DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 12/08/2025.
Claims 1-13, 15-27, and 29-30 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-13, 15-18, 21, 23-27, and 29-30 have been amended.
Claims 14 and 28 have been cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed: 12/08/2025, have been fully considered but they determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 18, and 30, Applicant argues that neither Zhao nor Baek, applied alone or in combination, fairly teach/suggest the amended independent claim features of: “…wherein the signaling indicating the at least one activated CG configuration comprises a bitmap indicating which activated CG configurations of the activated multiple CG configurations will be skipped by the UE.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. The Examiner agrees.
However, in the instant Office Action, a new grounds of rejection has been applied under §103 to substantially reject the above-contested, amended claim features. In this regard, Li was combined with Zhao and Baek to fairly teach/suggest the claim subject matter at issue, in the present §103 rejections of each of independent claims 1, 18, and 30.
For instance, Li describes that its UE can receive activated CG configuration(s) from a network BS, and in response, the UE can transmit a corresponding dynamic indication feedback to the BS, i.e., via dynamic UCI signaling, which includes a bitmap with bit value(s) that may indicate which active CG configuration resources will be utilized in future UL communications, and which CG configuration resources will be skipped by the UE (paras. [0009], [0046], [0064]-[0068], and [0074]-[0076]; block 504 of Fig. 5, and Figs 6-7). Thus, Li fairly reads on the amended claim subject matter: “…wherein the signaling indicating the at least one activated CG configuration comprises a bitmap indicating which activated CG configurations of the activated multiple CG configurations will be skipped by the UE.”
Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Zhao in view of Baek’s configuration of multiple CG resources to a UE, with UE bitmap feedback regarding activated CG configuration resources that will not be needed by UE for future UL communications therewith, as taught by Li, to save network resources by dynamically informing the network of CG resources that a UE does not need in the near future, and which can be better used for other purposes.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments against only Zhao and Baek, with regards to its contested, amended claim subject matter, are determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot based upon the new grounds of rejection, i.e., the combination of Li with Zhao and Baek, applied in this Office Action to reject each of independent claims 1, 18, and 30.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 7-13, 15-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2021/0367745 A1, Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao”), in view of US Patent No. 11,395,284 B2, Baek et al. (hereinafter “Baek”), in further view of US PG Pub. 2025/0267655 A1, Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Zhao teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication (paras. [0278]-[0284]; and UE 120 of Fig. 1 and communication device 800 of Fig. 16), comprising:
one or more memories comprising instructions (para. [0279]; and memory 820 of Fig. 16); and
one or more processors (para. [0278]; and processor 810 of Fig. 16) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, signaling indicating multiple configured grant (CG) configurations, wherein the multiple CG configurations configure CG occasions (paras. [0068]-[0069], [0077], and [0082]; and block 41 of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 —the network can configure a UE with multiple CG configurations for configuring CG occasions, such as CGs 1-8 of Fig. 5);
receive, via the at least one transceiver, signaling indicating activation of the multiple CG configurations (paras. [0070], [0074], [0078]-[0079], and [0082]; and block 42 of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 —the network can send first indication information to a UE to activate/deactivate multiple CG configurations, such as CGs 1, 2, and 6 of Fig. 5);
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, signaling indicating at least one CG configuration of the activated multiple CG configurations (paras. [0074]-[0075], [0080], and [0091]-[0095]; and block 44 of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 —the UE can send a confirmation message to the network, via MAC CE, RRC, or PHY signaling, indicating one or more of the multiple CG configurations, such as through a corresponding carrier that meets a preset condition, para. [0097] and [0100]); and
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a communication in a CG occasion of at least one activated CG configuration (paras. [0176], [0179], [0252], and [0261]-[0265] and Fig. 13 —a UE can send a second CG indication to the network via an active uplink grant resource, i.e., a CG occasion).
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the multiple CG configurations configure CG occasions with overlapping resources.
Baek does teach:
multiple CG configurations that configure CG occasions with overlapping resources (col. 5, lines. 8-60, and col. 6, lines 33-61; and Fig. 3 —multiple CG configurations can include overlapping 330 CG occasions 304 and 313, as depicted in Fig. 3 —when an CG overlap condition exists 330, a CG with a higher priority can be used for a corresponding UE transmission).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao’s configuration of multiple CG resources including de/activation confirmation by a UE, with CG resource overlap prioritization, as taught by Baek.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve flexibility in handling a CG configuration overlap, by prioritizing transmissions deemed to be more important, and optionally preventing data loss via rescheduling/data-shifting, as recognized by Baek (col. 5, lines. 8-60, and col. 6, lines 33-61; and Fig. 3).
Zhao in view of Baek do not explicitly teach:
the apparatus transmitting signaling indicating at least one activated CG configuration, which comprises a bitmap indicating which activated CG configurations of the activated multiple CG configurations will be skipped by the apparatus.
Li does teach:
an apparatus transmitting signaling indicating at least one activated CG configuration, which comprises a bitmap indicating which activated CG configurations of the activated multiple CG configurations will be skipped by the apparatus (paras. [0009], [0046], [0064]-[0068], and [0074]-[0076]; block 504 of Fig. 5, and Figs 6-7 —a UE can receive activated CG configuration(s) from a BS, and in response, can transmit a corresponding dynamic indication feedback to the BS including a bitmap that may indicate which active CG future configuration resources will be skipped by the UE, i.e., upon determining which activated CG resources will not to be needed/utilized by the UE).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao in view of Baek’s configuration of multiple CG resources to a UE, with UE bitmap feedback regarding activated CG configuration resources that will not be needed by UE, as taught by Li.
The motivation for doing so would have been to save network resources by dynamically informing the network of CG resources that a UE does not need, which can be better used for other purposes, as recognized by Li (paras. [0009], [0046], [0064]-[0068], and [0074]-[0076]; block 504 of Fig. 5, and Figs 6-7).
With respect to claim 2, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signaling indicating activation of the multiple CG configurations comprises: control information or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Zhao: paras. [0051], [0067] and [0069] —CG activation information, i.e., a bitmap, can be signaled by the network to a UE via DCI, which is “control information” —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 3, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teach the apparatus of claim 2.
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach:
causing the apparatus to select the at least one activated CG configuration, from the activated multiple CG configurations, based on a priority related parameter.
Baek does teach:
selecting at least one activated CG configuration, from the activated multiple CG configurations, based on a priority related parameter (col. 5, ln. 52 to col. 6, ln. 2, and col. 6, lines 36-61 —a CG configuration can be selected from activated CG configurations based at least in part on a relative priority or a traffic type or amount of data to be transmitted in association with a CG —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao’s configuration of multiple CG resources, with selection of activated CG configuration(s) based on prioritization, as taught by Baek.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve flexibility in handling a CG configuration overlap, by prioritizing transmissions deemed to be more important, as recognized by Baek (col. 5, lines. 8-60, and col. 6, lines 33-61; and Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the multiple CG configurations configure CG occasions with resources overlapping partially or fully in at least one of time or frequency associated with same slots.
Baek does teach:
multiple CG configurations configuring CG occasions with resources overlapping partially in at least one of time or frequency associated with same slots (col. 5, lines. 26-60, and col. 6, lines 33-61; and Fig. 3 —multiple CG configurations can include partially overlapping 330 CG occasions 304 and 313 in the same time or frequency associated with the same time slots, as depicted in Fig. 3).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao’s configuration of multiple CG resources, with configuring CG occasions with resources overlapping partially in time and/or frequency in the same slots, as taught by Baek.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve flexibility in handling a CG configuration overlap scenarios, by prioritizing transmissions deemed to be more important, as recognized by Baek (col. 5, lines. 26-60, and col. 6, lines 33-61; and Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 5, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach:
the signaling indicating the at least one CG configuration comprises uplink control information (UCI).
Li does teach:
signaling indicating the at least one activated CG configuration comprising UCI (paras. [0046]-[0048] —an indication of activated and skipped CG configuration resources can transmitted via UCI signaling).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao in view of Baek’s indication of at least one CG configuration to be indication of activated CG configuration via UCI signaling, as taught by Li.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow confirmation of specific CG activation/skipping by transmitting UCI indication via PUCCH/PUSCH, as recognized by Li (paras. [0046]-[0048]).
With respect to claim 6, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teach the apparatus of claim 5.
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein a value of the UCI is indicative of which CG configuration is being indicated.
Li does teach:
wherein a value of a UCI is indicative of which CG configuration is being indicated (paras. [0046]-[0048], and [0066] —a UCI can include a dynamic indication with a bit value, i.e., 1 or 0, of a bitmap indicating which CG configuration resources are indicated, i.e., for skipping, etc.).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao in view of Baek’s indication of at least one CG configuration indication to be included in UCI signaling (as opposed to MAC CE signaling), as taught by Li.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow indication of specific CG configuration by transmitting corresponding UCI signaling via PUCCH/PUSCH, as recognized by Li (paras. [0046]-[0048], and [0066].
With respect to claim 7, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the multiple CG configurations comprise a group of CG configurations having a group index (Zhao: paras. [0068], [0071]-[0073], and [0083]-[0084]; and Fig. 7 —a group of CG configurations can be associated with a cell group index for indication purposes, as depicted in Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 8, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signaling indicating the at least one activated CG configuration comprises a physical layer signaling, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Zhao: paras. [0075], and [0124]-[0128] —the CG configuration indication message can be sent via MAC CE, PHY-layer signaling, or RRC messaging).
With respect to claim 9, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein a first subset of the activated multiple CG configurations is indicated via the MAC CE (Zhao: paras. [0110], [0125]-[0132], and [0226] —a MAC CE confirmation from the UE can indicate a subset of activated multiple CG configurations).
With respect to claim 10, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signaling indicating the at least one activated CG configuration comprises:
a dedicated uplink control information (UCI) resource to be transmitted in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), UCI, CG-UCI, modified CG-UCI, channel state information (CSI), hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment feedback, a scheduling request (SR), a power headroom report (PHR), a buffer status report (BSR), user assistance information (UAI), or a random access channel (RACH) transmission (Zhao: paras. [0084]-[0088]; and Table 1 —confirmation signaling, i.e., a MAC CE, indicating at least one CG configuration can include a single or multiple entry PHR report, a short or long BSR report, etc., as indicated in Table 1 in accordance with a designated LCID value —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 11, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to receive, via the at least one transceiver, signaling configuring the apparatus to support at least one of:
a maximum number of active non-overlapping CG configurations per active bandwidth part (BWP);
a maximum number of groups of CG configurations; or
a maximum number of CG configurations per group of CG configurations (Zhao: paras. [0067]-[0071], [0182]-[0184], and [0204]-[0205] —an obtained network configuration may include a bitmap indicating a maximum number of groups of CG configurations, etc. —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 12, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zhao does not but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, signaling configuring the apparatus with at least one offset in at least one of time or frequency, and then select, based on the at least one offset, a location of the at least one CG configuration.
Baek does teach:
receiving, via the at least one transceiver, signaling configuring the apparatus with at least one offset in at least one of time or frequency (col. 8, lines 11-28 and col. 9, lines 1-20 and 27-53; and Figs. 6-8 —network DCI signaling can configure a UE with a time or frequency shift/offset associated with an alternative CG resource location, i.e., for a CG resource overlap); and
selecting, based on the at least one offset, a location of the at least one CG configuration (col. 8, lines 11-28 and col. 9, lines 1-20 and 27-53; and Figs. 6-8 —the UE can use the configured time/frequency shift/offset information to select an alternative location for a CG configuration, as depicted in Figs. 6-8).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao’s configuration of multiple CG resources, with employing a time/frequency offset/shift for selecting a location of a CG configuration, as taught by Baek.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve flexibility in handling a CG configuration overlap scenarios, by shifting lower priority overlapping CG occasions, as recognized by Baek (col. 8, lines 11-28 and col. 9, lines 1-20 and 27-53; and Figs. 6-8).
With respect to claim 13, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the multiple CG configurations comprise a number of one or more groups of CG configurations (Zhao: paras. [0009], and [0068]-[0071] —CG configurations can correspond to one or more groups of CG configurations) and at least one of:
one or more of the CG configurations are associated with multiple groups;
a CG configuration is associated with a maximum number of groups;
the number of one or more groups is based on a capability of at least one of the apparatus or a network entity;
the number of the one or more groups is per band, band comb, component carrier (CC), or CC comb; or
the apparatus is configured with a maximum number of groups per bandwidth part (BWP) based on a capability of the apparatus (Zhao: paras. [0070]-[0071], [0205], and [0275] —a number of groups can be based on a how many groups a UE can support, i.e., the UEs support capability —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 15, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the indication of the at least one activated CG configuration is multiplexed with other information for transmission (Zhao: paras. [0084]-[0091]; Table 1 and Figs. 5-7 —a UE can transmit a MAC CE with a LCID as a confirmation indication of at least one CG configuration, i.e., for CG 1, 2, and 6, that is activated, and the MAC CE indication can multiplex various other information therein, such as that depicted in Figs. 6-7 and/or Table 1).
With respect to claim 16, Zhao in view of Baek and Li teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Zhao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the signaling indicating at least one activated CG configuration of the multiple CG configurations indicates at least one of a time offset of the at least one activated CG configuration or a CG occasion thereof, or a frequency offset of the at least one activated CG configuration or a CG occasion thereof.
Baek does teach indicating a time or a frequency offset of an activated CG configuration or a CG occasion thereof (col. 8, lines 11-28 and col. 9, lines 1-20 and 27-53; and Figs. 6-8 —a CG configuration of multiple CG configurations can configure time or frequency shift/offset information for a corresponding CG configuration/occasion, as depicted in Figs. 6-8 —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao’s configuration of multiple CG resources, with indication of a time or frequency offset of a CG configuration/occasion, as taught by Baek.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve flexibility in handling a CG configuration overlap scenarios, by indicating time/frequency offsets for handling lower priority overlapping CG occasions, as recognized by Baek (col. 8, lines 11-28 and col. 9, lines 1-20 and 27-53; and Figs. 6-8).
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 17 is directed to a user equipment (UE) (Zhao: paras. [0148], [0198], and [0203]-[0207]; and UE 120 of Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), as opposed to an apparatus. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 18 is written from the perspective of a network side device/entity, i.e., a base station, having a least one transceiver, one or more memories, and one or more processors (Zhao: paras. [0045] and [0278]-[0283]; and base station 110 of Fig. 1 and device 800 with memory 820, processor 810, and transceiver 830 of Fig. 16). Therefore, independent claim 18 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 2.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 4.
With respect to claim 21, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. Therefore, claim 21 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 5.
With respect to claim 22, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. Therefore, claim 22 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 7.
With respect to claim 23, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8. Therefore, claim 23 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 8.
With respect to claim 24, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 10. Therefore, claim 24 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 10.
With respect to claim 25, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 11. Therefore, claim 25 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 11.
With respect to claim 26, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 12. Therefore, claim 26 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 12.
With respect to claim 27, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 13. Therefore, claim 27 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 13.
With respect to claim 29, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 18, except claim 29 is directed to a network entity (Zhao: paras. [0045] and [0278]-[0283]; and base station 110 of Fig. 1), as opposed to an apparatus. Therefore, claim 29 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 18.
With respect to claim 30, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 30 is written in method form. Therefore, independent claim 30 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §103 based on Zhao in view of Baek and Li, for similar reasons to those described above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418