FINAL REJECTION
This Office action is responsive to the response filed January 20, 2026 (“Response”).
The instant 18/323,280 application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat. 10,716,077 B2 to Urabayashi (“the ‘077 Patent”), which issued July 14, 2020 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 16/052,399, filed August 1, 2018 as a continuation of PCT/JP2017/001185 filed January 16, 2017, and claiming foreign priority to JP2016-018856, filed February 3, 2016.
Claims 1-3 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application, claim 2 is canceled and claims 1 and 3 are amended. Thus claims 1 and 3 are pending.
This action is Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘077 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘077 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,716,077 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘077 Patent is deemed not to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Reissue Declaration
The declaration filed May 24, 2023 is objected to because of the following:
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Note that the statement that the patentee “claim[ed] more or less than he had the right to claim” is not a sufficient statement of error as such a statement is a separate requirement. MPEP § 1414 I. and II.
A new reissue declaration is required in response to this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a receiver for receiving information from a second base station. While the instant ‘077 Patent discloses a receiver in the BS, it is disclosed as a wireless receiver for communicating with a UE, not another BS. Communication from the second base station is disclosed as happening by way of backhaul communication unit 240 via an X2 or S1 interface. ‘077 Patent at 6:14-20 and 11:48-60. However, no receiver is specified. That being said, the Examiner considers a receiver to be inherent in such a backhaul communication unit, as such would be necessary in an X2 or S1 connection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The Examiner notes here that claim 1 recites a base station including a transmitter and receiver, and recites that the transmitter and receiver are configured to transmit and receive, respectively, information in the form of a signal. However, a transmitter and a receiver are both structural elements that merely transmit and receive signals irrespective of the content of said signals; that is to say, a transmitter merely transmits data and is agnostic as to the content, and the transmitter claimed here is not structurally different from a prior art transmitter. Thus given that claim 1 is an apparatus claim, any prior art reference teaching a base station comprising a transmitter and a receiver can be interpreted as reading on the claim as a prior art transmitter and receiver are capable of transmitting and receiving the specific signals described in the claims.
The Examiner will also be rejecting the claims in their entirety, in the name of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a base station, including a transmitter “configured to transmit to a user equipment that performs dual connectivity”. This is indefinite, as the claim is not towards a UE and it is unclear whether or not the functions of the UE are part of the scope of the claim, and it is unclear whether infringement would occur when one creates a base station with a transmitter and receiver or whether infringement occurs when a dual-connectivity UE is provided.
Likewise, claim 3 recites a method performed in a base station for communicating with a UE that performs dual connectivity. It is similarly unclear as to how the functions of the UE (here, performing dual connectivity) are to be read in a claim that is solely towards a method performed in a base station.
Claim Rejections - § 251
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being broadened in a reissue application filed outside the two year statutory period. A claim is broader in scope than the original claims if it contains within its scope any conceivable product or process which would not have infringed the original patent. A claim is broadened if it is broader in any one respect even though it may be narrower in other respects.
Here, Patent Owner amends claims 1 and 3 to remove the requirement of transmission, to the user equipment, first subcarrier information indicating the second subcarrier spacing applied in another cell, instead claiming merely the transmission of information indicating the second spacing without including the first subcarrier spacing information. Thus the claim is broadened.
However, this reissue application was filed May 24, 2023, almost three years after the July 14, 2020 issue date of the ‘077 Patent. A broadened reissue claim can only be presented within two years from the grant of the original patent. MPEP § 1412.036 IV.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2011/0170629A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses:
A first base station, comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit user data in a first cell using a first subcarrier spacing, the first cell being managed by the first base station;
and a receiver configured to receive from a second base station, information indicating a second subcarrier spacing applied in a second cell managed by the second base station,
wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit to a user equipment that performs dual connectivity with the first base station and the second base station, the information indicating the second subcarrier spacing applied in the second cell.
As noted above, a prior art transmitter in a base station reads on this limitation as, given that the transmitter is agnostic to the data being sent to it for transmission, it is capable of transmitting user data in the manner claimed.
To that end, Lee discloses a base station comprising a transmitter and a receiver. Lee at FIG 1 element 20 and ¶¶42-44.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 10,779,185B2 to Futaki et al. (“Futaki”)1 in view of U.S. Pat. 10,548,129B2 to Fwu et al. (“Fwu”).
As to claim 1, Futaki discloses:
A first base station,
Futaki discloses a first and second base station, 5 and 6. Futaki at FIG 8.
comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit user data in a first cell using a first subcarrier spacing, the first cell being managed by the first base station;
Futaki discloses that the first base station 5 is configured to transmit in a first cell that it manages. Futaki at FIG 3 and at 6:30-37, noting cells 21 and 22. As base station 5 is an LTE eNB, it transmits according to a first subcarrier spacing. This happens inherently utilizing a transmitter; see also FIG 15 which shows a LTE base station utilizing an LTE transceiver.
and a receiver configured to receive from a second base station, information indicating a second […] applied in a second cell managed by the second base station,
Futaki discloses the base station 5 may receive by way of an interface (reads receiver as a receiver is inherent in the interface for the same reason it is inherent in the instant disclosure as noted above) information indicating a second radio bearer applied in a second cell managed by a second base station 6. Futaki at 6:37-41 and FIG 8 steps 802 and 812, described at 11:4-57 . The second base station 6 may have a second, different subcarrier spacing. Id. at 16:37-41. Further, as base station 6 is a NR gNB and base station 5 is an LTE eNB, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that NR utilizes variable subcarrier spacings vs. LTE.
wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit to a user equipment that performs dual connectivity with the first base station and the second base station, the information indicating the […] applied in the second cell.
Futaki discloses transmitting (again inherently by way of the transmitter) to a UE configuration information indicating the second radio bearer applied in the second cell by the second base station. Futaki at 11:15-57. Futaki discloses that the UE performs dual connectivity with the two base stations. Id.
While as noted above, the two base stations may apply different subcarrier spacing by way of numerology, Futaki does not specify that the second subcarrier spacing is included in the indicating information sent by the first base station.
Fwu discloses in an analogous art, namely a combined 5G NR/LTE communications system, transmitting configuration information from a base station to a UE indicating which radio access technology a cell utilizes, where different subcarrier spacing may be included in the configuration information. This is because 5G systems utilize a plurality of RATs which may use a number of different subcarrier spacings. Fwu at 7:9-34 and 14:1-19, 38-45, and 58-15:3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add such information to the configuration information of Futaki. First, Futaki discloses providing 5G NR information from the LTE eNB to the UE, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that numerology in 5G may be different that that of LTE, including subcarrier spacing; this information would be important for the UE to know, as disclosed by Fwu. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to have been an example of merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 3, Futaki discloses:
A method used in a first base station,
Futaki discloses a first and second base station, 5 and 6. Futaki at FIG 8.
comprising: transmitting user data in a first cell using a first subcarrier spacing, the first cell being managed by the first base station;
Futaki discloses that the first base station 5 is configured to transmit in a first cell that it manages. Futaki at FIG 3 and at 6:30-37, noting cells 21 and 22. As base station 5 is an LTE eNB, it transmits according to a first subcarrier spacing.
receiving from a second base station, information indicating a second […] applied in a second cell managed by the second base station,
Futaki discloses the base station 5 may receive by way of an interface information indicating a second radio bearer applied in a second cell managed by a second base station 6. Futaki at 6:37-41 and FIG 8 steps 802 and 812, described at 11:4-57 . The second base station 6 may have a second, different subcarrier spacing. Id. at 16:37-41. Further, as base station 6 is a NR gNB and base station 5 is an LTE eNB, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that NR utilizes variable subcarrier spacings vs. LTE.
and transmitting to a user equipment that performs dual connectivity with the first base station and the second base station, the information indicating the […] applied in the second cell.
Futaki discloses transmitting to a UE configuration information indicating the second radio bearer applied in the second cell by the second base station. Futaki at 11:15-57. Futaki discloses that the UE performs dual connectivity with the two base stations. Id.
While as noted above, the two base stations may apply different subcarrier spacing by way of numerology, Futaki does not specify that the second subcarrier spacing is included in the indicating information sent by the first base station.
Fwu discloses in an analogous art, namely a combined 5G NR/LTE communications system, transmitting configuration information from a base station to a UE indicating which radio access technology a cell utilizes, where different subcarrier spacing may be included in the configuration information. This is because 5G systems utilize a plurality of RATs which may use a number of different subcarrier spacings. Fwu at 7:9-34 and 14:1-19, 14:38-45, and 14:58-15:3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add such information to the configuration information of Futaki. First, Futaki discloses providing 5G NR information from the LTE eNB to the UE, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that numerology in 5G may be different that that of LTE, including subcarrier spacing; this information would be important for the UE to know, as disclosed by Fwu. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to have been an example of merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/078771A1 to Agyapong et al. (“Agyapong”)2 in view of Fwu.
As to claim 1, Agyapong discloses:
A first base station,
Agyapong discloses a first and second base station. Agyapong at FIG 3 elements 100 and 104.
comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit user data in a first cell using a first subcarrier spacing, the first cell being managed by the first base station;
Agyapong discloses that the first base station 100 is configured to transmit in a first cell that it manages. Agyapong at FIG 1 and 1:19-25, noting cell 102. As base station 100 is an LTE eNB, it transmits according to a first subcarrier spacing. This happens inherently utilizing a transmitter.
and a receiver configured to receive from a second base station, information indicating a second […] applied in a second cell managed by the second base station,
Agyapong discloses the base station 100 may receive by way of a backhaul interface (reads receiver as a receiver is inherent in the interface for the same reason it is inherent in the instant disclosure as noted above) information indicating second cell information applied in a second cell managed by a second base station 104, including capabilities like carriers or bands supported, the radio access technology (RAT) supported, etc. Agyapong at 1:28-33 and 22:22-23:1. The second base station 104 may have its own subcarrier spacing. Id. at 18:21-28. Note that the claim does not specify that the second subcarrier spacing is different from the first subcarrier spacing.
wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit to a user equipment that performs dual connectivity with the first base station and the second base station, the information indicating the second subcarrier spacing applied in the second cell.
Agyapong discloses transmitting (again inherently by way of the transmitter) to a UE configuration information indicating the second cell controlled by the second base station, including the second cell’s second subcarrier spacing. Agyapong at 34:15-25 and 18:21-28. Agyapong discloses that the UE communicates with both base stations, which reads dual connectivity, as Agyapong discloses that the RATs may be different. Id. at 22:22-27.
Agyapong mentions that the second base station provides its capabilities to the first base station, including RAT information, but does not specify that the second subcarrier spacing is included in the information sent to the first base station.
Fwu discloses in an analogous art, namely a dual connectivity communications system, transmitting configuration information indicating which radio access technology a cell utilizes, where different subcarrier spacing may be included in the configuration information because each RAT has flexible subcarrier spacing. Fwu at Abstract, 7:9-34, 14:1-19, 14:38-45, and 147:58-15:3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the configuration information of Agyapong indicate a subcarrier spacing for the second cell as demonstrated by Fwu. First, Agyapong explicitly discloses transmitting second base station subcarrier spacing information from the first base station to the UE and the first base station requires the information of the second base station to do so. Further, Agyapong discloses that the second base station tells the first base station its RAT, and Fwu points out that different RATs may have different subcarrier spacing, and thus Agyapong’s communication from the second base station to the first base station specifying its RAT would be information indicating a second subcarrier spacing as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to have been an example of merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 3, Futaki discloses:
A method used in a first base station,
Agyapong discloses a first and second base station. Agyapong at FIG 3 elements 100 and 104.
comprising: transmitting user data in a first cell using a first subcarrier spacing, the first cell being managed by the first base station;
Agyapong discloses that the first base station 100 is configured to transmit in a first cell that it manages. Agyapong at FIG 1 and 1:19-25, noting cell 102. As base station 100 is an LTE eNB, it transmits according to a first subcarrier spacing.
receiving from a second base station, information indicating a second […] applied in a second cell managed by the second base station,
Agyapong discloses the base station 100 may receive by way of a backhaul interface information indicating second cell information applied in a second cell managed by a second base station 104, including capabilities like carriers or bands supported, the radio access technology (RAT) supported, etc. Agyapong at 1:28-33 and 22:22-23:1. The second base station 104 may have its own subcarrier spacing. Id. at 18:21-28. Note that the claim does not specify that the second subcarrier spacing is different from the first subcarrier spacing.
and transmitting to a user equipment that performs dual connectivity with the first base station and the second base station, the information indicating the second subcarrier spacing applied in the second cell.
Agyapong discloses transmitting to a UE configuration information indicating the second cell controlled by the second base station, including the second cell’s second subcarrier spacing. Agyapong at 34:15-25 and 18:21-28. Agyapong discloses that the UE communicates with both base stations, which reads dual connectivity, as Agyapong discloses that the RATs may be different. Id. at 22:22-27.
Agyapong mentions that the second base station provides its capabilities to the first base station, including RAT information, but does not specify that the second subcarrier spacing is included in the information sent to the first base station.
Fwu discloses in an analogous art, namely a dual connectivity communications system, transmitting configuration information indicating which radio access technology a cell utilizes, where different subcarrier spacing may be included in the configuration information because each RAT has flexible subcarrier spacing. Fwu at Abstract, 7:9-34, 14:1-19, 14:38-45, and 147:58-15:3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the configuration information of Agyapong indicate a subcarrier spacing for the second cell as demonstrated by Fwu. First, Agyapong explicitly discloses transmitting second base station subcarrier spacing information from the first base station to the UE and the first base station requires the information of the second base station to do so. Further, Agyapong discloses that the second base station tells the first base station its RAT, and Fwu points out that different RATs may have different subcarrier spacing, and thus Agyapong’s communication from the second base station to the first base station specifying its RAT would be information indicating a second subcarrier spacing as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to have been an example of merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner provides arguments in his Response of January 20, 2026 (“Remarks”).
As to claim interpretation (Remarks at 2), the Examiner notes that the transmitter and receiver of claim 1 are not being interpreted as invoking § 112(f), as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “transmitter” and “receiver” to be terms implying structure, and would further understand such structural elements to be sufficiently definite structure for performing the function of transmitting and receiving data, respectively. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner notes instead that structurally speaking, given that a transmitter and receiver are agnostic as to the content of the signal they transmit and receive, respectively, and the claim at issue does not describe the content of said signals in any particular functional manner (such as processing the received signal to obtain the transmitted one), that there is no difference between the claimed structures and those of a prior art base station transmitter and receiver merely because of the content of the data transmitted and received.
As to the rejection under § 112(b) (Remarks at 2), the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive. The Examiner notes that steps performed by the UE are not only outside of the scope of a structural claim solely towards a first base station, especially as the steps claimed are in regards to the UE communicating with another, second base station. The Examiner further notes that the lack of any such rejection in the original prosecution of the instant Patent does not limit the Office in making a rejection under § 112 in the instant reissue.
As to the rejection under § 251 (broadening) (Remarks at 3), the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive. The claims as issued required the transmission of first subcarrier spacing information. The claims further recite that the first subcarrier spacing is the subcarrier spacing of the first base station. Claims 1 and 3 at 2. As such, given the antecedent basis of the claim, the limitation “first subcarrier spacing information” of issued claims 1 and 3 is interpreted as information as to the aforementioned first subcarrier spacing i.e. the first subcarrier spacing of the first base station, wherein the information further indicates the second subcarrier spacing of the second cell. As now the claim is amended to merely recite transmitting only the indication of the second subcarrier spacing of the second cell, the claim is broadened.
As to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under § 103 (Remarks at 3-7), the Examiner finds Patent Owner’s arguments not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
As to Futaki in view of Fwu, Patent Owner argues primarily as to Fwu disclosing providing subcarrier spacing for cells within a single eNB. However, the Examiner notes that primary reference Futaki clearly discloses two eNBs wherein the first receives information from the second by way of a backhaul connection, the received information as to the second cell capabilities and wherein the second cell may have different numerology including subcarrier spacing, and the first eNB transmitting information about the second cell to the UE including subcarrier spacing information. Agyapong is similar in that it describes the same steps above.
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 Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. 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.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 Futaki is prior art under § 102(a)(2) based on PCT/JP2016/087329 with a filing date of December 15, 2016 and JP2016-002878, with a filing date of January 8, 2016.
2 Agyapong is provided in the Information Disclosure Statement of August 14, 2025. Based on its publication date of June 4, 2015, it is prior art under § 102(a)(1).