DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 26, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
The Amendment filed 12/26/26 has been entered. Claims 2 and 18 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-30 are pending, of which claims 1, 3-4, 9, 16-17, and 19-20 were amended.
In light of amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 was withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of [amended claims 1, 17] and [claims 10 and 25] have been considered but are not persuasive.
a/ Applicant submits that Khan fails to cite transmitting information relating to the CLI metric for a subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands, wherein the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands comprises a first configured number of DL sub-bands for which the CLI metric is larger than the CLI metric for each DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands not included in the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands, as recited in amended claims 1 and 17.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, Khan discloses the WTRU reports CLI-RSSI measurement for one, or more, or all subbands or reports a subset of CLI-RSSI based on conditions, e.g., CLI-RSSI value being above threshold, a CLI-RSSI measurement in each subband [0126]. In addition, Khan states determining the subband that has a lowest measured CLI among the plurality of sub-bands [0008] being scheduled or non-scheduled [0128].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit CLI metric information for DL subbands that have larger CLLI metric than that of other subbands; thus, based on CLI measurement results, allowing the base station to efficiently perform radio resource management and schedule users in UL and DL, while avoiding interference – Khan [0047].
Thus, Khan does disclose transmitting information relating to the CLI metric for a subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands, wherein the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands comprises a first configured number of DL sub-bands for which the CLI metric is larger than the CLI metric for each DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands not included in the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands, as recited in amended claims 1 and 17.
b/ Applicant states Fehrenbach fails to disclose or suggest transmitting a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands, as recited in claims 10 and 25.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First of all, Fehrenbach discloses a single bit in the feedback {message} indicting that the amount of interference on any one of the frequency band, e.g., subband [0103] or indicating the failed subband, wherein a single bit is “1” indicating NACK [0170]. In addition, Fehrenbach mentions that one bit is used per subband or frequency band [0167] and code block groups {CBG} are confined in frequency bands associated with interference patterns detectable at the receiver [0015].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands; [0047]; thus enabling the determination of subband with a CLI that satisfies a condition, e.g., threshold, for operations, while reducing signaling overhead by using a single bit indication -- Fehrenbach [0167].
Thus, Fehrenbach does disclose transmitting a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands, as recited in claims 10 and 25.
Consequently, the rejections of claims 1, 3-17, and 19-30 are still to be maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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 claim 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 17, 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 20250266915 A1), hereinafter Khan.
Regarding claim 1:
Khan discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (victim wireless transmit/receive unit {WTRU}, e.g., first UE, element 208 in Fig.2), comprising:
memory (non-removable memory, element 130 in Fig.1B); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the memory, the at least one processor (processor, element 118 in Fig.1B) is configured to:
measure a cross link interference {CLI} metric for each of a plurality of downlink (DL) sub-bands {SBs} configured for the first UE (perform CLI-RSSI measurement, e.g., CLI metric, in each subband [0128] or measuring interference power/ strength in one or more reference subbands [0130, lines 35-38]), the CLI metric measuring CLI to DL reception at the first UE due to an uplink {UL} transmission from a second UE (CLI occurred between DL reception and UL transmission [0117, lines 2-6]), wherein DL reception is at victim WTRU, e.g., first UE, and UL transmission is from aggressor WTRU, e.g., second UE [0082, lines 1-6]); and
transmit information relating to the CLI metric for a subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands (reporting CLI-RSSI measurement for one, more, or all SBs [0126, lines 15-17]), wherein the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands comprises a first configured number of DL sub-bands for which the CLI metric is larger than the CLI metric for each DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands not included in the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands (one, or more subbands CLLI-RSSI are measured based on a CLI-RSSI measurement in each subband [0126], which has a lowest measured CLI among plurality of sub-bands [0008] being scheduled or non-scheduled [0128]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit information relating to the CLI metric for a subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands, wherein CLLI metric is compared with that of other subbands; thus allowing the receiver of this report to evaluate whether to use/ not use granted resources with associated CLI metrics [0148].
Regarding claim 4:
Khan discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Khan further discloses the first number of DL sub-bands is one of:
a second number configured based on one or more of a first indication from a network entity or a second indication transmitted by the first UE, or
a third number of measured CLI values above a threshold value ({third} number of interference CLI-RSSI >threshold [0131]. or measured quantities are higher than respective threshold [0148]).
Regarding claim 6:
Khan discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Khan further discloses the information relating to the CLI metric for the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands comprises a set of DL sub-band identifiers, wherein the set of DL sub-band IDs indicates DL sub-bands in the subset of the plurality of DL subband (IDs) (SB indexes corresponding to SB-wise metrics [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to identify DL subbands with their corresponding CLI metrics; thus facilitating a relatively fast way to identify subbands in a quicker manner, while saving processing resources.
Regarding claim 7:
Khan discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Khan further discloses receiving a first indication of a configuration of a first set of resources for measuring the CLI metric for each of the plurality of DL sub-bands (receiving configuration of reference subbands with subset of time-frequency resources for measurement [0076]).
Regarding claim 8:
Khan discloses all features of claim 7, and –
Khan further discloses the UL transmission is a sounding reference signal (UL transmission from an aggressor WTRU [0125, lines 29-36], wherein UL transmission can be a sounding reference signal {SRS} [0076, lines 10-14]), and a second set of resources configured for the UL transmission (granted resources configured for transmissions from aggressor WTRU [0081, lines 30-36]) comprises any of:
a full bandwidth allocated for UL transmissions,
a sub-band of the full bandwidth allocated for the UL transmissions, or
a variable number of resource blocks within a set of resource blocks
allocated for the UL transmissions (resources are characterized by a set of resource blocks {RBs} [0092]).
Regarding claim 9:
Khan discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Khan further discloses at least one transceiver or at least one antenna coupled to the at least one processor (transceiver, antenna coupled to processor, elements 120, 122 and 118 in Fig.1B), wherein, to receive the CLI, the at least one processor is configured to receive the CLI via the at least one transceiver to (to receive type of interference measurement via transceiver, [0078, lines 1-2 and element 120 in Fig.1B) or the at least one antenna coupled to the at least one processor (antenna coupled to processor, elements 122 and 118 in Fig.1B), wherein, to transmit the information relating to the CLI metric for the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands (to report CLI-RSSI measurement for one, more, or all subbands [0126, lines 15-17]), the at least one processor is configured to transmit, via one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 signaling (to transmit via L1 signaling [0079, lines 1-5] or via MAC CE, e.g., layer 2 signaling [0154, lines 1-5]), the information relating to the CLI metric for the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands based on one or more of periodic scheduling (CLI-RSSI measurement report for one, more, or all subbands [0126, lines 15-17]] are performed in periodic scheduling [0101, lines 12-14]), aperiodic scheduling ([0101, lines 12-14]), semi-periodic scheduling ([0101, lines 12-14]), or a triggering event (CLI reporting is triggered based on a delta-CLI-RSSI measurement being larger than a threshold [0125, lines 42-45]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit CLI report based on different scheduling types via different types of signaling; thus allowing the receiver of this report to efficiently evaluate whether to use/ not use granted resources with associated CLI metrics [0148].
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 17 is from the perspective of the network node, and wherein Khan [in claim 17] also discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (gNB in Fig.4) comprising: memory(non-removable memory, element 130 in Fig.1B); and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the memory , the at least one processor (processor, element 118 in Fig.1B) is configured to perform claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Khan additionally states that the network node configures a first set of resources for a first UE to measure CLI metric (grants resources [0147]).
Regarding claims 20 and 22-24:
Claims 20, and 22-24 discloses all limitations of claim 17.
[Claims 20 and 22-24] are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to [claims 4, 6, 8, 9] above, respectively, except that [claims 20 and 22-24] are recited from the perspective of a network node.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan, in view of Deeno et al. (US 20200052803 A1), hereinafter Deeno.
Regarding claim 3:
Khan discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Khan further discloses the first number of DL sub-bands is equal to one (one SB to check CLI [0109]), and the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands comprises a DL sub-band (and list of reference SBs comprises a SB [0109]).
Khan does not explicitly disclose the measured CLI is the largest corresponding measured CLI.
Deeno, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the measured CLI is the largest one in a DL subband (subband with highest RSSI [0228]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a DL sub-band with a largest corresponding measured CLI; thus enabling the selection of the best subband for communications [0254 and 0228 in Deenoo].
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 discloses all limitations of claim 17.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 3 above, except that claim 19 is recited from the perspective of a network node.
Claims 5, 10-16, 21, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan, in view of Fehrenbach et al. (US 20220182879 A1), hereinafter Fehrenbach.
Regarding claim 5:
Khan discloses all features of claim 1, and –
Khan further discloses the information relating to the CLI metric for the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands further comprises a list indicating DL sub-bands in the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands (constructing a list including interference measurement results in ordered reference subbands [0131]).
However, Khan does not explicitly disclose the list can be arranged in a form of a bitmap.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the list is arranged in a form of a bitmap (SB 1 and SB2 with feedback “0”, e.g., in bitmap [0167, lines 1-12 and Fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to arrange DL sub-bands in the form of a bitmap with their corresponding CLI metrics; thus enabling a quick evaluation of DL subbands for operations, while reducing the signaling overhead
Regarding claim 10:
Khan discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (victim wireless transmit/receive unit {WTRU}, e.g., UE, element 208 in Fig.2), comprising:
memory (non-removable memory, element 130 in Fig.1B); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the memory, the at least one processor (processor, element 118 in Fig.1B) is configured to:
measure a cross link interference {CLI} metric for each of a plurality of downlink (DL) sub-bands {SBs} configured for the first UE (perform CLI-RSSI measurement, e.g., metric, in each subband [0127] or measuring interference power/ strength { CLI} in one or more reference subbands [0130, lines 35-38]), the CLI metric measuring CLI to DL reception at the first UE due to an uplink (UL) transmission from a second UE (CLI occurred between DL reception and UL transmission [0117, lines 2-6]), wherein DL reception is at victim WTRU, e.g., first UE, and UL transmission is from aggressor WTRU, e.g., second UE [0082, lines 1-6]).
Khan does not explicitly disclose transmitting a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, discloses transmitting a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands (transmitting a single bit in feedback {message} indicting that amount of interference on any one of frequency band, e.g., subband [0103] or indicating the failed subband, wherein a single bit is “1” indicating NACK [0170 or 0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands; thus enabling the quick signaling of feedback information, while reducing signaling overhead – resulted from reducing the number of bits.
Regarding claim 11:
Khan in view of Fehrenbach discloses all features of claim 10, and –
Khan does not, but Fehrenbach further discloses an individual single-bit indication for each of the plurality of DL sub-bands configured for the first UE, each individual single-bit indication indicating whether the CLI metric for a corresponding DL sub-band is above a threshold value.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, teaches an individual single-bit indication for each of the plurality of DL sub-bands configured for the first UE, each individual single-bit indication indicating whether the CLI metric for a corresponding DL sub-band is above a threshold value (a single bit indicating that, in one or more of subbands, interference amount exceeds predefined threshold [0183 in Fehrenbach]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit an individual single-bit indication indicating whether the CLI metric for a corresponding DL sub-band is above a threshold; thus enabling the determination of subband with a CLI that satisfies a condition, e.g., threshold, for operations, while reducing signaling overhead by using a single bit indication [0167 in Fehrenbach ].
Regarding claim 12:
Khan in view of Fehrenbach discloses all features of claim 10, and –
Khan does not, but Fehrenbach further disclose one single bit indication that jointly indicates whether the CLI metric is below a threshold value for each of the plurality of DL sub-bands.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, teaches one bit per subband identifies compressed feedback “0” and is used in case of amount of interference, e.g., CLI metric, not causing a failure in subbands SB1 and SB2, e.g., jointly indicating CLI metric [0167, lines 1-12 in Fehrenbach].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit one single bit indication that jointly indicates whether the CLI metric is below a threshold value – from which, a a determination of failure can be derived for each of the plurality of DL sub-bands SB1 and SB2; thus allowing the receiver of this report to evaluate whether to use/ not use granted resources with associated CLI metrics [0148].
Therefore, Khan in view of Fehrenbach does disclose all features of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13:
Khan in view of Fehrenbach discloses all features of claim 10, and –
Khan further discloses:
receive a first indication of a configuration of a first set of resources for measuring the CLI metric for each of the plurality of DL sub-bands (receiving configuration of reference subbands with subset of time-frequency resources for measurement [0076]).
Regarding claim 14:
Khan in view of Fehrenbach discloses all features of claim 13, and –
Khan further discloses the UL transmission is a sounding reference signal (UL transmission from an aggressor WTRU [0125, lines 29-36], wherein UL transmission can be a sounding reference signal {SRS} [0076, lines 10-14]), and a second set of resources configured for the UL transmission (granted resources configured for transmissions from aggressor WTRU [0081, lines 30-36]) comprises any of:
a full bandwidth allocated for UL transmissions,
a sub-band of the full bandwidth allocated for the UL transmissions, or
a variable number of resource blocks within a set of resource blocks
allocated for the UL transmissions (resources are characterized by a set of resource blocks {RBs} [0092]).
Regarding claim 15:
Khan in view of Fehrenbach discloses all features of claim 10, and –
Khan further discloses transmitting an indication to gNB via one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 signaling (via L1 signaling [0079, lines 1-5] or via MAC CE, e.g., layer 2 signaling [0154, lines 1-5]).
Khan does not further disclose such indication can be a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such indication can be a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of sub-bands is transmitted (feedback information has one bit per subband in accordance with amount of interference [0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands via one or more of layer 1 or layer 2 signaling; thus efficiently signaling to transmitter feedback information, while reducing signaling overhead – resulted from reducing the number of bits [0167 in Fehrenbach].
Regarding claim 16:
Khan in view of Fehrenbach discloses all features of claim 10, and –
Khan further discloses the apparatus further comprises: at least one transceiver or at least one antenna coupled to the at least one processor (transceiver or antenna coupled to processor, elements 120, 122 and 118 in Fig.1B), wherein, to transmit the indication reporting the CLI metric for the at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the indication reporting the CLI metric for the at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands (reporting CLI-RSSI measurement for one, more, or all SBs [0126, lines 15-17]). based on one or more of periodic scheduling, aperiodic scheduling, semi-periodic scheduling, or a triggering event (based on periodic scheduling [0101, lines 12-14]), aperiodic scheduling ([0101, lines 12-14]), semi-periodic scheduling ([0101, lines 12-14]), or a triggering event (CLI reporting is triggered based on a delta-CLI-RSSI measurement being larger than a threshold [0125, lines 42-45]).
Khan does not further disclose receiving the single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for the at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands, the at least one processor is configured to receive the single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for the at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands via the at least one transceiver or the at least one antenna coupled to the at least one processor, and determining the indication is a single-bit indication.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving the single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for the at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands, the at least one processor is configured to receive the single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for the at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands via the at least one transceiver or the at least one antenna coupled to the at least one processor (receiving feedback on frequency bands, e.g., subbands, experiencing an amount of interference, [0018, lines 11-19]), and determining the indication includes a single bit (determining feedback information has one bit per subband in accordance with amount of interference [0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit and/or to receive a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands to/ from another node, and wherein such functionalities are performed by constituent elements: transceiver, antenna, and processors of a transmitting/ receiving device; thus improving communications performance between a transmitting and receiving device.
Regarding claim 21:
Khan discloses all features of claim 17, and –
Khan further discloses the information relating to the CLI metric for the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands further comprises a list indicating DL sub-bands in the subset of the plurality of DL sub-bands (constructing a list including interference measurement results in ordered reference subbands [0131]).
However, Khan does not further disclose the list can be arranged in a form of a bitmap.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the list is arranged in a form of a bitmap (SB 1 and SB2 with feedback “0”, e.g., in bitmap [0167, lines 1-12 and Fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to arrange DL sub-bands in the form of a bitmap with their corresponding CLI metrics; thus enabling a quick evaluation of DL subbands for operations, while reducing the signaling overhead.
Regarding claim 25:
Khan discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (gNB, element 180 in Fig.1D), comprising:
memory (non-removable memory, element 130 in Fig.1B); and
at least one processor (processor, element 118 in Fig.1B) coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
configure a first set of resources for a first user equipment (UE) to measure a cross link interference (CLI) metric in each of a plurality of downlink (DL) sub-bands configured for the first UE (configuring reference subbands via subset of time-frequency resources for measurement for WTRU [0076]), the CLI metric measuring CLI to DL reception at the first UE due to an uplink (UL) transmission from a second UE (CLI occurred between DL reception and UL transmission [0117, lines 2-6]), wherein DL reception is at victim WTRU, e.g., first UE, and UL transmission is from aggressor WTRU, e.g., second UE [0082, lines 1-6]).
Khan does not further disclose receiving a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands.
Fehrenbach, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving the single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for at least one DL sub-band in the plurality of sub-bands (receiving feedback on frequency bands, e.g., subbands, experiencing an amount of interference, [0018, lines 11-19]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to receive a single-bit indication reporting the CLI metric for one DL sub-band in the plurality of DL sub-bands; thus allowing the avoidance of certain subbands/ resource blocks {RB(s)} for communicating with WTRU [0111 in Khan].
Regarding claims 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30:
Claims 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 discloses all limitations of claim 25.
Claims 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 above, respectively, except that claims 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are recited from the perspective of a network node.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights