Response to Amendment
This office action in response to a response received on February 27, 2026.
Claims 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in this 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
The applicant’s arguments directed towards the 35 U.S.C §102 and 35 U.S.C §103 rejections of claims 1-17 have been considered, but are not persuasive (see remarks Pg. 6-12).
Regarding 35 U.S.C §102 rejections of independent claims 1 and 16, applicant argues that, firstly, Lin does not disclose "a further candidate subset of RBGs" because the immediately previous claim element requires "determining, ..., a further candidate subset of RBGs that each do not have expected interference above an interference tolerance threshold with respect to any already-allocated resource allocation."
Again, an anticipation rejection over the prior art requires that the prior art discloses the limitations "arranged as in the claim." In other words, to anticipate the current claim language, it is not enough for a reference to merely mention a channel quality. Rather, the allegedly anticipatory reference must disclose (a) determining a candidate subset of RBGs that do not have an expected interference above the claimed threshold (b) from that determined subset, a further subset of RBGs."
As established above, Lin does not disclose determining "a further candidate subset"
because Lin does not teach the claimed interference tolerance level, and therefore cannot disclose "determining, from the further candidate subset of RBGs, a further selected subset..." as recited in claim 1.
Applicant further argues, secondly, Lin does not disclose "a channel quality threshold." Rather, Lin discloses that resource allocation is performed based on maximal SINR. Again, a maximal does not disclose a threshold. Therefore, maximal SINR cannot disclose a channel quality threshold.
The examiner has considered all the arguments, but respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “selecting a further selected beam of the plurality of beams for allocation to a further terminal; determining, for the further selected beam, a further candidate subset of RBGs that each do not have expected interference above an interference tolerance threshold with respect to any already-allocated resource allocation”, and “determining, from the further candidate subset of RBGs, a farther further selected subset of RBGs that each satisfy a channel quality threshold”.
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Lin teaches "a further candidate subset of RBGs", see ¶ [0018] of Lin, wherein the BS 100 first selects a suitable subset of beams and allocates RBs to the corresponding primary UEs. If the RBs are not fully utilized, the BS 100 then allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs. The remaining RBs assigned to secondary UEs are a subset of RBs.
Lin further teaches, "a channel quality threshold", see ¶ [0023] of Lin, wherein the BS 100 allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs that still have traffic demands and can achieve the maximal SINR. The secondary UEs that can achieve the maximal SINR reads into achieving a certain upper limit. The channel quality threshold can indeed be derived from the maximal SINR and maximal being an upper limit, the maximal SINR can serve as an upper limit for the channel quality threshold as it reflects the maximum achievable performance in a given environment. Lin further teaches, see ¶ [0017] of Lin, wherein it implicitly discloses the RBs are allocated for the optimal beam which means for the beam with the upper limit of signal quality. Also, see ¶ [0017] of Lin, wherein the BS 100 estimates a level of interference of the set of beams and determines whether to re-select the set of beams according to a level of interference of the set of beams
As explained above, Lin teaches, first selecting a suitable subset of optimal beams and allocates RBs that each meets the interference threshold for allocation to terminal and then based on traffic demand, allocate the remaining subset of RBs to a further terminal if each can satisfy an acceptable channel quality threshold.
As result, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C §102 rejections of independent claims 1 and 16 are maintained.
The 35 U.S.C §102 and 35 U.S.C §103 rejection of dependent claims 2-15 and 17 are maintained for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LIN et al., US 20210127400 A1, (hereinafter LIN).
Regarding claim 1, and 16, LIN teaches a wireless base station configured for wireless communication with a plurality of terminals and comprising an antenna array configured to generate a plurality of beams, wherein the wireless base station comprises (see ¶ [0015], e.g., FIG. 1, illustrates a wireless communication system according to one embodiment. The wireless communication system comprises a base station (BS 100), and a plurality of user equipment, for example, six UEs (UE 110-UE 160). The wireless communication system supports communications using a variety of cellular technologies comprising 4G LTE and 5G New Radio (NR); ¶ [0018], e.g., the BS 100 applies a hybrid beamforming architecture and supports B beams and N RF chains, in which each N RF chain is connected to a phased array (also referred to as “phased antenna array” or simply “antenna array”)):
a scheduler circuitry configured to allocate wireless resources to support the wireless communication, wherein the wireless resources comprise the plurality of beams and a plurality of resource block groups (RBGs) (see ¶ [0018], e.g., The BS 100 first selects a suitable subset of beams and allocates RBs to the corresponding primary UEs.),
wherein each resource block group is a portion of a frequency range available for the wireless communication in a timeslot (see Fig. 4A, e.g., element Frequency, Time slot t1, Beam, UE, ¶ [0003], e.g., Each time slot consists of multiple RBs operating over different subcarriers, which can be allocated to multiple user equipment (UEs).),
wherein the scheduler circuitry is configured to perform wireless resource allocation for the timeslot. the wireless resource allocation comprising an initial stage and an iterative stage (see ¶ [0018], e.g., The BS 100 first selects a suitable subset of beams and allocates RBs to the corresponding primary UEs. If the RBs are not fully utilized due to the limited demands of primary UEs, the BS 100 then allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs in order to improve spectrum utilization.),
wherein the initial stage of the wireless resource allocation comprises: selecting a first selected beam of the plurality of beams for allocation to a first terminal (see ¶ [0020], e.g., the BS 100 identifies the primary UEs of each of the plurality of beams, wherein the primary UEs are served by their optimal beams.);
determining, for the first selected beam, a first selected subset of RBGs that satisfy a channel quality threshold (see ¶ [0017] - ¶ [0018], e.g., The BS 100 can only configure one set of beams during a time slot, but an acceptable signal quality can be obtained if the BS 100 serving it uses a non-optimal beam, although maximal receiving power can only be achieved if it is served by the BS 100 using its optimal beam. In the downlink scenario, each of the UEs may be referred to as “primary UE” of a beam if served by its optimal beam, or as “secondary UE” of a beam if the beam is not its optimal beam. Note that, channel quality threshold is implicitly implied by taking into consideration acceptable signal quality and optimal beam; … The BS 100 first selects a suitable subset of beams and allocates RBs to the corresponding primary UEs. If the RBs are not fully utilized due to the limited demands of primary UEs, the BS 100 then allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs in order to improve spectrum utilization; ¶ [0029], e.g., the BS 100 estimates a level of interference of the set of beams and determines whether to re-select the set of beams according to a level of interference of the set of beams before executing step S204); and
allocating to the first terminal a first resource allocation comprising the first selected beam and the first selected subset of RBGs (see Fig. 2, e.g., element S206, ¶ [0022], e.g., At steps S206, the BS 100 allocates RBs to primary UEs of each of the selected sets of beams in descending order based on the traffic demand of each of the primary UEs.),
wherein the iterative stage of the wireless resource allocation comprises: selecting a further selected beam of the plurality of beams for allocation to a further terminal (see Fig. 2, e.g., element S208, ¶ [0024], e.g., At step S208, the BS 100 calculates an SINR for each secondary UE of the selected set of beams, and allocates remaining RBs to the secondary UEs in descending order based on the calculated SINRs.);
determining, for the further selected beam, a further candidate subset of RBGs that each do not have expected interference above an interference tolerance threshold with respect to any already-allocated resource allocation (see ¶ [0023], e.g., In some scenarios, there may be some RBs not utilized even though the traffic demands of all the primary UEs have been served. To enhance resource utilization, the BS 100 allocates the remaining, i.e., unallocated, RBs to the secondary UEs if they can obtain an acceptable signal-to-interference-plus-noise (SINR) and receive data properly. Since the secondary UEs cannot be served by an optimal beam, the BS 100 allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs that still have traffic demands and can achieve the maximal SINR.);
determining, from the further candidate subset of RBGs, a farther selected subset of RBGs that each satisfy a channel quality threshold (see ¶ [0023], e.g., the BS 100 allocates the remaining, i.e., unallocated, RBs to the secondary UEs if they can obtain an acceptable signal-to-interference-plus-noise (SINR) and receive data properly. Since the secondary UEs cannot be served by an optimal beam, the BS 100 allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs that still have traffic demands and can achieve the maximal SINR (implicitly implied).); and
allocating to the further terminal a further resource allocation comprising the further selected beam and the further selected subset of RBGs, and wherein the wireless resource allocation further comprises iteratively repeating the iterative stage to allocate wireless resource resources for the plurality of terminals (see Fig. 2, e.g., element S208, ¶ [0024], e.g., At step S208, the BS 100 calculates an SINR for each secondary UE of the selected set of beams, and allocates remaining RBs to the secondary UEs in descending order based on the calculated SINRs.).
Regarding claim 2, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein iteratively repeating the iterative stage to allocate wireless resources for the plurality of terminals comprises at least one repetition of the iterative stage for at least one further terminal to allocate more than one beam to the at least one further terminal (see Fig. 2, e.g., element S208, ¶ [0024], e.g., At step S208, the BS 100 calculates an SINR for each secondary UE of the selected set of beams, and allocates remaining RBs to the secondary UEs in descending order based on the calculated SINRs.).
Regarding claim 3, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
LIN further teaches, wherein iteratively repeating the iterative stage to allocate wireless resources for the plurality of terminals comprises a predetermined maximum number of repetitions of the iterative stage for the at least one further terminal to allocate at most the predetermined maximum number of beams, of the plurality of beams, to the at least one further terminal (see ¶ [0020], e.g., The BS 100 also identifies the secondary UEs of each of the plurality of beams, wherein the secondary UEs are the UEs which are not served by their optimal beams.).
Regarding claim 4, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein selection of beams for allocation to terminals is performed in dependence on a set of beam rankings (see ¶ [0020], e.g., At step S202, the BS 100 sorts in descending order a plurality of beams, according to a sum of traffic demands of the primary UEs of each of the plurality of beams. Before step S202, the BS 100 identifies the primary UEs of each of the plurality of beams, wherein the primary UEs are served by their optimal beams; ¶ [0021], At step S204, the BS 100 selects in sequence a set of beams from the start of the plurality of beams sorted into descending order.).
Regarding claim 5, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
LIN further teaches, wherein the set of beam rankings is dependent on channel quality reports received by the wireless base station from the plurality of terminals (see Fig. 5, e.g., element S504, S508, ¶ [0032], e.g., At step 504, the BS 100 receives a first report comprising a first beam with a strongest gain from one UE of all the UEs. ¶ [0034], e.g., At step S508, the BS 100 receives a second report comprising a second beam with a second-strongest gain from the one UE. ¶ [0035], e.g., At step S510, the BS 100 estimates a level of interference in the set of beams according to the second reports reported by all the UEs. In this embodiment, the level of interference of the set of beams can be approximated by the second beams of all the UEs.).
Regarding claim 6, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
LIN further teaches, wherein the set of beam rankings is dependent on channel quality reports determined by the wireless base station (¶ [0024], e.g., At step S208, the BS 100 calculates an SINR for each secondary UE of the selected set of beams, and allocates remaining RBs to the secondary UEs in descending order based on the calculated SINRs. ¶ [0035], e.g., At step S510, the BS 100 estimates a level of interference in the set of beams according to the second reports reported by all the UEs. In this embodiment, the level of interference of the set of beams can be approximated by the second beams of all the UEs. ¶ [0036], e.g., The BS 100 finally makes a determination to re-select the set of beams when the level of interference exceeds a predefined level.).
Regarding claim 7, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein at least one iteration of the iterative stage comprises selecting the further selected beam of the plurality of beams for allocation to the further terminal on a basis that the further selected beam is adjacent to an already-allocated beam for the further terminal (see ¶ [0029], e.g., Although a primary UE can be served by its optimal beam, it is also very likely to be interfered with by the side lobes of other beams.).
Regarding claim 8, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
LIN further teaches, wherein the wireless base station is configured to respond to a channel quality report from the further terminal indicating a preferred beam to select an adjacent beam to the preferred beam in a subsequent iteration stage (see ¶ [0035], e.g., At step S510, the BS 100 estimates a level of interference in the set of beams according to the second reports reported by all the UEs. In this embodiment, the level of interference of the set of beams can be approximated by the second beams of all the UEs. ¶ [0036], e.g., The BS 100 finally makes a determination to re-select the set of beams when the level of interference exceeds a predefined level. ¶ [0029], e.g., Although a primary UE can be served by its optimal beam, it is also very likely to be interfered with by the side lobes of other beams. Note that, implicitly implied by “the side lobes of other beams”).
Regarding claim 9, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein the scheduler circuitry is configured to perform the wireless resource allocation for the timeslot following a ranked order of terminals (see ¶ [0020], e.g., At step S202, the BS 100 sorts in descending order a plurality of beams, according to a sum of traffic demands of the primary UEs of each of the plurality of beams. Before step S202, the BS 100 identifies the primary UEs of each of the plurality of beams, wherein the primary UEs are served by their optimal beams. ¶ [0021], e.g., At step S204, the BS 100 selects in sequence a set of beams from the start of the plurality of beams sorted into descending order.).
Regarding claim 11, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein the wireless resource allocation for the timeslot is for downlink communication from the wireless base station to the plurality of terminals (see ¶ [0017], e.g., In the downlink scenario, each of the UEs may be referred to as “primary UE” of a beam if served by its optimal beam, or as “secondary UE” of a beam if the beam is not its optimal beam. ¶ [0026], e.g., The BS of such a wireless communication system supports B=8 available beams and N=4 RF chains. Then, in each time slot, the BS sorts beams in descending order of the sum of the traffic demands of their primary UEs. The BS then selects a set of beams with TOP-N demands, to serve downlink UEs.).
Regarding claim 13, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein amongst the first selected beam of the initial stage and all further selected beams of the iterative stage, at least one beam is re-used (Fig. 4B-4C, e.g., element Beam b5, b6; Note that, in Fig. 4C, beams b5 and b6 are re-used for the secondary UEs; ¶ [0028], e.g., As shown in FIG. 4B, some RBs of beams b.sub.6 and b.sub.5 are not allocated yet due to insufficient traffic demands of their primary UEs. Since beams b.sub.6 and b.sub.5 are not fully utilized due to non-saturated traffic demands, the BS firstly updates the user demand table as an updated user demand table 314 (shown in FIG. 4C), then allocates the remaining RBs to the secondary UEs that still have traffic demands and can achieve the maximal SINR. In this example, the remaining RBs are allocated to secondary UEs, such as UE.sub.11, UE.sub.16, UE.sub.13, and UE.sub.15, in the time slot t.sub.2, as shown in FIG. 4C.).
Regarding claim 17, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein the first resource allocation, as allocated, is an already-allocated resource allocation (see ¶ [0022], e.g., The BS 100 allocates RBs to primary UEs of each of the selected sets of beams in descending order based on the traffic demand of each of the primary UEs.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 10 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN in view of Sawai, US 20150017996 A1, (hereinafter Sawai).
Regarding claim 10, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN further teaches, wherein at least one of:
determining the first selected subset of RBGs;
determining the further candidate subset of RBGs; and
determining the further selected subset of RBGs,
is performed as a nested iterative process, in which a relevant RBGs is varied at each iteration of the nested iterative process in order to determine at least one of the first selected subset of RBGs, the further candidate subset of RBGs, and the further selected subset of RBGs in a manner which, at least one of, improves channel quality and reduces interference (see ¶ [0029], e.g., Although a primary UE can be served by its optimal beam, it is also very likely to be interfered with by the side lobes of other beams. In one embodiment, to avoid selecting beams that create beam patterns leading to strong interference with others, the BS 100 estimates a level of interference of the set of beams and determines whether to re-select the set of beams according to a level of interference of the set of beams before executing step S204.),
however, it does not explicitly teach a power distribution across relevant resources.
Sawai teaches, a power distribution across relevant resources (see ¶ [0072], e.g., Also, in the case of resource contention between multiple closed-access type small cells, the allocation unit 132 may adjust the allocation of resources and transmit power so that communication opportunities are fairly distributed among those small cells. In this case, the allocation unit 132 uniformly decreases the allowed transmit power of the small cells contending for resources (for example, with a fixed decrement or a fixed rate of decrease). As a result, the resource contention may be resolved. Alternatively, the allocation unit 132 may also place the broadcast channel of any of the small cells in the (set of) resource blocks with the next largest allowed transmit power, without decreasing the allowed transmit power of the small cell. ¶ [0075], e.g., The judgment unit 134, on the basis of the resource and transmit power allocation by the allocation unit 132, estimates the interference caused by the transmission of radio signals on the broadcast channel and data channels from each small cell. Subsequently, in the case of interference that exceeds an allowed level, the judgment unit 134 executes a classification of interference cases.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified resource allocation of LIN to incorporate the teachings of Sawai to include a power distribution across relevant resources. Doing so would facilitate in achieving moderating interference and resolving resource allocation contentions as suggested by Sawai (see ¶ [0010] e.g., a communication control device that includes an allocation unit that allocates transmit power to each of the first small cell and the second small cell so as to moderate interference from the first small cell and the second small cell on the macro cell, a judgment unit that, in a case in which one of the first small cell and the second small cell exerts interference exceeding an allowed level on the other ¶ [0072], e.g., the allocation unit 132 uniformly decreases the allowed transmit power of the small cells contending for resources (for example, with a fixed decrement or a fixed rate of decrease). As a result, the resource contention may be resolved.).
Regarding claim 12, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN does not teach but Sawai teaches, wherein the wireless resource allocation for the timeslot is for uplink communication to the wireless base station from the plurality of terminals (see ¶ [0074], e.g., After the allocation unit 132 decides the placement and transmit power for the broadcast channel of each small cell, it becomes possible to estimate the placement and transmit power for the data channels of each small cell. The uplink and downlink data channels may be placed in resource blocks between periodically placed broadcast channels; ¶ [0088], e.g., Next, the judgment unit 134, on the basis of the resource and transmit power allocation by the allocation unit 132, estimates the interference caused by the transmission of uplink signals and downlink signals on the data channels from each small cell (step S130); ¶ [0109], e.g., Subsequently, the communication control unit 244 causes the radio communication unit 210 to receive uplink signals and transmit downlink signals in accordance with the resource block allocation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified resource allocation of LIN to incorporate the teachings of Sawai to include resource allocation for uplink communication to the wireless base station. Doing so would facilitate in achieving controling the transmit power of each terminal connected to the small cell, to be within a range allowed by the cooperation manager as suggested by Sawai (see ¶ [0109], e.g., the communication control unit 244 causes the radio communication unit 210 to receive uplink signals and transmit downlink signals in accordance with the resource block allocation. Additionally, the communication control unit 244 controls the transmit power of each terminal connected to the small cell, to be within a range allowed by the cooperation manager 100.).
Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN in view of in view of LIU et al., "Traffic-Aware Beam Selection and Resource Allocation for 5G NR", IEEE, 25 May 2020, (hereinafter LIU).
Regarding claim 14, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN does not teach but LIU teaches, wherein the interference tolerance threshold is dependent on the further selected beam (Pg. 3-4, e.g., to enhance spectrum efficiency and beam utilization, an intuitive way is to select a subset of beams that can serve more primary users and send their traffic demands. To achieve this goal, we propose an algorithm, as summarized in Algorithm 1, that jointly schedules beam selection and resource allocation based on the traffic demands of users. Algorithm 1, line 18: Find rate ru (MCS) per RB based on SINR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified resource allocation of LIN to incorporate the teachings of LIU to include interference tolerance threshold to be dependent on the further selected beam. Doing so would facilitate in achieving enhancing spectrum efficiency and beam utilization as suggested by LIU (see Pg. 3-4, e.g., to enhance spectrum efficiency and beam utilization, an intuitive way is to select a subset of beams that can serve more primary users and send their traffic demands. To achieve this goal, we propose an algorithm, as summarized in Algorithm 1, that jointly schedules beam selection and resource allocation based on the traffic demands of users.).
Claim 15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN in view of in view of Atawia et al., US 12231371 B2, (hereinafter Atawia).
Regarding claim 15, LIN teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
LIN does not teach but Atawia teaches, wherein the wireless resource allocation for the timeslot further comprises a modulation and coding scheme selection (Col 5, lines 41-49, e.g., the devices (e.g., the UEs 132, 133, 134, 142 and the network nodes 131, 141) of system 100 are configured to communicate wireless signals using one or more multi carrier modulation schemes, wherein data symbols can be transmitted simultaneously over multiple frequency subcarriers (e.g., OFDM, CP-OFDM, DFT-spread OFMD, UFMC, FMBC, etc.)) for the first resource allocation and for the further resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified resource allocation of LIN to incorporate the teachings of Atawia to include modulation and coding scheme selection. Doing so would facilitate high speed, low latency, and improved spectrum utilization for 5G networks as suggested by Atawia (Col 6, lines 5-16, e.g., the ability to dynamically configure waveform parameters based on traffic scenarios while retaining the benefits of multi carrier modulation schemes (e.g., OFDM and related schemes) can provide a significant contribution to the high speed/capacity and low latency demands of 5G networks. With waveforms that split the bandwidth into several sub-bands, different types of services can be accommodated in different sub-bands with the most suitable waveform and numerology, leading to an improved spectrum utilization for 5G networks.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POONAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 8:30-5:30 pm, ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/POONAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472