DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 1-2, 4, 15 and 20 have been amended.
4. Claims 8 and 13-14 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 15-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on April 21, 2026.
Response to Arguments
7. The applicant's arguments filed on April 21, 2026 regarding claims 1-7, 9-12 and 15-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims. A response is considered necessary for applicant’s arguments/remarks since the cited reference, Zhu will continue to be used to meet amended limitations.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, applicant argued that Zhu fails to teach the amended features of claims 1 and 20. Applicant stated Zhu fails to disclose that the conditions for initiating random access in claim 1 include that "beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets" and "beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled" and therefore, Zhu does not disclose the claimed condition that "beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets" as defined by the claim, namely that "beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled for any one of the at least two BFD-RS sets." (Applicant, page 7-9, Remarks Made in an Amendment dated April 21, 2026).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. [Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well].
As a support of evidence, Zhu discloses:
“For another example, for S_q0/G_q0=2, consider that the UE has detected/declared beam failure for the BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), i.e., the radio link quality for the BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1) is below the corresponding BFD threshold or the maximum number of BFI count associated with the BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1) is achieved/reached before the expiration of the BFD timer associated with the BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1). In this case, before the UE sends to the network the PUCCH-SR for BFR to request beam failure recovery for the failed BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), if the UE could detect/declare beam failure for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), i.e., the radio link quality for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is below the corresponding BFD threshold or the maximum number of BFI count associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is achieved/reached before the expiration of the BFD timer associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), the UE could trigger/initiate a CFRA or CBRA based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request for both BFD RS beam sets q0-0 and q0-1. The UE could be configured by the network to use either the CFRA or the CBRA based transmission to send the beam failure recovery request” (paragraph [0450]).
A clear interpretation of the limitation is that which states the following: “beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets includes: beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets and beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled for any one of the at least two BFD-RS sets”.
Accordingly, Zhu discloses that before the UE sends to the network the PUCCH-SR for BFR to request beam failure recovery for the failed BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), if the UE could detect/declare beam failure for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), the UE could trigger/initiate a CFRA or CBRA based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request for both BFD RS beam sets q0-0 and q0-1 i.e. beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled for any one of the at least two BFD-RS sets.
In the context of the pending limitation is reasonably interpreted to paragraph [0450] of cited prior art Zhu as “beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets includes: beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets and beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled for any one of the at least two BFD-RS sets”. Clearly, cited prior art-Zhu teaches the claim feature.
The applicant further argued that claim 17 includes: wherein the configuration information is information for configuring at least two BFD-RS sets to the terminal equipment and claim 17 also is non-obvious over the references (Applicant, page 8, Remarks Made in an Amendment dated April 21, 2026).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
As a support of evidence, Zhu discloses:
“For the multi-TRP system, the UE could also be explicitly configured by the network (e.g., via higher layer RRC signaling) S_q0 (1≤S_q0≤maxS_q0) BFD RS beam sets each containing N_q0 (1≤N_q0≤maxN_q0) BFD RSs, where maxS_q0 is the maximum number of BFD RS beam sets (e.g., maxS_q0=2 per BWP), which could be indicated/configured by the network to the UE via RRC or/and MAC CE or/and DCI based signaling or autonomously determined by the UE and reported to the network as a UE capability/feature signaling or both, and maxN_q0 is the maximum number of BFD RSs per BFD RS beam set (e.g., maxN_q0=2), which could be indicated/configured by the network to the UE via RRC or/and MAC CE or/and DCI based signaling or autonomously determined by the UE and reported to the network as a UE capability/feature signaling or both; the quantity N_q0 could be the same or different across the S_q0 BFD RS beam sets; each BFD RS could correspond to a 1-port CSI-RS resource configuration index or a SSB index or other types of SSB/CSI-RS” (paragraph [0107]).
“The UE could receive from the network an indication to differentiate between the primary TRP and the secondary TRP(s) in a multi-TRP system; this indication could be via higher layer (RRC) or/and MAC CE or/and DCI based signaling; this indication could be via a separate (dedicated) parameter or joint with another parameter. In one example, the UE could be higher layer configured by the network (e.g., via higher layer RRC parameter) the PCI value(s)/TRPIDvalue(s)/CORESETPoolIndexvalue(s)/CORESETGroupIndex value(s)/other higher layer TRP-specific ID/index value(s) for the primary TRP and/or the secondary TRP(s). In another example, the UE could be first higher layer configured by the network (e.g., via higher layer RRC parameter) a list/set/pool of PCI values/TRP ID values/CORESETPoolIndex values/CORESETGroupIndex values/other higher layer TRP-specific ID/index values corresponding to the primary TRP and the secondary TRP(s) in the multi-TRP system. The UE could then receive from the network a MAC CE command activating the primary TRP and/or one or more secondary TRPs. Alternatively, the UE could receive from the network a bitmap indicating the primary TRP and/or one or more secondary TRPs. In yet another example, the UE could also receive the indication (e.g., a flag indicator) to differentiate between the primary TRP and/or the secondary TRP(s) along with the configuration of the BFD RS(s)/BFD RS beam set(s)” (paragraph [0425]).
Clearly, Zhou teaches the claim feature “the configuration information is information for configuring at least two BFD-RS sets to the terminal equipment”.
Therefore, in view of above, while Applicant’s remarks and arguments have been considered, they are not persuasive. The dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, 15-16 and 19 are not patentable according to the solid prior art teachings.
Claim Objections (minor informalities)
8. Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites:
“The apparatus according to claim 8,…”.
Claim 8 has been cancelled based on the claim amendment filed on April 21, 2023 and it appears that “The apparatus according to claim 8…” is “typological error” for “The apparatus according to claim 1…”.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites:
“The apparatus according to claim 8,…”.
Claim 8 has been cancelled based on the claim amendment filed on April 21, 2023 and it appears that “The apparatus according to claim 8…” is “typological error” for “The apparatus according to claim 1…”.
Appropriate corrections are requested. For the purpose of examinations, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2022/0132517 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers 63/105,133 field on October 13, 2020, 63/139,110 field on January 19, 2021, and 63/179,752 field on April 26, 2021), hereinafter “Zhu”.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a beam failure processing apparatus, applicable to a terminal equipment (Figs. 1, 6A-6B, beam failure recovery in a wireless communication system), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive (Figs. 2-3, example of hardware implementation according to embodiments of the present disclosure) configuration information transmitted by a network device (paragraphs [0107], [0425], configuration of the BFD RS(s)/BFD RS beam set(s)), the configuration information configuring at least two beam failure detection reference signal sets (BFD-RS sets) for the terminal equipment (paragraphs [0107], [0425], higher layer RRC signaling S_q0 (1≤S_q0≤maxS_q0) BFD RS beam sets each containing N_q0 (1≤N_q0≤maxN_q0) BFD RSs, where maxS_q0 is the maximum number of BFD RS beam sets (e.g., maxS_q0=2 per BWP)); and
a processor configured to initiate (Figs. 2-3, example of hardware implementation according to embodiments of the present disclosure), when beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets and the at least two BFD-RS sets (paragraphs [0424]-[0425], [0428], [0447], BFR more than one TRP-specific or per TRP beam failure events simultaneously or within a time window) are associated with a cell (paragraphs [0424]-[0425], [0428], [0447], BFR procedure for the corresponding cell), a random access procedure on the cell (paragraphs [0424]-[0425], [0428], [0447], RACH-based BFR procedure triggered for the cell),
wherein beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets includes: beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets and beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled for any one of the at least two BFD-RS sets (paragraph [0450], before the UE sends to the network the PUCCH-SR for BFR to request beam failure recovery for the failed BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), if the UE could detect/declare beam failure for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), i.e., the radio link quality for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is below the corresponding BFD threshold or the maximum number of BFI count associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is achieved/reached before the expiration of the BFD timer associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), the UE could trigger/initiate a CFRA or CBRA based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request for both BFD RS beam sets q0-0 and q0-1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu discloses the at least two BFD-RS sets are associated with a downlink bandwidth part (DL BWP) of the cell (paragraph [0107], number of BFD-RS beam sets are associated with DL BWP).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses when the terminal equipment is not configured with cell-specific BFD and/or cell-specific BFR, the processor initiates a random access procedure on the cell (paragraphs [0322], [0424], [0447], RACH based BFR procedure not configured with cell-specific BFD and/or cell-specific BFR).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses the cell is a special cell (SpCell) (paragraph [0428], RACH based BFR procedure triggered for SpCell).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu discloses the configuration information containing set indices of at least two BFD-RS set or at least two control resource pool indices, wherein one control resource pool index is associated with one BFD-RS set (paragraphs [0120], [0122], configured beam sets associated with TRP or TRP-specific index/ID values such as PCI or CORESETPoolIndex).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu discloses the at least two BFD-RS sets are associated with the cell comprises that at least two BFD-RS sets are associated with the same cell (paragraph [0428], BFD RS(s)/BFD RS beam set(s) associated with the primary TRP, the RACH-based BFR procedure could be triggered for the cell (e.g., a PCell or a SpCell)).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu discloses beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets includes beam failure recovery is triggered simultaneously for the at least two BFD-RS sets (paragraph [0447], UE could only configure a single MAC entity for multi-TRP BFR, which is the TRP-specific/per TRP BFR MAC entity (shown on the RHS in FIG. 12); in this case, the MAC entity for conventional cell-specific BFR (e.g., the BFD counter, timer and etc.) is no longer configured; hence, the UE could only be able to declare the beam failure event on a per TRP basis; Under certain settings, initiating/triggering the TRP-specific or per TRP BFR procedure could become inefficient; hence, if the UE has detected more than one TRP-specific or per TRP beam failure events simultaneously or within a time window, the UE would trigger a conventional cell-specific BFR for the multi-TRP system rather than multiple independent/separate TRP-specific/per TRP BFR procedures; that is, if the UE has declared beam failures for all the configured BFD RS beam sets within the time window, the UE could initiate/trigger a RACH based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu discloses the number of related indices of each of the at least two BFD-RS sets received within a first predetermined time is greater than or equal to a configured threshold (paragraphs [0214], [0447], beam failures of configured BFD RS beam set within the time window).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses the beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets includes: beam failure recovery is triggered non-simultaneously for the at least two BFD-RS sets (paragraph [0450], before the UE sends to the network the PUCCH-SR for BFR to request beam failure recovery for the failed BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), if the UE could detect/declare beam failure for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), i.e., the radio link quality for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is below the corresponding BFD threshold or the maximum number of BFI count associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is achieved/reached before the expiration of the BFD timer associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), the UE could trigger/initiate a CFRA or CBRA based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request for both BFD RS beam sets q0-0 and q0-1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu discloses when beam failure recovery is triggered on a latter BFD-RS set, a triggered BFR is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled on a former BFD-RS set the beam failure recovery is triggered (paragraph [0450], before the UE sends to the network the PUCCH-SR for BFR to request beam failure recovery for the failed BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), if the UE could detect/declare beam failure for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), i.e., the radio link quality for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is below the corresponding BFD threshold or the maximum number of BFI count associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is achieved/reached before the expiration of the BFD timer associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), the UE could trigger/initiate a CFRA or CBRA based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request for both BFD RS beam sets q0-0 and q0-1).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu discloses an information transmitting apparatus, applicable to a network device (Figs. 1, 6A-6B, beam failure recovery in a wireless communication system), the apparatus comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit configuration information to a terminal equipment (paragraphs [0107], [0425], configuration of the BFD RS(s)/BFD RS beam set(s)),
wherein the configuration information is information for configuring at least two BFD-RS sets to the terminal equipment (paragraphs [0107], [0425], higher layer RRC signaling S_q0 (1≤S_q0≤maxS_q0) BFD RS beam sets each containing N_q0 (1≤N_q0≤maxN_q0) BFD RSs, where maxS_q0 is the maximum number of BFD RS beam sets (e.g., maxS_q0=2 per BWP)).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu discloses a communication system (Figs. 1, 6A-6B, beam failure recovery in a wireless communication system), comprising
a terminal equipment (Figs. 1,2-3, 6A-6B); and
a network device (Figs. 1,2-3, 6A-6B) configured to transmit configuration information, to the terminal equipment, the configuration information configuring at least two beam failure detection reference signal sets (BFD-RS sets) for the terminal equipment (paragraphs [0107], [0425], higher layer RRC signaling S_q0 (1≤S_q0≤maxS_q0) BFD RS beam sets each containing N_q0 (1≤N_q0≤maxN_q0) BFD RSs, where maxS_q0 is the maximum number of BFD RS beam sets (e.g., maxS_q0=2 per BWP)),
wherein the terminal equipment is further configured to initiate (Figs. 2-3, example of hardware implementation according to embodiments of the present disclosure), when beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets and the at least two BFD-RS sets are associated with a cell (paragraphs [0424]-[0425], [0428], [0447], BFR more than one TRP-specific or per TRP beam failure events simultaneously or within a time window), a random access procedure on the cell (paragraphs [0424]-[0425], [0428], [0447], RACH-based BFR procedure triggered for the cell),
wherein beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets includes: beam failure recovery is triggered for the at least two BFD-RS sets and beam failure recovery procedure is not successfully completed and/or is not cancelled for any one of the at least two BFD-RS sets (paragraph [0450], before the UE sends to the network the PUCCH-SR for BFR to request beam failure recovery for the failed BFD RS beam set q0-0 (or q0-1), if the UE could detect/declare beam failure for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), i.e., the radio link quality for the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is below the corresponding BFD threshold or the maximum number of BFI count associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0) is achieved/reached before the expiration of the BFD timer associated with the other BFD RS beam set q0-1 (or q0-0), the UE could trigger/initiate a CFRA or CBRA based transmission to send to the network the beam failure recovery request for both BFD RS beam sets q0-0 and q0-1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2022/0132517 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers 63/105,133 field on October 13, 2020, 63/139,110 field on January 19, 2021, and 63/179,752 field on April 26, 2021), hereinafter “Zhu” in view of Yi et al. (US 2020/0350972 A1), hereinafter “Yi”.
Regarding claim 6, Zhu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “the configuration information includes radio link monitoring configuration information, the configuration information being carried by BWP DL dedicated information”.
However, Yi from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the configuration information includes radio link monitoring configuration information (paragraphs [0325], [0335], beam failure detecting (RadioLinkMonitoringRS in the IE RadioLinkMonitoringConfig)), the configuration information being carried by BWP DL dedicated information (paragraphs [0325], [0335], higher layer parameter failureDetectionResources (e.g., beam recovery RSs) for a downlink BWP (of configured downlink BWPs)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the configuration information includes radio link monitoring configuration information, the configuration information being carried by BWP DL dedicated information” as taught by Yi, in the system of Zhu, so that it would provide enabling beam failure recovery in multicarrier communication systems relate to radio access networks (Yi, paragraph [0036]).
14. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2022/0132517 A1; support for the cited paragraphs sporadically through the disclosures of provisional application numbers 63/105,133 field on October 13, 2020, 63/139,110 field on January 19, 2021, and 63/179,752 field on April 26, 2021), hereinafter “Zhu” in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2023/0413080 A1), hereinafter “Matsumura”.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Zhu does not explicitly disclose “the receiver is further configured to receive downlink control information (DCI) transmitted by the network device, the DCI comprising a toggled new data indicator (NDI), and the processor is further configured to control to cancel the triggered BFR and/or stop the ongoing random access procedure when DCI of the toggled NDI schedules an Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) identical to a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) carrying a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE)”.
However, Matsumura from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the receiver is further configured to receive downlink control information (DCI) transmitted by the network device, the DCI comprising a toggled new data indicator (NDI), and the processor is further configured to control to cancel the triggered BFR and/or stop the ongoing random access procedure when DCI of the toggled NDI schedules an Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) identical to a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) carrying a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (paragraphs [0061], [0065], [0225], [0235], [0238], when the UE receives the PDCCH corresponding to the C-RNTI related to the UE itself, it may be judged that contention resolution is successful; PUSCH transmission may have the same HARQ process number as that of the first PUSCH (e.g., a PUSCH used for transmission of the MAC CE) and may have a toggled NDI field value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the receiver is further configured to receive downlink control information (DCI) transmitted by the network device, the DCI comprising a toggled new data indicator (NDI), and the processor is further configured to control to cancel the triggered BFR and/or stop the ongoing random access procedure when DCI of the toggled NDI schedules an Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) identical to a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) carrying a beam failure recovery request (BFRQ) Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE)” as taught by Matsumura, in the system of Zhu, so that it would provide performing procedures for switching to another beam in response to detection of beam failure when using a plurality of transmission/reception points (Matsumura, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Matsumura disclose the apparatus according to claim 15.
Matsumura further discloses the DCI is associated with the cell or is associated with an other cell (paragraphs [0061], [0063], [0065], PDCCH corresponding to a cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the DCI is associated with the cell or is associated with an other cell” as taught by Matsumura, in the system of Zhu, so that it would provide performing procedures for switching to another beam in response to detection of beam failure when using a plurality of transmission/reception points (Matsumura, paragraph [0009]).
Conclusion
12. 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 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 SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights