DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 12/30/2025. Claims 9-12 have been canceled. New claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-8 and 13-24 are currently pending in the application.
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 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection made in view of newly cited Bandyopadhyay et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0114352 A1).
Independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended to positively state selecting a different citizens broadband radio service channel for use by the radio unit. New independent claim 21 also includes a limitation directed towards this selecting. Applicant argues that although previously cited Cimpu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0162929 A1) does teach updating a spectrum used by the one or more CBSDs to reduce interference (See paragraph 121 of Cimpu et al.), Cimpu et al. does not explicitly state that this spectrum update comprises selecting a different citizens broadband radio service channel. However, it is believed that the selection of a different channel is rendered obvious in view of the teachings of newly cited Bandyopadhyay et al.
Specifically, Bandyopadhyay et al. teaches suspending use of a channel by a CBSD as a consequence of a Dynamic Protection Area, DPA, event and selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding the channel involved in the DPA event and channels used by neighbors (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors has the advantage of reducing interference between transmissions on the respective channels. Thus, the amended claim limitations would have been obvious at the time of effective filing in view of these teachings of Bandyopadhyay et al.
Please see the rejections below for further detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 13-17,19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimpu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0162929 A1) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (U.S. Publication US 2024/0114352 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cimpu et al. discloses a method performed by network equipment comprising a processor (See the abstract, paragraphs 122-123, and Figure 12 of Cimpu et al. for reference to devices including processors and performing methods of protecting a dynamic protection area, DPA, in a Citizens Broadband Radio Service, CBRS, network). Cimpu et al. also discloses receiving, by network equipment comprising a processor, radio unit information associated with a radio unit, wherein the radio unit information comprises radio unit position information representative of a position of the radio unit and radio unit transmission power information representative of a transmission power associated with transmission by the radio unit (See paragraph 32, paragraphs 105-106, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to a spectrum access system, SAS, receiving from a Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device, CBSD, information regarding the CBSD location and transmission power). Cimpu et al. further discloses determining, by the network equipment, based on the radio unit information, whether first citizens broadband radio service transmissions associated with the radio unit are threshold likely to interfere with second citizens broadband radio service transmissions within a protection area (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraph 37, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 106-109, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to comparing a threshold representing acceptable interference and an estimated aggregate interference by a set of CBSDs to a set of points within a DPA to determine whether the CBSDs will interfere with a CBRS network in the DPA on specific channels). Cimpu et al. also discloses in response to the determining indicating that the first citizens broadband radio service transmissions are threshold likely to interfere with the second citizens broadband radio service transmissions within the protection area, predicting, by the network equipment, a reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel associated with the protection area to result in a predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel (See paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 120-121, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to in response to determining for a CBSD in a DPA on a specific channel, i.e. a reclaimable CBRS channel within the DPA, that the interference is above the threshold, updating a spectrum, i.e. a channel, used by the CBSD to reduce interference). Although Cimpu et al. does disclose updating a spectrum used by the one or more CBSDs to reduce interference between the CBSDs and the DPA (See paragraph 121 of Cimpu et al.), Cimpu et al. does not explicitly disclose based on the predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel, selecting a different citizens broadband radio service channel for use by the radio unit, wherein the different citizens broadband radio service channel comprises a citizens broadband radio service channel other than predicted the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel. However, Bandyopadhyay et al., in the field of communications, discloses suspending use of a channel by a CBSD as a consequence of a Dynamic Protection Area, DPA, event and selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding the channel involved in the DPA event and channels used by neighbors (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors has the advantage of reducing interference between transmissions on the respective channels. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Bandyopadhyay et al., to combine selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors, as taught by Bandyopadhyay et al., within the system and method of Cimpu et al., with the motivation being to reduce interference between transmissions on the respective channels.
With respect to claim 2, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel comprises a citizens broadband radio service channel associated with a previous use by a device associated with an incumbent user (See paragraphs 32-33 of Cimpu et al. for reference to the certain channel being associated with incumbent activity detected in the area where the CBSD operates).
With respect to claim 3, Cimpu et al. discloses in response to the determining indicating that the first citizens broadband radio service transmissions are not threshold likely to interfere with the second citizens broadband radio service transmissions, permitting, by the network equipment, the radio unit to select the predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel or the different citizens broadband radio service channel (See paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 120-121, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to updating a spectrum only when it is determined the CBSD interference is higher than the threshold, such that a the channel may be used by the CBSD when interference is determined to be below the threshold). As shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Bandyopadhyay et al. renders obvious selecting specific channels for use by a CBSD (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the updating of the different citizens broadband radio service spectrum comprises generating, by the network equipment, an output that identifies the protection area, the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel, and previous use information associated with a previous use of the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel by a device associated with an incumbent user (See paragraphs 32-37 and Figure 3 of Cimpu et al. for reference to generating information identifying the location and shape of a protection area along with information regarding incumbent activity in the area). As shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Bandyopadhyay et al. renders obvious selecting specific channels for use by a CBSD (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 6, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the updating of the different citizens broadband radio service spectrum for use by the radio unit comprises: in response to submitting a spectrum access system request, receiving citizens broadband radio service channel identifications, wherein the citizens broadband radio service channel identifications identify at least the predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel and the different citizens broadband radio service channel; and selecting the different citizens broadband radio service channel from among the citizens broadband radio service channel identifications (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraph 37, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 120-121, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to in response to a CBSD asking the SAS to grant access in the channel, i.e. a spectrum access system request, retrieving information regarding incumbent activity on the channel in a protection area, and for reference to in response to determining for the CBSD in a DPA on a channel that the interference is above the threshold, updating a spectrum, i.e. a selecting a different channel, for use by the CBSD to reduce interference). As shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Bandyopadhyay et al. renders obvious selecting specific channels for use by a CBSD (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the updating of the different citizens broadband radio service spectrum for use by the radio unit further comprises prioritizing the citizens broadband radio service channel identifications (See paragraph 31 of Cimpu et al. for reference to channels for CBRS being giving at least two-tier priority access). As shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Bandyopadhyay et al. renders obvious selecting specific channels for use by a CBSD (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein predicting the predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel comprises looking up the protection area in a data store comprising respective protection areas and corresponding respective reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channels (See paragraphs 31-33, paragraphs 105-107, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to the information regarding the DPA locations and channels being retrieved from a geolocation database).
With respect to claim 13, Cimpu et al. discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations (See the abstract, paragraphs 122-123, and Figure 12 of Cimpu et al. for reference to devices including non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing software that when executed performs operations of protecting a dynamic protection area, DPA, in a Citizens Broadband Radio Service, CBRS, network). Cimpu et al. also discloses selecting a citizens broadband radio service frequency for use by a radio unit of a cellular communication network, wherein selecting the citizens broadband radio service frequency comprises: determining whether transmissions of the radio unit are restricted due to a dynamic protection area, wherein radio unit use of citizens broadband radio service frequencies within the dynamic protection area is terminable by a device associated with an incumbent user (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraphs 105-109, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to a SAS selecting a channel for use by a CBSD asking the SAS to grant access, and for reference to the SAS determining whether there is incumbent activity in a DPA in the location of the CBSD). Cimpu et al. further discloses in response to the transmissions of the radio unit being restricted due to the dynamic protection area, predicting a reclaimable citizens broadband radio service frequency based on a previous use of the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service frequency by the device associated with the incumbent user (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraph 37, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 106-109, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to comparing a threshold representing acceptable interference and an estimated aggregate interference by a set of CBSDs to a set of points within a DPA for a channel to determine whether the CBSDs will interfere with a CBRS network in the DPA on the channel, wherein the channel is a reclaimable channel associated with incumbent activity in the DPA). Cimpu et al. also discloses acquiring a list of available citizens broadband radio service frequencies that are available for use by the radio unit; and identifying the citizens broadband radio service frequency from a group of the available citizens broadband radio service frequencies, wherein the group excludes the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service frequency (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 120-121, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to in response to determining for a CBSD in a DPA on a channel that the interference is above the threshold, updating a spectrum, i.e. a channel, used by the CBSD to reduce interference, thereby selecting a different channel for use by the CBSD excluding the channel associated with the incumbent activity in the DPA). Although Cimpu et al. does disclose updating a spectrum used by the one or more CBSDs to reduce interference between the CBSDs and the DPA (See paragraph 121 of Cimpu et al.), Cimpu et al. does not explicitly disclose selecting, from the group, a citizens broadband radio service frequency for use by the radio unit. However, Bandyopadhyay et al., in the field of communications, discloses suspending use of a channel, i.e. a frequency, by a CBSD as a consequence of a Dynamic Protection Area, DPA, event and selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding the channel involved in the DPA event and channels used by neighbors (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors has the advantage of reducing interference between transmissions on the respective channels. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Bandyopadhyay et al., to combine selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors, as taught by Bandyopadhyay et al., within the system and method of Cimpu et al., with the motivation being to reduce interference between transmissions on the respective channels.
With respect to claim 14, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the transmissions of the radio unit are first transmissions of the radio unit, and wherein determining whether the first transmissions of the radio unit are restricted due to the dynamic protection area comprises: comparing a first location of the radio unit to a second location of the dynamic protection area in order to determine whether the first transmissions of the radio unit are threshold likely to interfere, within the dynamic protection area, with second transmissions of the device associated with the incumbent user (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 105-109, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to comparing the CBSD location to a location of a DPA in which incumbent activity is detected in order to determine whether transmissions by the CBSD on the channel cause interference above an acceptable threshold).
With respect to claim 15, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein determining whether the first transmissions of the radio unit are restricted due to the dynamic protection area further comprises determining, based on a transmission power of the first transmissions, whether the first transmissions of the radio unit are threshold likely to interfere, within the dynamic protection area, with the second transmissions of the device associated with the incumbent user (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 105-109, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to determining whether transmissions by the CBSD on the channel cause interference with incumbent activity in a DPA above an acceptable threshold based on the location and transmission power of the CBSD on the channel).
With respect to claim 16, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein predicting the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service frequency based on the previous use of the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service frequency by the device associated with the incumbent user comprises submitting a request to an updated data store comprising dynamic protection area information and updated reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel information (See paragraphs 31-33, paragraphs 105-107, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to the information regarding the DPA locations and channels used by incumbent devices being retrieved from a geolocation database in response to a request from a CBSD to grant access for a certain channel).
With respect to claim 17, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein acquiring the list of available citizens broadband radio service frequencies that are available for use by the radio unit comprises submitting a spectrum access system request (See paragraphs 31-33, paragraphs 105-107, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to the information regarding the DPA locations and channels used by incumbent devices being retrieved from a geolocation database in response to a request from a CBSD to grant access for a certain channel, i.e. a spectrum access request).
With respect to claim 19, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the citizens broadband radio service frequencies comprise frequencies within a range from about 3550 megahertz to about 3700 megahertz (See paragraph 31 and Figure 1 of Cimpu et al. for reference to the CBRS operating in the 3.5 GHz band including a range from 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz, as illustrated in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 21, Cimpu et al. discloses a system, comprising at least one processor configured to process executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations (See the abstract, paragraphs 122-123, and Figure 12 of Cimpu et al. for reference to devices including processors and performing methods of protecting a dynamic protection area, DPA, in a Citizens Broadband Radio Service, CBRS, network). Cimpu et al. also discloses receiving, receiving radio unit information associated with at least one radio unit (See paragraph 32, paragraphs 105-106, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to a spectrum access system, SAS, receiving from a Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device, CBSD, information regarding the CBSD location and transmission power). Cimpu et al. further discloses based on the radio unit information, determining whether at least one first citizens broadband radio service transmission associated with the at least one radio unit is threshold likely to interfere with at least one second citizens broadband radio service transmission within at least one protection area (See paragraphs 32-33, paragraph 37, paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 106-109, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to comparing a threshold representing acceptable interference and an estimated aggregate interference by a set of CBSDs to a set of points within a DPA to determine whether the CBSDs will interfere with a CBRS network in the DPA on specific channels). Cimpu et al. also discloses responsive to at least one of the at least one first citizens broadband radio service transmission being determined to be threshold likely to interfere with at least one of the at least one second citizens broadband radio service transmission within the protection area, predicting at least one reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel associated with the at least one protection area to result in at least one predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel (See paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 120-121, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to in response to determining for a CBSD in a DPA on a specific channel, i.e. a reclaimable CBRS channel within the DPA, that the interference is above the threshold, updating a spectrum, i.e. a channel, used by the CBSD to reduce interference). Although Cimpu et al. does disclose updating a spectrum used by the one or more CBSDs to reduce interference between the CBSDs and the DPA (See paragraph 121 of Cimpu et al.), Cimpu et al. does not explicitly disclose based on the at least one predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel, selecting at least one citizens broadband radio service channel for use by the at least one radio unit to result in at least one selected citizens broadband radio service channel, wherein the at least one selected citizens broadband radio service channel comprises at least one citizens broadband radio service channel other than the at least one predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel. However, Bandyopadhyay et al., in the field of communications, discloses suspending use of a channel by a CBSD as a consequence of a Dynamic Protection Area, DPA, event and selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding the channel involved in the DPA event and channels used by neighbors (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors has the advantage of reducing interference between transmissions on the respective channels. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Bandyopadhyay et al., to combine selecting a new channel to reallocate the sector of the CBSD from a list of channels excluding a channel involved in a DPA event and channels used by neighbors, as taught by Bandyopadhyay et al., within the system and method of Cimpu et al., with the motivation being to reduce interference between transmissions on the respective channels.
With respect to claim 22, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein the radio unit information comprises at least one of: radio unit position information representative of at least one position of the at least one radio unit or radio unit transmission power information representative of at least one transmission power associated with at least one transmission by the at least one radio unit (See paragraph 32, paragraphs 105-106, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to a spectrum access system, SAS, receiving from a Citizens Broadband Radio Service Device, CBSD, information regarding the CBSD location and transmission power).
With respect to cl aim 23, Cimpu et al. discloses wherein use by the at least one selected citizens broadband radio service channel facilitates avoidance, by the at least one radio unit, of transmission according to the at least one predicted reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel (See paragraph 121 of Cimpu et al. for reference to updating a spectrum used by the one or more CBSDs to reduce interference between the CBSDs and the DPA). As shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Bandyopadhyay et al. renders obvious selecting a different channel for use by a CBSD in response to a DPA event on a specific channel (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 21.
With respect to claim 24, Cimpu et al. discloses responsive to determining that the at least one first citizens broadband radio service transmission is not threshold likely to interfere with the at least one second citizens broadband radio service transmission, selecting at least one of the at least one reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel or at least one citizens broadband radio service channel other than at least one of the at least one reclaimable citizens broadband radio service channel (See paragraphs 88-95, paragraphs 120-121, and Figure 11 of Cimpu et al. for reference to updating a spectrum only when it is determined the CBSD interference is higher than the threshold, such that a the channel may be used by the CBSD when interference is determined to be below the threshold). As shown above in the rejection of claim 1, Bandyopadhyay et al. renders obvious selecting specific channels for use by a CBSD (See paragraph 80 of Bandyopadhyay et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimpu et al. in view of Bandyopadhyay et al., and in further view of Lin et al. (U.S. Publication US 2025/0254010 A1).
With respect to claim 5, although Cimpu et al. does illustrate its system including a domain proxy (See Figure 2 of Cimpu et al.), Cimpu et al. does not any functionality of the domain proxy. Specifically Cimpu et al. does not disclose wherein receiving the radio unit information comprises receiving the radio unit information via a domain proxy configured to communicate with the radio unit, and wherein selecting of the different citizens broadband radio service channel for use by the radio unit further comprises communicating the output via the domain proxy. However, Lin et al., in the field of communications, discloses a CBRS system including a domain proxy having functionalities to passing information regarding CBSD information, available channels, and channel selection to a SAS (See paragraph 41 of Lin et al. for reference to these domain proxy functions). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Lin et al., to include the domain proxy functionalities taught by Lin et al. for use within the domain proxy of Cimpu et al., with the motivation being to allow information regarding CBSD information, available channels, and channel selection to be passed between devices of the CBRS system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimpu et al. in view of Bandyopadhyay et al., and in further view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0342783 A1).
With respect to claim 18, although Cimpu et al. does disclose CBRS being giving at least two-tier priority access (See paragraph 31 of Cimpu et al.), Cimpu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein identifying the citizens broadband radio service frequency from the group of the available citizens broadband radio service frequencies comprises: prioritizing respective available citizens broadband radio service frequencies within the group of the available citizens broadband radio service frequencies based on respective received signal strength indicator information associated with the respective available citizens broadband radio service frequencies; and identifying a higher priority citizens broadband radio service frequency of the group of the available citizens broadband radio service frequencies as the citizens broadband radio service frequency, wherein the higher priority citizens broadband radio service frequency is associated with a higher priority than a lower priority citizens broadband radio service frequency. However, Kim et al., in the field of communications, discloses performing RSSI measurement on frequencies, i.e. channels, and applying different priorities to the frequencies based on a result of the RSSI measurement (See paragraph 9 of Kim et al.). Prioritizing channels according to RSSI measurements has the advantage of ensuring that the best channels are selected for use. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kim et al., to combine prioritizing channels according to RSSI measurements, as suggested by Kim et al., within the system and method of Cimpu et al., with the motivation being to ensure that the best channels are selected for use.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimpu et al. in view of Bandyopadhyay et al., and in further view of Bechta et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0115985 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Cimpu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the previous use of the reclaimable citizens broadband radio service frequency by the device associated with the incumbent user comprises a duration within a predetermined duration range. However, Bechta et al., in the field of communications, discloses identifying incumbent transmission patterns including time duration and periodicity (See paragraph 117 of Bechta et al.). Identifying incumbent transmission patterns including time duration and periodicity has the advantage of allowing the network to better characterize whether interference is likely to occur with incumbent transmissions according to historical information regarding the duration and period of incumbent transmissions. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Bechta et al. et al., to combine identifying incumbent transmission patterns including time duration and periodicity, as suggested by Bechta et al., within the system and method of Cimpu et al., with the motivation being to allow the network to better characterize whether interference is likely to occur with incumbent transmissions according to historical information regarding the duration and period of incumbent transmissions.
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 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 Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461