DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dudda fails to disclose the claimed “reporting” of the user terminal because Dudda allegedly describes only an internal scheduling adjustment rather than a notification sent to a distinct receiving entity. Applicant further contends that reporting requires transmission of an alert identifying the UE to a separate function. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require that the reporting be transmitted to a structurally separate entity, nor do they require a particular type of message or higher-layer notification. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “reporting” encompasses indicating, signaling, or providing information regarding the status of a user terminal to a traffic-handling logic within the wireless communication system. Dudda discloses that when predefined uplink grant utilization thresholds are exceeded, the network identifies the UE meeting the threshold and initiates dynamic scheduling and/or RRC reconfiguration procedures. This necessarily involves identifying the UE whose scheduling behavior exceeds predefined limits and acting upon that determination within the network’s control logic. Such identification and triggering of responsive traffic management procedures constitutes reporting the user terminal under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Applicant further argues that Dudda lacks a distinct “communication traffic handling function,” asserting that the claimed function must be a separate entity such as a higher-layer or core network component. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a “communication traffic handling function comprised in the wireless communication system” but do not require that this function be structurally separate, located in a particular protocol layer, or implemented in a distinct hardware entity. The term “function” denotes a role or logical operation and may be implemented within the same control unit or network node. Dudda discloses control logic within the network node that monitors uplink grant utilization, compares such utilization to predefined thresholds, and dynamically adjusts scheduling behavior and resource allocation in response. Managing scheduling modes and adapting resource allocation based on UE traffic patterns constitutes handling communication traffic. Accordingly, Dudda discloses a communication traffic handling function under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda).
Regarding claim 1, Dudda discloses a control unit arrangement comprising processing circuitry, memory, and transceiver circuitry collectively configured to perform operations comprising:
acquire instructions relating to one or more certain predefined scheduling communication patterns for communication between a wireless communication node and a served user terminal comprised in a wireless communication system (Par. 11: Lines 3-5; Uplink data is transmitted according to a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) configuration obtained from a network node; The UEs control circuitry acquires an SPS (predefined scheduling pattern) configuration; Par. 29: Lines 2-4; The network node configures (provides) a UE with a SPS configuration; Par. 19; Control channel grants are sent from the node to UE; Grants are a critical component in dynamic scheduling. They contain “when, where, and how” for data transmission; Par. 20; The grant is addressed to a SPS scheduling-cell radio network temporary identifier; This ties the grant to the SPS identity, confirming the instructions are about the SPS scheduling pattern the UE is acquiring), and to
determine if the user terminal is scheduled according to any one of the predefined scheduling communication patterns for a number of times that exceeds a predetermined number of times (Par. 64: 1-2; The network uses uplink grant utilization thresholds; The network defined predetermined numerical limits for how often uplink grants are used. Thus, the control logic monitors scheduling frequency and compares it against a predetermined threshold; Par. 65: Lines 4-6; If the UE utilizes 50% of the grants per frame, certain actions are performed; This corresponds to determining whether scheduling usage meets or exceeds a threshold; Par. 65: Lines 6-9; If the UE utilizes all uplink grants for more the 3 consecutive frames, the second threshold is met; Here the system is checking if the UE has been scheduled for more than a predefined number of times (3 consecutive frames)), and if that is the case,
comprising processing circuitry, memory, and transceiver circuitry further configured to perform operations comprising:
reporting the user terminal to a communication traffic handling function comprised in the wireless communication system (Par. 64: Lines 1-2; Two grant thresholds are defined by the network; Par. 65: Lines 7-11: If the UE utilizes all the uplink grants for more than 3 consecutive frames, a non-sporadic pattern is reflected. The network should trigger dynamic uplink scheduling; The node’s control logic monitors UE scheduling behavior and initiates changes in scheduling mode if thresholds are met. This is what a traffic-handling function does - it manages network traffic and adapts resource allocation accordingly; Par. 133: Lines 1-3 and 10-13; The network node may transmit a RRC reconfiguration message to the UE instructing it to trigger a reconfiguration; Thus, the nodes control logic reports the UE traffics state to a trigger reconfiguration, which is the role of a traffic-handling function. The node monitors traffic (grant utilization), determines when thresholds are exceeded, triggers a scheduling mode change, and uses RRC signaling to coordinate the change, which all are roles for a traffic-handling entity).
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations of claim 26. Therefore, the limitations of claim 26 have been addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2,5,31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Dudda discloses wherein a predefined scheduling communication pattern comprises that the number of re-transmissions in uplink, UL, from the node to the user terminal, has reached or falls below a predefined first maximum number of re-transmissions by a predefined number of certain times for a certain transmission (Par. 54: Lines 1-4; The node and UE both monitor the number of retransmissions and compare it to a maximum count; Par. 64: Lines 1-2 and Par. 65: Lines 6-11; Two uplink grant thresholds are defined and if they are met, the network triggers dynamic uplink scheduling; This shows the system evaluating whether threshold is exceeded and switching scheduling in that case; Par. 77: There is a maximum retransmission threshold that governs subsequent scheduling).
Dudda discloses the claimed limitations of claim 2 in reference to uplink to re-transmissions in UL but not to retransmissions in down link, DL.
Although Dudda primarily illustrates uplink retransmission control, it explicitly teaches that HARQ processes are configured to be reset after a number of retransmissions is met (Par. 54: Lines 1-4) and that maximum retransmission thresholds govern scheduling (Par. 77). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the same logic in the downlink direction, since HARQ operations and retransmission-count thresholds are standardized symmetrically for both UL and DL in LTE/NR systems. Therefore, the limitations of the claim would have been obvious in view of the reference.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 2, Dudda discloses wherein the number of re-transmissions is determined by means of a hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, response received from the user terminal (Par. 48: Lines 5-10; If the eNB fails to receive a HARQ acknowledgment (ACK/NACK) from the UE, it determines whether to initiate retransmission; This shows that the HARQ feedback from the UE is the mechanism by which the number of retransmissions is managed; Par. 54: Lines 1-4; Each HARQ process keeps count of retransmissions and is reset once a certain number of retransmissions have occurred; The reset condition shows that the count is monitored and determined through the HARQ process, which depends on ACK/NACK responses from the UE for each transmission).
Regarding claim 31 as applied to claim 26, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 31. Therefore, the limitations of claim 31 are addressed.
Claims 3,32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Park et al. (US 20120239998, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2, Dudda does not disclose wherein the predefined number of times is 1 or 2.
Park, however, discloses wherein the predefined number of times is 1 or 2 (Par. 64: Lines 8-13; The maximum number of retransmissions is set to 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the maximum threshold value of Park with the threshold based scheme of Dudda to achieve predictable gains in latency/overhead control and reliability.
Regarding claim 32 as applied to claim 31, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 32. Therefore, the limitations of claim 32 are addressed.
Claims 4,33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Zhou (US 20210058927, hereinafter Zhou1).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2, Dudda does not disclose wherein the predefined scheduling communication pattern comprises that a channel quality indication, provided by the user terminal exceeds a threshold value.
Zhou1, however, discloses using a channel-quality threshold to gate a scheduling pattern (Par. 146: Lines 1-4; When the channel quality information is lower than the preset threshold, scheduling-cancel configuration is transmitted to the target UE; This shows channel-quality indication and threshold driving a scheduling decision; Par. 227: Lines 4-11; A scheduling-cancel sending module sends a control message when the measured channel quality falls below a preset threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the channel-quality-thresholded rules of Zhou1 with Dudda’s existing control/scheduling framework – i.e., one of the “predefined scheduling communication patterns” in Dudda is selected or cancelled when CQI crosses a threshold, and the decision is conveyed by control-channel signaling (as Dudda teaches). This is a straightforward substitution of which metric drives the pattern (CQI instead of Dudda’s traffic/collision thresholds), yielding predictable benefits (fewer failed transmissions/HARQ loops, energy/resource savings).
Regarding claim 33 as applied to claim 31, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 33. Therefore, the limitations of claim 33 are addressed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Belleschi et al. (US 20200177318, hereinafter Belleschi).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 2, Dudda discloses re-transmissions in uplink, UL, from the user terminal to the node (Par. 113: Lines 1-3; The UE keeps UL retransmitting the same TB until told to send new data), for a certain transmission (Par 54: Lines 6-10; Behavior is tied to a current HARQ process (i.e. certain transmission)), and reaching or falling below a predefined second maximum number of retransmissions (Par. 122: Lines 1-3; There is a configured maximum UL retransmission count).
Dudda does not disclose using a UL retransmission count condition “by a predefined number of times” as the predefined scheduling communication pattern.
However, Belleschi discloses the missing pieces by teaching that UL performance conditions such as the HARQ retransmission window expiring “for one or more times” and/or the maximum allowed retransmissions is reached for a given HARQ process (Par. 122: Lines 1-3; If the HARQ retransmission expires for one or more times and/or the maximum allowed retransmissions is reached) trigger predefined scheduling actions (i.e. switch to cross-carrier or dynamic scheduling) (Par. 123: Lines 1-2 and Par. 124: Lines 1-3; The eNB starts using cross-carrier or dynamic scheduling) – i.e., a scheduling pattern driven by a UL retransmission-count threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the UL retransmission-count threshold of Belleschi into Dudda’s threshold-based adaptive framework as a alternative trigger to improve robustness and efficiency under poor UL conditions, yielding the claimed predefined scheduling communication pattern driven by a UL retransmission-count condition.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Belleschi et al. (US 20200177318, hereinafter Belleschi) in further view of Park et al. (US 20120239998, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Dudda in view of Belleschi does not disclose wherein the predefined number of times is 1 or 2.
Park, however, discloses wherein the predefined number of times is 1 or 2 (Par. 64: Lines 13-16; The maximum number of retransmissions is set to two).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Park’s explicit small retransmission counts (1–2) as the “predefined number of times” in the UL-retransmission–triggered scheduling pattern already taught by Dudda and Belleschi. Dudda provides the adaptive scheduling framework; Belleschi supplies the trigger based on UL HARQ retransmission conditions; and Park teaches concrete, industry-typical count values—“the maximum number of retransmissions is set to two”. Selecting 1 or 2 as the threshold count is a routine parameter choice and a predictable design optimization to reduce latency, limit interference and buffer growth, and hasten the switch to cross-carrier/dynamic scheduling when UL quality is poor, yielding no unexpected results but the anticipated improvement in robustness and efficiency of uplink handling.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Belleschi et al. (US 20200177318, hereinafter Belleschi) in further view of Zhou et al. (US 9848437, hereinafter Zhou2).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6, Dudda in view of Belleschi does not disclose wherein the predefined scheduling communication pattern comprises that a signal to interference plus noise ratio, SINR, value calculated for said certain transmission exceed a certain SINR threshold value.
Zhou2, however, discloses wherein the predefined scheduling communication pattern comprises that a signal to interference plus noise ratio, SINR, value calculated for said certain transmission exceed a certain SINR threshold value (Col. 15: Lines 23-28; When the UE’s current uplink SINR is measured and found to be greater than a configured threshold, the base station’s scheduler authorizes/schedules the UE’s uplink transmission on specific resource blocks at that transmission line; Col. 16: Lines 7-16; The scheduler persists in granting/scheduling UL transmissions only while each transmission’s UL SINR stays above a configured threshold; if it drops below, the scheduler refrains or changes behavior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate an SINR-threshold trigger of Zhou2 into Dudda’s SPS/IUA uplink framework—where the UE repeatedly retransmits a TB on a given HARQ process until a new-data indication and where maximum retransmission counts are configured—in view of Belleschi, which expressly teaches using predefined UL retransmission-count conditions (“for one or more times” expiration of the HARQ window and/or reaching the maximum retransmissions) to trigger specific scheduling actions such as cross-carrier or dynamic scheduling. Combining Belleschi’s threshold-driven scheduling pattern with Dudda’s SPS/IUA control loop and substituting an SINR threshold for the “certain transmission” is a predictable use of known techniques to yield improved robustness and spectral efficiency: it reduces wasted retransmissions and interference under poor-quality conditions, allocates UL grants when success likelihood is high, and lowers control/energy overhead.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Belleschi et al. (US 20200177318, hereinafter Belleschi) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20220006599, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 6, Belleschi establishes the UL transmission context and a predefined scheduling communication pattern that react to UL conditions. However, Dudda in view of Belleschi does not disclose that for each re-transmission, there is a user terminal buffer status report, BSR, that exceeds a BSR threshold value.
Wang teaches using a BSR-based thresholding metric to gate/report and switch scheduling/configurations (Par. 76: Lines 1-5; When BSR threshold is met, the terminal switches to active; Par. 78: Lines 1-3; The threshold is the BSR; Par. 80: Lines 7-14; When the BSR threshold is met, the terminal triggers reporting of a BSR and switches from dormant to active uplink configuration). Wang teaches that when a UE’s BSR value exceeds a configured BSR threshold, it must report the BSR and activate uplink resources – a predefined scheduling pattern directly conditioned on a BSR threshold being exceeded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate Wang’s BSR-threshold-based gating mechanism into the threshold-triggered UL scheduling framework of Dudda as refined by Belleschi, so that each retransmission in the HARQ loop is conditioned not only on retransmission count but also on a BSR ≥ threshold.A skilled person would have done so to avoid wasting uplink grants on empty or lightly-loaded buffers, prioritize active UEs with data to send, and improve uplink resource efficiency and latency—predictable benefits long recognized in UL scheduler design. The combination represents a routine application of known BSR-threshold scheduling logic within a known threshold-based retransmission control framework, yielding no unexpected results but the claimed predefined scheduling pattern in which, for each retransmission, the UE’s BSR exceeds a configured threshold.
Claims 27,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20200029316, hereinafter Zhou3).
Regarding claim 27 as applied to claim 26, Dudda teaches the framework of claim 26: acquiring instructions for predefined scheduling patterns and determining when a UE’s scheduling exceeds thresholds, followed by reporting to a network handling entity.
However, while Dudda established reporting to a network handling entity, it does not disclose receiving the reports at the communication traffic handling function and discontinuing operation of the reported user terminal.
Zhou3, however, teaches receiving reports at the communication traffic handling function (Par. 397: Lines 18-28; The UE transmits CSI/RRM reports (measurements) that are received and acted on by the base station/TRP manager (a traffic handling function)) and discontinuing operation of the reported user terminal (Par. 397: Lines 18-28; Upon handling reports, the network commands deactivation/inactivation, under which the UE stops monitoring PDCCH, stops UL/DL transmissions, clears assignments, and suspends configured grants).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the report-driven deactivation flow of the Zhou3 into Dudda’s threshold/reporting framework so that, after the network receives the UE’s reports, the traffic-handling function discontinues the UE’s operation via standard deactivation/idle/dormant controls. This is a predictable use of known RAN control primitives to improve interference control, energy efficiency, and resource utilization, yielding the claimed steps of (i) receiving the reports and (ii) discontinuing operation of the reported UE.
Regarding claim 28 as applied to claim 27, Dudda (as mapped for claim 26/27) teaches reporting the UE to a traffic-handling function and discontinuing/suspending UE operation under a predefined scheduling pattern, but does not specify the discontinuation is upheld for a certain time period.
However, Zhou3 teaches a timer-bounded discontinuation of operation. In particular, Zhou3 discloses that upon timer expiry the device transitions a transmission point/BWP into a dormant/inactive state and ceases specific operations for the duration governed by that timer/command, i.e., discontinuation held for a defined period (Par. 397: Lines 18-28; When inactive/dormant, the UE is explicitly barred from key UL/DL activity and configured grants are cleared/suspended during the state; Par. 453: Lines 5-19; When the TRP timer runs out, the UE puts that TRP into a power saving state and stops listed UL/DL operations for that timer-bounded interval).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Zhou3’s timer-governed discontinuation into Dudda’s threshold-driven scheduling/control framework, so that when the UE is reported and discontinuation is triggered , the discontinuation is upheld for a certain time period via a timer-controlled inactive/dormant state. A skilled person would do so as a predictable application of known radio-resource and power-saving techniques to (i) bound the disruption period, (ii) reduce wasted monitoring/transmissions and control overhead, and (iii) preserve service continuity by automatically resuming operations after the defined interval.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Won et al. (US 20200178158, hereinafter Won).
Regarding claim 29 as applied to claim 27, Dudda teaches reporting a user terminal to a communication traffic-handling function and initiating discontinuation based on predefined scheduling conditions (as mapped for claim 26/27), but does not specify that the discontinuation is permanent.
However, Won teaches receiving network load/condition reports at the core and pushing access barring configuration down to the RAN/UE that persists until changed, thereby effecting a durable discontinuation of UE operation (Par. 78: Lines 1-4 and 10-11; The network receives reporting and then configures barring; the barring state remains in force as an applied configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Won’s configuration-based barring into Dudda’s report-driven scheduling control so that, once the UE is reported, the network discontinues operation permanently by applying an access-barring configuration that remains until changed. A skilled person would do so to reduce signaling and interference from problematic UEs, protect capacity, and simplify enforcement using persistent policy.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudda et al. (US 20190289618, hereinafter Dudda) in view of Belleschi et al. (US 20200177318, hereinafter Belleschi), in further view of Zhou et al. (US 20200029316, hereinafter Zhou3).
Regarding claim 30 as applied to claim 27, Dudda discloses a report/traffic-handling control loop that detects thresholder scheduling/usage conditions and then changes the UE’s operating mode (as mapped for claim 26/27). Dudda does not disclose using a count-within-time-period condition as the escalation trigger to the later claimed permanent discontinuation.
Belleschi, however, teaches count-type triggers tied to UL performance within an operation window (Par. 122 and Par. 123: Line 1 and Par. 124: Line 1; Occurrence counts of UL failure events are used as a threshold condition that drives a predefined scheduler action (cross-carrier or dynamic scheduling)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Belleschi’s count-within-period trigger into Dudda’s threshold-based reporting/scheduler-control loop so that, when discontinuation or failure-events accrue a predetermined number of times within a configured observation period, the traffic-handling function escalates the action. This is a predictable use of known threshold/count policies to avoid oscillation, reduce control overhead, and improve stability.
Dudda in view of Belleschi does not teach making the discontinuation permanent once the predetermined number of times within a certain time period condition is met.
Zhou3, however, teaches explicit persistent deactivation states with no monitoring or (up/down)link traffic, which endure until an explicit command (i.e., effectively permanent from the UE’s perspective absent reconfiguration) (Par. 397: Lines 18-28; When inactive/dormant, the UE is explicitly barred from key UL/DL activity and configured grants are cleared/suspended during the state; Par. 454: Lines 8-19; Deactivation is persistent, lifted only by explicit re-enable signaling).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dudda’s reporting/scheduler control and Belleschi’s count-based escalation with Zhou3’s persistent deactivation mechanism. This would help avoid network stability issues, stabilize resource allocation, cut signaling churn, and protect QoS.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648