in an inactive state.)
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2024/0147524) in view of Esswie (US 2024/0236941).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu fails to explicitly teach the user equipment (UE) feedback comprises uplink control information (UCI).
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the user equipment (UE) feedback comprises uplink control information (UCI).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu fails to explicitly teach the user equipment (UE) feedback comprises channel state information (CSI) feedback.
Esswie teaches the user equipment (UE) feedback comprises channel state information (CSI) feedback (¶ [0168], see specifically CSI reporting.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 11, The method claim 1, wherein the transmitting the user equipment (UE) feedback is based on multiplexing the UE feedback with an uplink transport block and transmitting the UE feedback and the uplink transport block via radio resources of the uplink transport block.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the user equipment (UE) feedback is based on multiplexing the UE feedback with an uplink transport block and transmitting the UE feedback and the uplink transport block via radio resources of the uplink transport block (¶ [0147], see specifically configured grant and UL resources.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 12, Wu fails to explicitly teach the radio resources of the uplink transport block are based on a configured grant.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the radio resources of the uplink transport block are based on a configured grant. (¶ [0147], see specifically configured grant and UL resources.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 13, Wu fails to explicitly teach the message comprises configuration parameters of a configured grant configuration for uplink transmissions in the radio resource control (RRC) inactive state; and the configured grant is based on the configured grant configuration.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the message comprises configuration parameters of a configured grant configuration for uplink transmissions in the radio resource control (RRC) inactive state; and the configured grant is based on the configured grant configuration (¶ [0147], see specifically configured grant and UL resources.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu teaches the message is a radio resource control (RRC) release message (¶ [0091], see specifically RRC release.)
Regarding Claim 15, Wu fails to explicitly teach user equipment (UE) feedback is transmitted based on a random access message.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches user equipment (UE) feedback is transmitted based on a random access message (¶ [0215], see specifically multiplexed with a RACH preamble).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 16, Wu fails to explicitly teach the user equipment (UE) feedback is based on a random access preamble.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor the user equipment (UE) feedback is based on a random access preamble (¶ [0215], see specifically multiplexed with a RACH preamble).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 17, Wu fails to explicitly teach the random access preamble comprises: a first random access preamble, which indicates a positive acknowledgement; and a second random access preamble, which indicates a negative acknowledgement.
Esswie teaches the random access preamble comprises: a first random access preamble, which indicates a positive acknowledgement; and a second random access preamble, which indicates a negative acknowledgement (¶ [0193], see specifically multiplex the feedback with the preamble.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 18, Wu fails to explicitly teach the random access message is a MsgA message in a two-step random access process.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the random access message is a Msg3 message in a four-step random access process (¶ [0147], see specifically message A.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 19, Wu fails to explicitly teach the MsgA message comprises the user equipment (UE) feedback
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the MsgA message comprises the user equipment (UE) feedback (¶ [0147], see specifically message A.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Regarding Claim 20, Wu fails to explicitly teach the random access message is a Msg3 message in a four-step random access process.
Esswie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the random access message is a Msg3 message in a four-step random access process (¶ [0147], see specifically small resource grant and multiplex the SDT payload.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to combine additional feedback such as UCI, CSI and others with either short data uplink bursts or with the random access procedure in the system of Wu as taught by Esswie.
The motivation is that staying in the RRC inactive state and not coming fully back to the RRC connected state (even if the RACH preamble is used) reduces overall power consumption at the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Nowhere, however, does Wu refer to transmitting UE feedback associated with a download transmission in the RRC inactive state, as required by independent claim 1. Wu at par 0091.
[citation omitted]
Again, Wu does not teach that UE 102, after transitioning to an RRC inactive state, transmits UE feedback associated with DL transmission to the BS, as claimed. Nor does Wu at [0137] teach transmitting UE feedback associated with DL transmission while the UE 102 is in the transitioned RRC inactive state.
[citation omitted]
Fig. 7C teaches managing data exchange before (in the inactive state) and after a state transition from the inactive state to the connected state. But independent claim 1 is premised on transitioning, in response to the message indicating transitioning, from the RRC connected state to the RRC inactive state. In Wu's method 700C, the UE transitions from the inactive to active states, which are not equivalent. As Wu fails to teach the required limitations of independent claim 1, then Wu is not a proper 102(a)(2) reference, and claim 1 is not anticipated by Wu under § 102(a)(2). Because claims 2-5, 7 and 8 depend from independent claim 1, these dependent claims are patentable over Wu for at least the same reasons. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1- 5, 7 and 8 under § 103 over Wu.
Examiner disagrees, looking to ¶ [0136] – [0137]:
[0136] At block 702B, the RAN node(s) performs early data communication with a UE operating in an inactive state (e.g., events 304, 306, 312, 314). At block 704B, the RAN node(s) transmits a HARQ transmission to the UE by using a HARQ process (number) during the early data communication (e.g., events 314). At block 706B, the RAN node(s) transitions the UE to a connected state from the inactive state (e.g., events 322, 324). At block 707B, the RAN node(s) refrains from using the HARQ process (number) to transmit HARQ transmissions to the UE operating in the connected state. At block 710B, the RAN node(s) transmits HARQ transmissions to the UE by using (an)other HARQ process(es) number(s), that the UE does not use during the early data communication, after transitioning to the connected state.
[0137] FIG. 7C is a flow diagram of an example method 700C for managing data communication before and after a state transition from the inactive state to the connected state, which can be implemented in one or more RAN nodes (e.g., CU 172, DU 174, base station 104 or RAN 105). In the example method 700C, after the UE transitions to a connected state from an inactive state, reset MAC PDUs are assigned a new data indicator (NDI) to indicate new data. This is because the HARQ buffer may not be maintained during a state change. If the RAN node(s) receives a HARQ acknowledgement for a HARQ transmission of a MAC PDU transmitted while the UE was in the inactive state, the RAN node(s) transmits a HARQ new transmission of a new subsequent MAC PDU to the UE. If the RAN node(s) receives a HARQ NACK or does not receive a HARQ acknowledgement for the HARQ transmission of the MAC PDU transmitted while the UE was in the inactive state, the RAN node(s) transmits a HARQ new transmission of the MAC PDU, but with an NDI indicating new data to start over in the connected state.
Examiner cited to ¶ [0137] essentially because it was the where the reference discussed that a successful HARQ transmission in the art would get a ACK, and an unsuccessful transmission would get a NACK. Looking to the previous paragraph, it discusses “At block 702B, the RAN node(s) performs early data communication with a UE operating in an inactive state (e.g., events 304, 306, 312, 314). At block 704B, the RAN node(s) transmits a HARQ transmission to the UE by using a HARQ process (number) during the early data communication (e.g., events 314).” Examiner submits that as it is transmitting HARQ data over a HARQ process (one different than in the active mode, it would need to transmit a proper ack or nack to that transmission.
Additionally, as can be seen in Figure 3A, it is quite clearly transmitting data within the inactive state, this data is HARQ data.
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the system does not need to come up to the active state after this data transmission, and it is clearly taught to be HARQ data, there would need to be an ACK/NACK transmission to confirm that data.
Therefore, Wu teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant argues, to support the rejection of claim 6, the Office Action asserts that Wu
teaches that the notification is via a paging message. Applicant does not agree. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, so is patentable at least for the reasons for the patentability of claim1, as explained above.
[citation omitted]
WU-2 at par [0075] teaches generating a security function and teaches transitioning to an RRC inactive state in response to receiving an RRC release message. Dependent claim 6, however, requires that, after receiving the notification of DL transmission in the RRC inactive state and UE feedback associated with the notification, where the RRC release message is a paging message. Wu's RRC release message is not a paging method, as claimed.
And while the stated rejection indicates that the skilled person would be motivated to modify Wu's Fig. 3A embodiment (associated with the rejection of claim 1), in view of Wu-2 embodiment shown at par [0075], "to improve" Wu.
With all due respect, a proper motivation to support a prima facie case of obviousness must be supported by an argument with a rational underpinning, which does not appear to be the case. The asserted motivation (to improve Wu) for modifying Wu as taught by WU-2 appears based more in hindsight reasoning rather than a rational underpinning. ("'[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 417 (2007)).
Claim 6/5/1 is therefore patentable over Wu in view of Wu-2. For that matter, applicant amends claim 6 to independent form hereby, by adding to claim 6 the subject matter of claims 1 and 5.
Examiner disagrees, looking to ¶ [0075] of Wu2:
[0075] The UE 102 transitions to the inactive state in response to receiving the RRC release message and operates 320 in the inactive state. In some implementations, the UE 102 transitions to the inactive state after transmitting 314 the HARQ ACK and/or 316 the RLC ACK. If the UE 102 transitions to the inactive state before transmitting 314 the HARQ ACK and/or 316 the RLC ACK, the UE 102 stops perform uplink transmission in response to transitioning to the inactive state. Thus, the UE 102 in the inactive refrains from transmitting 314 the HARQ ACK and 316 the RLC ACK. The UE 102 camps 322 on the second DL BWP in response to or in accordance with the configuration of the second DL BWP. At a later time, the UE 102 in the inactive state initiates early data communication to transmit uplink (UL) data or receive downlink (DL) data. The UE 102 can initiate early data communication in order to transmit at least one UL data packet or to receive at least one DL data packet. In cases where the UE 102 initiates early data transmission (EDT) to transmit UL data while the UE 102 is in the inactive state, the initial early data communication can be mobile originating (MO) EDT. In cases where the UE 102 initiates early data communication to receive DL data while the UE 102 operates in the inactive state, the initial early data communication can be mobile terminating (MT) EDT (i.e., early data reception from the viewpoint of the UE 102). In such cases, the UE 102 at event 314 receives from the DU 174 a paging message, which includes a UE ID of the UE 102 and an EDT indication. For example, the UE ID can be an I-RNTI, resume ID, or a NAS ID (e.g., S-TMSI or 5G-S-TMSI, or a specific ID for MT EDT). In response to the paging message (i.e., the UE ID and the EDT indication), the UE 102 initiates early data communication to receive DL data from the DU 174 and CU 172.
Examiner submits that Wu-2 teaches using a paging message to initiate early data communication.
What is important to note, as was done in the earlier rejection, both Wu and Wu2 are the patent publications of the same inventor Chih-Hsiang Wu. The inventor produced both of these works almost a month apart, they are both on the similar subject matter. Wu2 can be seen as an improvement of Wu’s earlier work. One of ordinary skill in the art, in the same way the inventor did, would reference both documents when trying to produce the invention of Wu. Especially because paging messages are well known means of conveying information in 3GPP systems, one would have been motivated to allow one to be used as Wu did in his later work.
Examiner submits that both documents by Wu render obvious the claimed invention.
Applicant argues, To support the rejection of claims 9-20, the Office Action at page 5
asserts that WU does not teach UE feedback comprising UL control information (UCI, that Esswie does and that it would have been obvious to modify Wu as taught by Esswie, to reduce overall power consumption.
Esswie teaches
Procedures, methods, architectures, apparatuses, systems, devices, and computer program products are disclosed that may be implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), such as where the WTRU is in an inactive and/or idle (e.g., RRC) state. In one representative method, the WTRU may receive a downlink (DL) small data transmis- sion (SDT) indication with respect to a paging occasion. The WTRU may receive the indicated DL SDT payload which may be multiplexed with a paging record for the paging occasion and/or with one or more configured DL SDT PDSCH resources. Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information for the DL SDT payload may be transmitted using configured PUCCH resources and/or may be multiplexed with a random access channel (RACH) procedure. The DL SDT payload may be received by the WTRU without transitioning to a connected (e.g., RRC) ctate
Nowhere does Esswie overcome the shortcomings of Wu (or Wu-2
for that matter). The skilled person, therefore, would not have been motivated to modify Wu in view of Esswie, and even doing so (for arguments sake), Wu so modified still would not realize the invention of claim 9.
Claim 9 is patentable over Wu in view of Esswie, where claims 10-20, which depend from claim 1 are patentable over Wu in view of Esswie at least for the subject matter of claim 1 and the additional features of each named dependent claim. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections, therefore.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the present
invention as now set forth in Claims 1-20 is patentable over the cited art and, therefore, allowance of the aforesaid claims at an early date is earnestly solicited.
Examiner disagrees, Esswie teaches UL feedback at least in ¶ [0247]:
[0247] The DL SDT-capable WTRU (e.g., in inactive/idle mode), when configured, may transmit UCI in the uplink direction to signal the corresponding DL SDT-specific HARQ feedback. In some cases, this may under-utilize the network resource overhead. Using RACH procedures, requires the DL SDT-capable WTRU (e.g., in inactive/idle mode) to trigger the RRC connection establishment signaling in order to multiplex the DL SDT-specific HARQ feedback. In some cases, this may increase the device power consumption. Using the DL SDT-specific RACH preamble pool(s) may avoid preamble collisions with non-SDT (e.g., regular) RACH transmission. In some cases, multiple DL SDT-capable WTRUs are paged within the same paging occasion, and the network may be unable to differentiate among the various DL SDT WTRUS. That is, the RAN node, upon receiving different DL SDT-specific RACH preambles, may not identify which DL SDT-capable WTRUs have received a DL SDT payload successfully and which have not.
Therefore, Examiner submits that Esswie does indeed teach the limitations of Claim 9 and Claim 9 is rejected accordingly.
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 ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights