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 .
Claims 1-25 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Reply, filed August 15, 2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 7 of the Reply, filed August 15, 2025, with respect to Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant requests that any double patenting rejection be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
MPEP §804 states that “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance.” As such, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 of the Reply, filed August 15, 2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the need for power scaling is only performed based on total transmission power at the UE, and not an output power restriction for a particular antenna and, accordingly, there is no disclosure of “mapping … based at least in part on an output power restriction for at least one antenna of said plurality of antennas” as required by claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art reference, Takaoka et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0272257), discloses or suggests power scaling between a plurality of antennas based on whether the total transmission power exceeds the UE-specific maximum transmission power, where the UE-specific maximum transmission power can be reasonably interpreted as the output power restriction for the plurality of antennas (see at least paragraphs 50 and 51). Takaoka et al. further disclose power scaling for multi-antenna transmission being applied with respect to the antenna ports (or antenna port numbers or physical antennas) simultaneously transmitting SRSs when the total value of transmission power of three SRS channels transmitted using the two CCs exceeds the UE-specific maximum transmission power (see at least Fig. 8 and paragraphs 78-88). The UE-specific maximum transmission power is associated with the plurality of UE antennas and, therefore, can be reasonably interpreted as the output power restriction for at least one antenna of the plurality of antennas, where the power scaling as shown, for example, in Fig. 8 is based on the UE-specific maximum transmission power. Thus, Examiner respectfully submits that Takaoka et al. disclose or suggest the limitation “mapping … based at least in part on an output power restriction for at least one antenna of said plurality of antennas” as required by claim 1.
In view of the above reasons, Examiner respectfully submits that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 should be maintained.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,535 in view of Takaoka et al. (USPGP 2013/0272257, hereinafter “Takaoka”).
Claims 1-21 of USPN 11,627,535 disclose:
regarding claims 1 and 21, a method for transmitting a set of reference signals from a user equipment (UE), the method and the UE comprising:
a plurality of antennas (see claim 17, a plurality of antennas);
a memory (see claim 17, a memory); and
a processor (see claim 17, a processor), wherein said processor is configured to map a plurality of transmit ports for a set of reference signals to said plurality of antennas, wherein said mapping is based at least in part on an output power restriction for at least one antenna of said plurality of antennas (see claims 1, 17, and 19, map a plurality of transmit ports for a set of reference signals to said plurality of antennas, wherein said mapping is based at least in part on a power management parameter for at least one of said plurality of antennas, wherein said power parameter is a Power Management Maximum Power Reduction (P-MPR) value, which corresponds to an output power restriction); and transmit said set of reference signals according to said mapping and using said plurality of antennas (see claims 1 and 17, transmit said set of reference signals according to said mapping and using said plurality of antennas).
Claims 1-21 of USPN 11,627,535 does not explicitly disclose that a transmit power used by at least one of said antennas for said transmitting is different from a transmit power used by another of said plurality of antennas for said transmitting.
Takaoka, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests the transmitter power used by at least one of said antennas for said transmitting being different from the transmit power used by another of said plurality of antennas for said transmitting (see at least Fig. 8 and paragraphs 78-88, the transmission power of antenna ports #10, #20, and #21 are different).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Takaoka in to the invention of claims 1-21 of USPN 11,627,535 in order to avoid an increase in undesirable effects on bit rounding errors of a D/A converter so that signals can be transmitted with high accuracy.
Claims 1-21 of USPN 11,627,535 further disclose:
regarding claims 2 and 22, said set of reference signals is a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) resource set and said plurality of transmit ports are SRS ports corresponding to said set of reference signals (see claims 2 and 18);
regarding claims 3 and 23, said output power restriction comprises a Power Management Maximum Power Reduction (P-MPR) value, and wherein the transmit power of at least one of said antennas is higher than a maximum transmit power indicated by said P-MPR value (see claims 3 and 19);
regarding claims 4 and 24, said processor is further configured to determine said output power restriction (see claims 3, 4, 19 and 20, said power parameter is a Power Management Maximum Power Reduction (P-MPR) value, which corresponds to an output power restriction);
regarding claims 5 and 25, said UE further comprises one or more detectors, wherein said determining said output power restriction is performed using measurements from at least one of said one or more detectors, and wherein said power management parameter is determined based at least in part on avoidance of transmission towards a human (see claims 5 and 21);
regarding claim 6, mapping first and second transmit ports to a first antenna and mapping no transmit port to a second antenna (see claims 1 and 7);
regarding claim 7, said mapping comprises: mapping a first transmit port to a first antenna; mapping a second transmit port to a second antenna; and mapping a third transmit port to said first and second antennas (see claim 1);
regarding claim 8, said third transmit port is mapped equally to said first and second antennas (see claim 6);
regarding claim 9, the plurality of antennas further comprises a third antenna and said mapping further comprises: mapping no transmit ports to said third antenna (see claim 7);
regarding claim 10, said mapping comprises: mapping a first transmit port to a first antenna; mapping a portion of a second transmit port to said first antenna; and mapping a portion of said second transmit port to a second antenna, wherein a maximum transmit power of said second antenna is restricted by said output power restriction (see claims 1 and 3, said power parameter is a Power Management Maximum Power Reduction (P-MPR) value, which corresponds to an output power restriction);
regarding claim 11, the mapping is performed such that the same output power is used for each transmit port (see claim 8);
regarding claim 12, said transmitting comprises: transmitting first and second reference signals on a first antenna; and transmitting no reference signals on a second antenna, wherein said first and second reference signals are transmitted on said first antenna at power level greater than a maximum power level of said second antenna (see claim 11);
regarding claim 13, determining that said first antenna has the highest available output power of said plurality of antennas, wherein said mapping is based at least in part on said determining (see claim 9);
regarding claim 14, said transmitting comprises: transmitting a first reference signal on a first antenna; transmitting a second reference signal on a second antenna; and transmitting a third reference signal on said first and second antennas, wherein the transmission of said third reference signal is divided equally between said first and second antennas (see claim 10);
regarding claim 15, said transmitting comprises: transmitting a first reference signal from a first antenna at a first power level; transmitting a portion of a second reference signal from said first antenna at said first power level; and transmitting a portion of said second reference signal from a second antenna at a second power level, wherein said second power level less than said first power level and said second power level is based at least in part on a power management determination for said second antenna (see claim 11);
regarding claim 16, the mapping and transmitting is performed such that an overall transmit power is split equally across each of the reference signals (see claim 12);
regarding claim 17, receiving, from a transmission point (TRP) a configuration for transmission of said set of reference signals; and receiving, from said TRP, a reference signal trigger message, wherein at least one of said mapping and transmitting is performed in response to said trigger (see claim 13);
regarding claim 18, said configuration indicates a usage of non- codebook, codebook, or antenna switching (see claim 14);
regarding claim 19, said mapping maximizes the total allowed transmit power of said UE over all transmit ports for said set of reference signals (see claim 15); and
regarding claim 20, at least one of said plurality of antennas is an antenna panel (see claim 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 16, 19-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaoka.
Takaoka discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 1 and 21, a method for transmitting a set of reference signals from a user equipment (UE), the method and the UE comprising:
a plurality of antennas (see at least Fig. 5, and paragraphs 45 and 106, antennas 101-1 to 101-M);
a memory (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph 44, a radio communication terminal apparatus must include a memory for storing instructions to be executed by the processor); and
a processor (see at least paragraphs 102 and 103, a general-purpose processor), wherein said processor is configured to:
map a plurality of transmit ports for a set of reference signals to said plurality of antennas, wherein said mapping is based at least in part on an output power restriction for at least one antenna of said plurality of antennas (see at least Fig. 8, and paragraphs 50-51 and 78-88, when the total value of transmission power of three SRS channels transmitted using two component carriers (CCs) exceeds the UE-specific maximum transmission power, the equal total scaling (w_C x w_A) considering the weights (w_A) for multiple-antenna transmission is applied with respect to the antenna ports simultaneously transmitting SRSs, on the basis of the antenna port positions (numbers) configured for SRS transmission for each CC, where the UE-specific maximum transmission power associated with the plurality of UE antennas can be reasonably interpreted as the output power restriction for at least one antenna of the plurality of antennas); and
transmit said set of reference signals according to said mapping and using said plurality of antennas, wherein a transmit power used by at least one of said antennas for said transmitting is different from a transmit power used by another of said plurality of antennas for said transmitting (see at least Fig. 8 and paragraphs 78-88, transmitting SRSs, where the transmission power of the SRS on antenna port #21 is w_C x P0, which is different from the transmission power of the SRS on antenna port #20 (i.e., (w_C/2) x P0);
regarding claims 2 and 22, said set of reference signals is a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) resource set and said plurality of transmit ports are SRS ports corresponding to said set of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 78-88, SRS transmission using two CCs associated with a plurality of antenna ports);
regarding claims 4 and 24, said processor is further configured to determine said output power restriction (see at least paragraphs 50-51 and 78-88, determining the UE-specific maximum transmission power);
regarding claim 11, the mapping is performed such that the same output power is used for each transmit port (see at least Fig. 7, antenna port #20 and antenna port #21 are configured with the same output power (w_C/3) P0);
regarding claim 16, the mapping and transmitting is performed such that an overall transmit power is split equally across each of the reference signals (see at least paragraph 67, applying the same power scaling weight with respect to SRSs of all antenna ports of all CCs allows the same amplification factor to be configured in different power amplifiers);
regarding claim 19, said mapping maximizes the total allowed transmit power of said UE over all transmit ports for said set of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 49-51, calculating the total transmission power of a plurality of CCs and determining whether power scaling is necessary to maximize the total allowed transmit power); and
regarding claim 20, at least one of said plurality of antennas is an antenna panel (see at least paragraph 106, antenna array formed of a plurality of antennas).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka in view of Yao et al. (USPGP 2022/0116891, hereinafter “Yao”).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except said output power restriction comprises a Power Management Maximum Power Reduction (P-MPR) value, and wherein the transmit power of at least one of said antennas is higher than a maximum transmit power indicated by said P-MPR value.
However, Yao, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests a Power Management Maximum Power Reduction (P-MPR) value, and wherein the transmit power of at least one of said antennas is higher than a maximum transmit power indicated by said P-MPR value (see at least Fig. 5, and paragraphs 49-51 and 222, the actual maximum transmit power is higher than the P-MPR value).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Yao in to the invention of Takaoka in order to effectively manage the transmission power.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except said UE comprises one or more detectors, wherein said determining said output power restriction is performed using measurements from at least one of said one or more detectors, and wherein said output power restriction is determined based at least in part on avoidance of transmission towards a human.
However, Yao, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests a said UE comprises one or more detectors, wherein said determining said output power restriction is performed using measurements from at least one of said one or more detectors, and wherein said output power restriction is determined based at least in part on avoidance of transmission towards a human (see at least Fig. 5, and paragraphs 49-51 and 222, determining the P-MPR value based on a detection whether a beam faces towards a human body).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Yao in to the invention of Takaoka in order to effectively manage the transmission power.
Claims 6, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka in view of Okamura et al. (USPGP 2022/0353039, hereinafter “Okamura”).
Regarding claim 6, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except mapping first and second transmit ports to a first antenna and mapping no transmit port to a second antenna.
However, Okamura, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests mapping first and second transmit ports to a first antenna and mapping no transmit port to a second antenna (see at least Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B, and paragraphs 100-108, pattern 1 of Fig. 4A, for example, illustrates mapping two SRS ports to antenna port #0 and mapping no SRS port to antenna port #2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Okumura in to the invention of Takaoka in order to independently configure SRS parameters between SRS resources, which increases the flexibility of SRS transmission.
Regarding claim 10, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except mapping a first transmit port to a first antenna; mapping a portion of a second transmit port to said first antenna; and mapping a portion of said second transmit port to a second antenna, wherein a maximum transmit power of said second antenna is restricted by said output power restriction.
However, Okamura, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests mapping a first transmit port to a first antenna; mapping a portion of a second transmit port to said first antenna; and mapping a portion of said second transmit port to a second antenna, wherein a maximum transmit power of said second antenna is restricted by said output power restriction (see at least Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B, and paragraphs 100-108, pattern 1 of Fig. 4A, for example, illustrates mapping SRS with number of ports 1 to antenna port #0, mapping a portion of SRS with number of ports 2 to antenna port #0 and a portion of SRS with number of ports 2 to antenna port #1, where a maximum transmit power of each antenna may be restricted by UE capability 3, as shown in Fig. 2, where the transmission power of transmission antenna #1 is restricted to P/2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Okumura in to the invention of Takaoka in order to independently configure SRS parameters between SRS resources, which increases the flexibility of SRS transmission.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except transmitting first and second reference signals on a first antenna; and transmitting no reference signals on a second antenna, wherein said first and second reference signals are transmitted on said first antenna at power level greater than a maximum power level of said second antenna; and determining that said first antenna has the highest available output power of said plurality of antennas, wherein said mapping is based at least in part on said determining.
However, Okamura, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests transmitting first and second reference signals on a first antenna; and transmitting no reference signals on a second antenna, wherein said first and second reference signals are transmitted on said first antenna at power level greater than a maximum power level of said second antenna (see at least Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B, and paragraphs 100-108, pattern 1 of Fig. 4A, for example, illustrates mapping two SRS ports to antenna port #0 and mapping no SRS port to antenna port #3, where UE capability 3 of Fig. 2 illustrates that the maximum transmission power level of transmission antenna #0 is P, which is greater than the maximum transmission power level of transmission antenna #3 (i.e., P/2)); determining that said first antenna has the highest available output power of said plurality of antennas, wherein said mapping is based at least in part on said determining (see at least Fig. 2, UE capability 3 illustrates that the maximum transmission power level of transmission antenna #0 is P, which is the highest available output power of the plurality of antennas).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Okumura in to the invention of Takaoka in order to independently configure SRS parameters between SRS resources, which increases the flexibility of SRS transmission.
Regarding claim 15, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except transmitting a first reference signal from a first antenna at a first power level; transmitting a portion of a second reference signal from said first antenna at said first power level; and transmitting a portion of said second reference signal from a second antenna at a second power level, wherein said second power level less than said first power level and said second power level is based at least in part on a power management determination for said second antenna.
However, Okamura, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests transmitting a first reference signal from a first antenna at a first power level; transmitting a portion of a second reference signal from said first antenna at said first power level; and transmitting a portion of said second reference signal from a second antenna at a second power level, wherein said second power level less than said first power level and said second power level is based at least in part on a power management determination for said second antenna (see at least Figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B, and paragraphs 100-108, pattern 1 of Fig. 4A, for example, illustrates mapping SRS with number of ports 1 to antenna port #0, mapping a portion of SRS with number of ports 2 to antenna port #0 and a portion of SRS with number of ports 2 to antenna port #1, where the maximum output power level of transmission antenna #0 is P and the maximum output power level of transmission antenna #1 is P/2, where the transmission power of transmission antenna #1 is restricted to P/2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Okumura in to the invention of Takaoka in order to independently configure SRS parameters between SRS resources, which increases the flexibility of SRS transmission.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka in view of Go et al. (USPGP 2022/0224444, hereinafter “Go”).
Regarding claim 17, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except receiving, from a transmission point (TRP), a configuration for transmission of said set of reference signals; and receiving, from said TRP, a reference signal trigger message, wherein at least one of said mapping and transmitting is performed in response to said trigger.
However, Go, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests receiving, from a transmission point (TRP), a configuration for transmission of said set of reference signals (see at least paragraphs 334 and 335, the UE may receive an SRS configuration); and receiving, from said TRP, a reference signal trigger message, wherein at least one of said mapping and transmitting is performed in response to said trigger (see at least paragraphs 335 and 336, the UE may receive DCI related to the transmission of an SRS, where the DCI may include information that triggers an SRS, and the UE may transmit an SRS based on the received SRS configuration and DCI).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Go in to the invention of Takaoka in order to guarantee an SRS capacity (see at least paragraph 31 of Go).
Regarding claim 18, Takaoka discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except said configuration indicating a usage of non-codebook, codebook, or antenna switching.
However, Go, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests a configuration indicating a usage of non-codebook, codebook, or antenna switching (see at least paragraphs 135-, 3GPP TS38.214 discloses that the usage of the SRS may be configured as a codebook transmission usage, a non-codebook transmission usage, an antenna switching, etc.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Go in to the invention of Takaoka in order to acquire downlink channel state information using the SRS configured, for example, an antenna switching usage (see at least paragraph 134 of Go).
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 Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 09/24/2025
Prosecution Insights