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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025-10-16 and 2026-03-12 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The title has been amended to include additional specificity. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-01-07 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as detailed below.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues that Shukair fails to disclose “determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information” because Shukair’s detection of a procedure on a telecommunications network is based on “‘the reception or transmission of messages exchanged between the UE and the telecommunications network,’ rather than based on a RAT of a serving cell or IMS voice call type information (if any)” (Remarks, p.9, emphasis in original).
However, applicant does not explain how “based on the reception or transmission of messages exchanged between the UE and the telecommunications network” is mutually exclusive to “based on a RAT of a serving cell or IMS voice call type information”. Applicant’s published specification reads, in part: “802.11-based wireless communications (Wi-Fi), third-generation wireless (3G), fourth-generation wireless (4G), Long Term Evolution (LTE), and fifth-generation wireless (5G) are examples of existing radio access technologies (RATs) that have corresponding standards that dictate how communications are performed therewith. These RATs, as well as newly developed RATs and standards, support Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) and/or Short Message Service (SMS) communications between corresponding devices” (¶0023, emphasis added). In Shukair, method 900 for providing wireless communications over a telecommunications network begins with step 910, detecting, at a user equipment, a procedure executed on a network (Fig. 9 and ¶¶0091-0092). The detected procedure may be “an LTE procedure including the exchange of one or more data packets, such as but not limited to … VoLTE Call Setup, … IMS registration, and LTE attach” (¶0092, emphasis added).
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Shukair discloses a method, comprising: determining (Fig. 9, step 910, Detecting, at a user equipment, a procedure executed on a network) whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure (¶0092, VoLTE Call Setup) based on a RAT of the serving cell (¶0092, VoLTE Call Setup, LTE attach) and IMS voice call type information (¶0092, IMS registration).
Further regarding claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues that “Shukair fails to consider a possibility of ‘redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information’, and thus is silent on not to send the measurement report ‘when redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility’ as presently claimed” (Remarks, p.9).
Examiner notes that the claim language merely requires the selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information when redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility, i.e., the claim language does not require the selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information as a result of a determination that redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility. Shukair discloses that “the UE may delay transmitting a measurement report to the source AP” (Fig. 9, step 960, and ¶0101); one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of a measurement report information is a possibility (see also Fig. 9, step 930, and ¶¶0095-0096).
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Shukair discloses selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information occurs when redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility.
Furthermore, Shukair discloses: detection of “one or more handover events indicative of one or more handover procedures that transition the UE from the source AP to a target AP. In some embodiments, the UE may detect, at the receiver, one or more handover events including, but are not limited to, measurement events (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, etc.))” (Fig. 9, step 930, and ¶0095), i.e., Shukair discloses detection of condition(s) that indicate redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility; and, subsequently, delaying the handover procedure (e.g., transmission of the measurement report) to prevent interruption of a qualifying procedure (¶0101, “the UE checks if the procedure is a qualifying procedure and prevents or delays the handover procedure by preventing the exchange of one or more messages between the UE and source AP configured to effectuate the handover. For example, the UE may delay transmitting a measurement report to the source AP”), wherein “a procedure executed by the UE may be preselected as a ‘qualifying procedure’ where such a procedure may be preselected as to be completed prior to executing a handover procedure in accordance with the disclosure herein. In some aspects, a qualifying procedure may be a procedure to be executed prior to interference from another procedure, for example, a handover procedure. Some qualifying procedure types include, but are not limited to, CSFB, CSFB-WCDMA, CSFB-1x, CSFB-GERAN, TAU, VoLTE call Setup, UE capability information, radio link failure (RLF) count inquiry, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) registration, and LTE attach” (¶0084).
Thus, Shukair discloses selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information occurs when redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant argues that Shukair fails to disclose “determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information” because Shukair’s detection of a procedure on a telecommunications network is based on “‘the reception or transmission of messages exchanged between the UE and the telecommunications network,’ rather than based on a RAT of a serving cell or IMS voice call type information (if any)” (Remarks, p.9, emphasis in original). Please see the discussion regarding this argument and Claims 1 and 9 above.
Further regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that “Shukair cannot detect the procedure based on receipt of a handover configuration or handover command, because at the time of detection, no such configuration or command has been received. Therefore, Shukair fails to disclose ‘pursuant to receipt of a handover instruction, determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information’” (Remarks, pp.11-12) and that Shukair indicates that “detection of the [VoIP call setup] procedure proceeds (sic) ‘transmission of a handover configuration or the handover command’, which can also be seen from the order of block 960 of detecting a procedure and block 910 of delaying all handover procedures” (Remarks, p. 11).
However, as noted in the previous office action, Shukair discloses that “although blocks may be described as occurring in a certain order, the blocks can be reordered” (¶0091); thus, the handover instruction (Fig. 9, block 930, and ¶0095) may occur prior to the determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure (Fig. 9, block 910, and ¶0092).
Thus, Shukair discloses pursuant to receipt of a handover instruction, determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information.
Further regarding Claim 16, Applicant argues that “Lin is silent as to determining whether the terminal device transmitted a measurement report prior to receipt of an early handover command” (Remarks, p.13).
However, Lin discloses “S42. The base station 1 sends an early handover command to the terminal device through the serving cell, and the terminal device receives the early handover command. The early handover command is used to instruct the terminal device to determine whether to perform cell handover. In other words, the terminal device knows, based on the early handover command, that the terminal device needs to determine whether to perform conditional handover” (Lin, Fig. 4 and ¶¶0128-0129, emphasis added). Thus, Lin discloses that the terminal device determines that it must determine whether to perform conditional handover (i.e., obtain measurement report) based on receiving the early handover command; in other words, the terminal device determines, based on receiving the early handover command, that it hasn’t already been determined that it needs to perform a conditional handover. As shown in Fig. 4, the device later performs S45, obtain a measurement report, which is used in determining whether to perform the handover (please also see Lin, ¶¶0049-0050; ¶¶0140-0143; and Fig. 6 and ¶¶0190-0196).
Thus, Lin discloses determining whether the terminal device transmitted a measurement report prior to receipt of an early handover command.
Further regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that “Shukair fails to disclose ‘ignoring the handover instruction and continue with the VoIP call setup procedure’” because “in Shukair, ‘the UE may not receive the handover configuration and/or a handover command from the telecommunications network,’ which makes it impossible for Shukair to ignore ‘the handover configuration and/or a handover command,’ as no such configuration or command is ever received,” citing Shukair, ¶0090 (Remarks, p.14, emphasis in original).
However, Shukair discloses: “At block 930, the UE detects one or more handover events indicative of one or more handover procedures that transition the UE from the source AP to a target AP … In some embodiments, the UE may detect a handover event by receiving a handover configuration request transmitted to the UE due to a mobility event, where the UE is moving between geographic regions served by different APs (e.g., an intra-RAT handover). In other aspects, the handover configuration requests are transmitted due to a transition of the UE from a first RAN to a second RAN (e.g., an IRAT handover)” (Fig. 9, block 930, and ¶0095, emphasis added); and “At block 960, the UE can delay any handover procedure, including all handover procedures, for a predefined time…” (Fig. 9, block 960, and ¶0101).
Thus, Shukair discloses ignoring the handover instruction and continue with the VoIP call setup procedure.
Thus, the rejections are maintained. Additionally, the amendment cancelled the following limitation from independent claims 1 and 9: “wherein selective enablement of the transmission of the measurement report information depends upon a further determination that a serving cell currently serving the UE fails to meet a stability threshold”; thus, claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 15 are now rejected under 35 USC § 102(a) and (b) as being anticipated by Shukair et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0055197 to Shukair et al. (“Shukair”).
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 9), Shukair discloses a method (Fig. 9 and ¶0090-103), comprising: determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information (Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0090 and ¶0092); upon a determination that the UE is performing a VoIP call setup, selectively disabling transmission of measurement report information to a network in which the UE is operating until the VoIP call setup procedure is complete (Fig. 9, block 960; ¶0090 and ¶0101-2); and wherein selective disablement of the transmission of the measurement report information occurs when redirection or handover of the UE pursuant to the transmission of the measurement report information is a possibility (Fig. 9, block 960; ¶0090 and ¶0101-3; please also see Fig. 9, step 930, ¶¶0095-0096, and ¶0084).
Shukair also discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 3 and ¶0042-46, UE 350), comprising: a processor (Fig. 3 and ¶0042-46, processors 360, 370, 394, 390, 382, and/or 380); and a memory unit including computer code (Fig. 3 and ¶0042-46, memory 392 and measurement reporting module 391) that when executed causes the processor to perform the above method. Thus, claim 9 is similarly rejected.
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claim 10), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the VoIP call setup procedure comprises one of a voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call setup procedure, a voice over new radio (VoNR) call setup procedure, or an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback call setup procedure (Shukair, Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0092).
As to claim 3 (and similarly applied to claim 11), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising re-enabling the transmission of the measurement report information upon completion of the VoIP call setup procedure (Shukair, Fig. 9 and ¶0102, "the UE may determine to delay the handover procedure, and permit the handover procedure to be executed following the completion of the qualifying procedure").
As to claim 7 (and similarly applied to claim 15), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the UE is performing a VoIP call setup procedure comprises detecting VoIP call setup messages or operations involving the UE (Shukair, Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0092).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0055197 to Shukair et al. (“Shukair”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0352492 to Dang et al. (“Dang”).
As to claim 4 (and similarly applied to claim 12), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1.
Shukair does not disclose: wherein the measurement report information comprises series A-type events and series B-type events.
However, Dang discloses: wherein the measurement report information comprises series A-type events and series B-type events (Dang, Fig. 3 and ¶0157-8).
Shukair and Dang are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: hand-off or reselection arrangements, control for completing hand-off, and/or determination of parameters used for hand-off, e.g. hand-off measurements, scheduling of hand-off measurements, and/or resource reservation for handover; and/or scheduling and/or transmission of hand-off measurement information, e.g. measurement reports. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shukair to incorporate the teachings of Dang to include: wherein the measurement report information comprises series A-type events and series B-type events. Doing so would "[ensure] a smooth handover of the user equipment from the serving cell to another cell" (Dang, ¶0022).
As to claim 5 (and similarly applied to claim 13), Shukair in view of Dang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the measurement report information comprises measured parameter values corresponding to one or more of the series A-type events and series B-type events (Dang, Fig. 3 and ¶0157-166).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0208267 to Jung et al. (“Jung”).
As to claim 6 (and similarly applied to claim 14), Shukair discloses the method of claim 1.
Shukair does not disclose: wherein the measurement report information comprises an entirety of information captured in a measurement report.
However, Jung discloses: wherein the measurement report information comprises an entirety of information captured in a measurement report (Fig. 8, step S834; and ¶0185).
Shukair and Jung are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: hand-off or reselection arrangements, control for completing hand-off, and/or determination of parameters used for hand-off, e.g. hand-off measurements, scheduling of hand-off measurements, and/or resource reservation for handover; and/or scheduling and/or transmission of hand-off measurement information, e.g. measurement reports. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shukair to incorporate the teachings of Jung to include: wherein the measurement report information comprises an entirety of information captured in a measurement report. Doing so would "[allow] a UE to perform a measurement and to report a result thereof" (Jung, ¶0167), and "time and cost required for the network optimization [could] be minimized" (Jung, ¶0168).
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0059847 to Lin et al. (“Lin”).
As to claim 16, Shukair discloses method (Fig. 9 and ¶0090-103), comprising: pursuant to receipt of a handover instruction (¶0091, "Although blocks may be described as occurring in a certain order, the blocks can be reordered"), determining whether a user equipment (UE) is performing a voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) call setup procedure based on a RAT of the serving cell and IMS voice call type information (Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0090 and ¶0092); and…ignoring the handover instruction and continue with the VoIP call setup procedure (Fig. 9, block 960; ¶0090 and ¶0101-2).
Shukair does not disclose: further determining whether the UE transmitted a measurement report prior to receipt of the handover instruction; upon a determination that no measurement report was transmitted by the UE.
However, Lin discloses: further determining whether the UE transmitted a measurement report prior to receipt of the handover instruction; upon a determination that no measurement report was transmitted by the UE (Fig. 4, S42-S45; ¶0128-133; please also see ¶¶0049-0050; ¶¶0140-0143; and Fig. 6 and ¶¶0190-0196).
Shukair and Lin are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: hand-off or reselection arrangements, control for completing hand-off, and/or determination of parameters used for hand-off, e.g. hand-off measurements, scheduling of hand-off measurements, and/or resource reservation for handover; and/or scheduling and/or transmission of hand-off measurement information, e.g. measurement reports. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shukair to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include: further determining whether the UE transmitted a measurement report prior to receipt of the handover instruction; upon a determination that no measurement report was transmitted by the UE. Doing so would allow "efficiency of performing cell handover by the terminal device [to be] improved" (Lin, ¶0012).
As to claim 17, Shukair in view of Lin discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the VoIP call setup procedure comprises one of a voice over long term evolution (VoLTE) call setup procedure, a voice over new radio (VoNR) call setup procedure, or an evolved packet system (EPS) fallback call setup procedure (Shukair, Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0092).
As to claim 20, Shukair in view of Lin discloses the method of claim 16, wherein determining whether the UE is performing a VoIP call setup procedure comprises detecting VoIP call setup messages or operations involving the UE (Shukair, Fig. 9, block 910; and ¶0092).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukair in view of Lin and further in view of Dang.
As to claim 18, Shukair in view of Lin discloses the method of claim 16.
Shukair in view of Lin does not disclose: wherein the measurement report comprises series A-type events and series B-type events.
However, Dang discloses: wherein the measurement report comprises series A-type events and series B-type events (Fig. 3 and ¶0157-8).
Shukair, Lin, and Dang are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: hand-off or reselection arrangements, control for completing hand-off, and/or determination of parameters used for hand-off, e.g. hand-off measurements, scheduling of hand-off measurements, and/or resource reservation for handover; and/or scheduling and/or transmission of hand-off measurement information, e.g. measurement reports. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shukair in view of Lin to incorporate the teachings of Dang to include: wherein the measurement report comprises series A-type events and series B-type events. Doing so would "[ensure] a smooth handover of the user equipment from the serving cell to another cell" (Dang, ¶0022).
As to claim 19, Shukair in view of Lin and further in view of Dang discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the measurement report comprises measured parameter values corresponding to one or more of the series A-type events and series B- type events (Dang, Fig. 3 and ¶0157-166).
References Cited
Dang, Shujun et al. (2018). Cell signal strength prediction method, cell signal strength reporting method, and user equipment (US 2018/0352492 A1). Filed 2015-10-29.
Jung, Sunghoon et al. (2015). Measurement report method in wireless communication system and apparatus for supporting same (US 2015/0208267 A1). Filed 2013-08-05.
Lin, Bo et al. (2020). Cell handover method, method for determining uplink transmit power, and apparatus (US 2020/0059847 A1). Filed 2019-10-25.
Shukair, Mutaz Zuhier Afif et al. (2017). Methods and apparatus for reducing handover signaling during wireless communication procedures (US 2017/0055197 A1). Filed 2015-08-21.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bernhard et al. (2008). Selecting a target cell for a blind handover (US 20080102834 A1). Filed 2006-10-31.
Bernhard et al. (2008). Selecting a handover algorithm (US 20080101311 A1). Filed 2006-10-31.
Cheng, Peng (2024). Techniques for indicating a frequency band during blind handover (US 20240015613 A1). Filed 2020-10-08.
Dalsgaard et al. (2015). Delivery of measurements (US 20150382221 A1). Filed 2013-03-01.
Dalsgaard et al. (2015). Inhibiting the transmission of measurement reports from a ue when a ue is in an inactive mode and applies drx (US 2015/0365859 A1). Filed 2013-01-18.
Furuskog, Johan (2018). Reference signal tracking in a wireless communication system (US 2018/0109297). Filed 2017-05-24.
Hamalainen, Seppo et al. (2005). Control of interfrequency handovers (US 20050277415 A1). Filed 2005-05-26.
Jeon, Jeongho et al. (2022). Handover reliability enhancement in wireless communication (US 2022/0124580 A1). Filed 2021-10-11.
Jeong, Kyeong In et al. (2013). Method and device for performing and controlling user equipment measurement in multiple carrier aggregated mobile communication system (US 2013/0051274 A1). Filed 2011-05-04.
Latheef, Fasil Abdul et al. (2020). Method and apparatus for executing conditional handover in wireless communication network (US 2020/0351744 A1). Filed 2020-03-30.
Lu, Qianxi et al. (2022). Method and device for conditional handover (US 2022/0007244 A1). Filed 2021-09-21.
Mok, Youngjoong et al. (2020). Method and device for changing wireless path in wireless communication system (US 2020/0128470 A1). Filed 2018-03-23.
Park, Soon Gi et al. (2016). Method and apparatus of mobility management in small cell environment (US 2016/0007243 A1). Filed 2014-08-08.
Sun, Yanliang et al. (2022). Cell camping method, device, and system (US 2022/0240133 A1). Filed 2022-04-08.
Sarkar, Debasish et al. (2016). Intelligence in handover assessment for lte/volte calls to improve retainability (US 9,253,704 B1). Filed 2014-09-25.
Viering, Ingo et al. (2023). Variable time-to-trigger value for transmission of measurement report for wireless networks (US 2023/0199590 A1). Filed 2020-05-05.
Vikberg, Jari et al. (2011). Returning user equipment to a source radio access network (US 20110188468 A1). Filed 2010-02-02.
Wen, Yongming (2014). Blind handover or blind redirection method and system (US 20140228029 A1). Filed 2011-12-14.
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649