DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments 3/05/2026 for
response of the office action mailed on 12/10/2025. Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 remain 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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 3/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 5-9), filed on 3/05/2026, with respect to claims 1and 9 have been
fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding remarks in page 6 for independent claims 1 and 9, applicant argues that Kedalagudde does not disclose a guaranteed bitrate. Although 3GPP and Talebi disclose a guaranteed bitrate, the guaranteed bitrate is not related to a consolidated data rate threshold.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Kedalagudde discloses (Application Function sends a Nnef_GroupAFsessionWithQoS_Create request message with one or more of External Group ID or UE addresses, time period for the requested QoS, wireless link condition threshold, deadline for parameter update, quality of data, traffic volume for the requested QoS, and/or minimum UEs in the group with requested QoS, Kedalagudde: [0130]). Consolidated data rate threshold is described in clause 6.7.1 in 3GPP TR23.700-80, “RAN node estimates the supported UL/DL data rate based on the channel condition between RAN node and UE, the bandwidth available for the UE and other factors. That is, the supported/available UL/DL data rate can be treated as the prediction of data rate for the near-future, which is not the measurement of current data rate. Besides, after AI/ML application server makes decision for AI/ML operation, it may provide 5GS the required UL/DL data rate as the QoS requirement”.
Regarding remarks in page 7 for independent claims 1 and 9, applicant argues that the QoS parameters in section 6.40.1 and the QoS parameters in section 6.10 of 3GPP are different from each other. That is, the QoS parameters in section 6.10 cannot be reflected as an example of the QoS parameters in section 6.40.1.
The QoS parameter is described in clause 6.41.1 in 3GPP TR23.700-80 “Regarding UE performance, we focus on the QoS parameters, such as packet latency, bit rate, packet drop rate. Those QoS parameters are already specified as part of the output parameters of DN Performance Analytics in clause 6.14 of TS 23.288. However, current output parameters of DN Performance analytics need to be extended to include aggregated parameters. Therefore, the solution proposes to add the following parameters in the output parameters of DN Performance Analytics: - aggregated traffic rate; - variance of the traffic rate; - variance of packet delay;”.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kedalagudde et al. (US 2023/0171168 Al, hereinafter “Kedalagudde”) in view of 3GPP TR 23. 700-80 V0.3.0 (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on 5G System Support for Al/ML-based Services (Release 18), (2022-05) hereafter “3GPP”) and in further view of Talebi Fard et al. (US 2024/0090079 Al, hereafter “Talebi”).
Regarding claim 1, Kedalagudde discloses:
A method of supporting terminal group-based services, the method comprising (multiple UE(s) from the AF group are served by the same PCF, Kedalagudde: [0032]):
receiving a multi-member application function (AF) session request with required quality of service (QoS) for a list of user equipments (UEs) (AF session with required QoS as defined in Rel-17 can be enhanced to support a Group AF session by including the External Group ID or list of UE's belong to the group in the Nnef_AFsessionwithQoS request message. the AF may a request to reserve resources for multiple AF session using Nnef_AFsession WithQoS_Create request message to the NEF, Kedalagudde: [0049]-[0050]);
converting the multi-member AF session request into an AF session request with required QoS for a serving policy control function (PCF) of each UE (FIG. 1 depicts an example technique related to setting up multiple AF sessions with required QoS for a group. identifying, at 605 from an application function (AF) that implements a machine learning (ML) model, a request related to reservation of resources for a plurality of AF sessions, wherein the plurality of AF sessions relate to respective user equipments (UEs) of a plurality of UEs, and wherein the request includes an indication of addresses of respective UEs of the plurality of UEs and a quality of service (QoS) parameter. a discovery request related to discovery of respective policy control functions (PCFs) that are serving the respective UEs of the plurality of UEs, Kedalagudde: Fig. 1, [0022], [0128]); and
interacting with the serving PCF of each UE for each AF session (AF may use the Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Create request message to interact directly with PCF(s) to request reserving resources for an AF session or send a Nbsf_Management_Discovery request directly to the BSF to discover the PCF(s) serving the UEs. each PCF may be associated to different UEs of the indicated group, Kedalagudde: [0027], [0030], [0043]-[0046], [0054]-[0057]),
wherein the list of UEs is identified by UE Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (SMF 246 may be responsible for SM; UE IP address allocation and management (including optional authorization), Kedalagudde: [0087], [0099]), and
Kedalagudde does not explicitly disclose:
wherein if a consolidated data rate threshold is provided in the multi-member AF session request,
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein if a consolidated data rate threshold is provided in the multi-member AF session request (RAN node estimates the supported UL/DL data rate based on the channel condition between RAN node and UE, the bandwidth available for the UE and other factors. That is, the supported/available UL/DL data rate can be treated as the prediction of data rate for the near-future, which is not the measurement of current data rate. Besides, after AI/ML application server makes decision for AI/ML operation, it may provide 5GS the required UL/DL data rate as the QoS requirement. it may provide 5GS the required UL/DL data rate as the QoS requirement. AF provides 5GS data rate monitoring request information. Data rate monitoring request information may include the following parameters: - Data rate reporting levels. - Data rate reporting periodicity.3GPP: page 44-45, clause 6.7.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde in view of 3GPP in order to further modify wherein if a consolidated data rate threshold is provided in the multi-member AF session request from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Yet, Kedalagudde in view of 3GPP does not explicitly disclose:
a QoS parameter to be measured, included in the multi-member AF session request, indicates a guaranteed bitrate for the AF session.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Talebi teaches:
a QoS parameter to be measured, included in the multi-member AF session request, indicates a guaranteed bitrate for the AF session (The 5G QoS model may support both QoS flows that require a guaranteed flow bit rate and QoS flows that may not require a guaranteed flow bit rate. The QoS model may comprise flow mapping or packet marking at the UPF 110 (CN_UP) 110, AN 105 and/or the UE 100. 5G QoS flow may be a granularity for QoS forwarding treatment in the 5G system. Traffic mapped to the same 5G QoS flow may receive the same forwarding treatment (e.g. scheduling policy, queue management policy, rate shaping policy, RLC configuration, and/or the like), Talebi: [0140]-[0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and 3GPP in view of Talebi in order to further modify a QoS parameter to be measured which included in the multi-member AF session request indicates a guaranteed bitrate for the AF session from the teachings of Talebi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the QoS model may comprise flow mapping or packet marking at the UPF (CN_UP), AN and/or the UE (Talebi: [0140]).
Regarding claim 2, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kedalagudde further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-member AF session request comprises one or more of a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Create request, a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Notify request, a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Revoke request, and a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Update request (AF sends the Nnef_AFsessionWithQoS_Create request message with External Group ID, Kedalagudde: [0144]-[0145]).
Regarding claim 3, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
subscribing to QoS monitoring for each AF session for each UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
subscribing to QoS monitoring for each AF session for each UE (QoS monitoring capabilities can be requested by the AF for URLLC services via a procedure for an AF session with specific QoS parameters, 3GPP: page 17, clause 6.1.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify subscribing to QoS monitoring for each AF session for each UE from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 5, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 4, further comprising:
aggregating a data rate in a set of QoS flows selected for the consolidated data rate threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
aggregating a data rate in a set of QoS flows selected for the consolidated data rate threshold (The NEF will then aggregate the bit rates and compare the aggregated bit rate against the Group-MER threshold. If the aggregated bit rate exceeds the Group-MER threshold, the NEF notifies the AF. The NEF sums up the bit rates of all the active QoS flows which are reported by the UPFs, 3GPP: page 138, clause 6.37.2.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify aggregating a data rate in a set of QoS flows selected for the consolidated data rate threshold from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 6, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 5, further comprising:
transmitting a QoS monitoring report if the aggregated data rate exceeds the consolidated data rate threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
transmitting a QoS monitoring report if the aggregated data rate exceeds the consolidated data rate threshold (AF provides 5GS data rate monitoring request information. Data rate monitoring request information may include the following parameters: - Data rate reporting levels. - Data rate reporting periodicity.3GPP: page 45, clause 6.7.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify transmitting a QoS monitoring report if the aggregated data rate exceeds the consolidated data rate threshold from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 7, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 5, further comprising:
transmitting a QoS monitoring report according to a reporting frequency if the aggregated data rate does not exceed the consolidated data rate threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
transmitting a QoS monitoring report according to a reporting frequency if the aggregated data rate does not exceed the consolidated data rate threshold (AF provides 5GS data rate monitoring request information. Data rate monitoring request information may include the following parameters: - Data rate reporting levels. - Data rate reporting periodicity.3GPP: page 45, clause 6.7.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify transmitting a QoS monitoring report according to a reporting frequency if the aggregated data rate does not exceed the consolidated data rate threshold from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 9, Kedalagudde discloses:
An apparatus for supporting terminal group-based services, the apparatus comprising (multiple UE(s) from the AF group are served by the same PCF. an apparatus comprising: one or more processors, Kedalagudde: [0032], [0161]):
a processor (an apparatus comprising: one or more processors, Kedalagudde: [0111], [0161]); and
a memory electrically connected to the processor and configured to store instructions executable by the processor (The instructions 450 may reside, completely or partially, within at least one of the processors 410 (e.g., within the processor's cache memory. executable code for causing at least any of the processors, Kedalagudde: [0111]),
wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform a plurality of operations (cause the one or more processors to perform the method, techniques, or process, Kedalagudde: [0111], [0161]),
wherein the plurality of operations comprise:
receiving a multi-member application function (AF) session request with required quality of service (QoS) for a list of user equipments (UEs) (AF session with required QoS as defined in Rel-17 can be enhanced to support a Group AF session by including the External Group ID or list of UE's belong to the group in the Nnef_AFsessionwithQoS request message. the AF may a request to reserve resources for multiple AF session using Nnef_AFsession WithQoS_Create request message to the NEF, Kedalagudde: [0049]-[0050]);
converting the multi-member AF session request into an AF session request with required QoS for a serving policy control function (PCF) of each UE (FIG. 1 depicts an example technique related to setting up multiple AF sessions with required QoS for a group. identifying, at 605 from an application function (AF) that implements a machine learning (ML) model, a request related to reservation of resources for a plurality of AF sessions, wherein the plurality of AF sessions relate to respective user equipments (UEs) of a plurality of UEs, and wherein the request includes an indication of addresses of respective UEs of the plurality of UEs and a quality of service (QoS) parameter. a discovery request related to discovery of respective policy control functions (PCFs) that are serving the respective UEs of the plurality of UEs, Kedalagudde: Fig. 1, [0022], [0128]); and
interacting with the serving PCF of each UE for each AF session (AF may use the Npcf_PolicyAuthorization_Create request message to interact directly with PCF(s) to request reserving resources for an AF session or send a Nbsf_Management_Discovery request directly to the BSF to discover the PCF(s) serving the UEs. each PCF may be associated to different UEs of the indicated group, Kedalagudde: [0027], [0030], [0043]-[0046], [0054]-[0057]),
wherein the list of UEs is identified by UE Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (SMF 246 may be responsible for SM; UE IP address allocation and management (including optional authorization), Kedalagudde: [0087], [0099]), and
Kedalagudde does not explicitly disclose:
wherein if a consolidated data rate threshold is provided in the multi-member AF session request,
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein if a consolidated data rate threshold is provided in the multi-member AF session request (RAN node estimates the supported UL/DL data rate based on the channel condition between RAN node and UE, the bandwidth available for the UE and other factors. That is, the supported/available UL/DL data rate can be treated as the prediction of data rate for the near-future, which is not the measurement of current data rate. Besides, after AI/ML application server makes decision for AI/ML operation, it may provide 5GS the required UL/DL data rate as the QoS requirement. it may provide 5GS the required UL/DL data rate as the QoS requirement. AF provides 5GS data rate monitoring request information. Data rate monitoring request information may include the following parameters: - Data rate reporting levels. - Data rate reporting periodicity.3GPP: page 44-45, clause 6.7.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde in view of 3GPP in order to further modify wherein if a consolidated data rate threshold is provided in the multi-member AF session request from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Yet, Kedalagudde in view of 3GPP does not explicitly disclose:
a QoS parameter to be measured, included in the multi-member AF session request, indicates a guaranteed bitrate for the AF session.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Talebi teaches:
a QoS parameter to be measured, included in the multi-member AF session request, indicates a guaranteed bitrate for the AF session (The 5G QoS model may support both QoS flows that require a guaranteed flow bit rate and QoS flows that may not require a guaranteed flow bit rate. The QoS model may comprise flow mapping or packet marking at the UPF 110 (CN_UP) 110, AN 105 and/or the UE 100. 5G QoS flow may be a granularity for QoS forwarding treatment in the 5G system. Traffic mapped to the same 5G QoS flow may receive the same forwarding treatment (e.g. scheduling policy, queue management policy, rate shaping policy, RLC configuration, and/or the like), Talebi: [0140]-[0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and 3GPP in view of Talebi in order to further modify a QoS parameter to be measured which included in the multi-member AF session request indicates a guaranteed bitrate for the AF session from the teachings of Talebi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the QoS model may comprise flow mapping or packet marking at the UPF (CN_UP), AN and/or the UE (Talebi: [0140]).
Regarding claim 10, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Kedalagudde further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the multi-member AF session request comprises one or more of a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Create request, a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Notify request, a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Revoke request, and a Nnef_AFSessionWithQoS_Update request (AF sends the Nnef_AFsessionWithQoS_Create request message with External Group ID, Kedalagudde: [0144]-[0145]).
Regarding claim 11, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the plurality of operations further comprise subscribing to QoS monitoring for each AF session for each UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the plurality of operations further comprise subscribing to QoS monitoring for each AF session for each UE (QoS monitoring capabilities can be requested by the AF for URLLC services via a procedure for an AF session with specific QoS parameters, 3GPP: page 17, clause 6.1.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify subscribing to QoS monitoring for each AF session for each UE from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 13, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of operations further comprise aggregating a data rate in a set of QoS flows selected for the consolidated data rate threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the plurality of operations further comprise aggregating a data rate in a set of QoS flows selected for the consolidated data rate threshold (The NEF will then aggregate the bit rates and compare the aggregated bit rate against the Group-MER threshold. If the aggregated bit rate exceeds the Group-MER threshold, the NEF notifies the AF. The NEF sums up the bit rates of all the active QoS flows which are reported by the UPFs, 3GPP: page 138, clause 6.37.2.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify aggregating a data rate in a set of QoS flows selected for the consolidated data rate threshold from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 14, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the plurality of operations further comprise transmitting a QoS monitoring report if the aggregated data rate exceeds the consolidated data rate threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the plurality of operations further comprise transmitting a QoS monitoring report if the aggregated data rate exceeds the consolidated data rate threshold (AF provides 5GS data rate monitoring request information. Data rate monitoring request information may include the following parameters: - Data rate reporting levels. - Data rate reporting periodicity.3GPP: page 45, clause 6.7.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify transmitting a QoS monitoring report if the aggregated data rate exceeds the consolidated data rate threshold from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Regarding claim 15, Kedalagudde-3GPP-Talebi teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Kedalagudde in view of Talebi does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the plurality of operations further comprise transmitting a QoS monitoring report according to a reporting frequency if the aggregated data rate does not exceed the consolidated data rate threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the plurality of operations further comprise transmitting a QoS monitoring report according to a reporting frequency if the aggregated data rate does not exceed the consolidated data rate threshold (AF provides 5GS data rate monitoring request information. Data rate monitoring request information may include the following parameters: - Data rate reporting levels. - Data rate reporting periodicity.3GPP: page 45, clause 6.7.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kedalagudde and Talebi in view of 3GPP in order to further modify transmitting a QoS monitoring report according to a reporting frequency if the aggregated data rate does not exceed the consolidated data rate threshold from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the existing Measurement Assistance Information may be enhanced with additional information related to UE QoS report, such as start/end time or frequency of the report (3GPP: Page 71, Clause 6.15.2).
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights