DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 12/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 were each objected to in the previous Office Action. All of these claim objections are hereby withdrawn, as Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20, appropriately, to cure any noted deficiencies.
Claim Rejections under §112
Claims 1, 8, and 15 were each rejected in the previous Office Action under §112(b) based on lack of antecedent basis. These claim rejections are hereby withdrawn, as Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 15, appropriately, to comply with §112.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant asserts that the 102(a)(1) rejection of the independent claims is improper, as Kamei does not teach: “a controller to determine a relay station intervening in communications between the first communication station and the second communication station to maximize a communication path capacity between the first communication station and the second communication station under a predetermined constraint condition….” Applicants Remarks at p. 16.
Applicant also states that “Kamei merely discloses that the relay station set selector selects a relay station set in consideration of relay station limitation information, and the relay station limitation information the number of communications (the number of channels) that each relay station can relay, the number of communications (number of channels) in use…,” but that “Kamei does not, however, disclose or suggest ‘a controller to determine a relay station intervening in communications between a first communication station and a second communication station to maximize a communication path capacity between the first communication station and the second communication station under a predetermined constraint condition.’” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
What is effectively claimed is a controller entity that determines a relay station to “maximize communication path capacity” between two other stations, under some “predetermined constraint condition.” This claim language is very broad in scope and can therefore be reasonably interpreted as such, by applying the Office’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard to the claim language at issue.
Kamei teaches a base station 102, i.e., a first station, with a selector entity 121 of Fig. 1, which can be interpreted to be a controller entity as it controls relay selection, that can select, i.e., selection 225 of Fig. 2, a best relay, i.e., selected relay 232 and corresponding relayed path, i.e., path A2-B2 of Fig. 2, for communications between the base station and the terminal 210. The best relay/path can be selected by the selector/controller, based on evaluating path segment measurements (measurers 111 and 131 of Fig. 1 can measure path signals 222 and 223), etc. to optimize communication resources (paras. [0058], [0062]-[0064], and [0075]-[0076]).
The Examiner notes that relay path capacity can be considered, and fairly interpreted, in terms of a number of available/usable communication channels that a relay can utilize along a particular relay path candidate, which Kamei describes in terms of relaying limitations information. This channel usage capacity information is associated with a particular relay/relay path and can be binned along with associated signal strength measurement information to be collectively taken into consideration, along with priority, during relay/relay path selection, at paras. [0150]-[0154].
The Examiner notes that usable channels for communicating data directly relates to data communications capacity; if you have fewer or only partially usable channels for communicating data, then you have less capacity to communication the data over a given communications path between source and destination devices. Kamei’s selector/controller can set the frequency and periods for path signal measurement/discovery, and its optimization in relay/relay path selection includes maximizing a communication path based on relay/relay path capacity.
The Examiner also reasonably interprets Kamei’s predetermined upper limit and lower limit of signal strength measurements, at para [0137], and/or Kamei’s predetermined metric of a difference between path segment signal strengths, as depicted in 224 of Fig. 2, to each independently be equivalent to the claimed “predetermined constraint condition.” The Examiner recommends Applicant amend its independent claims to more precisely define the subject matter it deems to be different from the prior art of record, such at the meaning of the “predetermined constraint condition” or how exactly it “maximize[s] communication path capacity.”
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments relating to the §103 rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 18. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) 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. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub No. 2019/0364437 A1, Kamei et al. (hereinafter “Kamei”)
With respect to claim 1, Kamei teaches:
A communication system (communication system of Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a first communication station (base station 102 of Figs. 1-2);
one or more relay stations to be communicable with the first communication station (relay stations 103/(231-233) of Figs. 1-2);
a second communication station to be communicable with the first communication station any of the one or more relay stations or without any of the one or more relay stations (para. [0062]; and communication terminal 101/210 of Figs. 1-2); and
a controller to determine a relay station intervening in communications between the first communication station and the second communication station to maximize a communication path capacity (paras. [0150]-[0154] —relay path capacity can be considered in terms of a number of available/used channels for particular relay path) between the first communication station and the second communication station under a predetermined constraint condition (paras. [0058], [0062]-[0064], and [0075]-[0076]; and base station selector 121 of Fig. 1 —the selector can select, i.e., selection 225, a relay, i.e., relay station 232, for communications a relayed path between the base station and the terminal, i.e., A2-B2, based on path segment measurements (measurers 111 and 131 of Fig. 1 can measure path signals 222 and 223) to optimize communication resources —the BS/selector can set the frequency and periods for path signal measurement/discovery —the optimization in relay/path selection can be interpreted to include maximizing communication path based on relay path capacity —the predetermined constraint difference can further be interpreted to be associated with a difference between the path segment signal strengths for a relayed communication path, depicted in 224 of Fig. 2),
the communication path capacity being calculated based on
radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and each of the one or more relay stations (paras. [0062]-[0064] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the relay station 232, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path A2 222 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other BS-relay paths A1 and A3),
the radio wave propagation characteristics between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5 —radio propagation characteristics between the relay station 232 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path B2 223 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other relay-UE paths B1 and B3), and
the radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0079] and [0084]; and Figs. 2 and 5 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength difference 224 for paths A2-B2, A1-B1, A3-B3, of Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 2, Kamei teaches:
The communication system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller calculates the communication path capacity by varying a relay station or combinations of relay stations intervening in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station in the one or more relay stations when determining the relay station (paras. [0063]-[0064], [0120]-[0122], and [0153]-[0154]; and 221 of Figs. 2, 12, and 19 —various communication path capacities can be evaluated by varying/evaluating different relay stations or combinations of relay stations for multi-relayed communication paths —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits for a single corresponding alternative, for the reasons described above in the: Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language, section).
With respect to claim 8, Kamei teaches:
A controller (base station selector 121/200 of Figs. 1-2) configure[d] to control communications between a first communication station and a second communication station any of one or more relay stations or without any of the one or more relay stations (para. [0062]; and communication terminal 101/210 of Figs. 1-2),
the controller configure[d] to execute determining a relay station intervening in communications between the first communication station and the second communication station to maximize a communication path capacity between the first communication station and the second communication station under a predetermined constraint condition (paras. [0058], [0062]-[0064], and [0075]-[0076]; and base station selector 121 of Fig. 1 —the selector can select, i.e., selection 225, a relay, i.e., relay station 232, for communications a relayed path between the base station and the terminal, i.e., A2-B2, based on path segment measurements (measurers 111 and 131 of Fig. 1 can measure path signals 222 and 223) to optimize communication resources —the BS/selector can set the frequency and periods for path signal measurement/discovery —the optimization in relay/path selection can be interpreted to include maximizing communication path based on relay path capacity —the predetermined constraint difference can further be interpreted to be associated with a difference between the path segment signal strengths for a relayed communication path, depicted in 224 of Fig. 2),
wherein the communication path capacity is calculated based on
radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and each of the one or more relay stations (paras. [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 2 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the relay station 232, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path A2 222 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other BS-relay paths A1 and A3),
the radio wave propagation characteristics between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 2 —radio propagation characteristics between the relay station 232 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength along path B2 223 of Fig. 2 —the same calculations can be made for each of the other relay-UE paths B1 and B3), and
the radio wave propagation characteristics between the first communication station and the second communication station (paras. [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 2 —radio propagation characteristics between the base station 220 and the communication terminal 210, can be calculated as a received signal strength difference 224 for paths A2-B2, A1-B1, A3-B3, of Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(1) based on Kamei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 15 is presented in method form. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(1) based on Kamei, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(1) based on Kamei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(1) based on Kamei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
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 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0085726 A1, Iwabuchi et al. (hereinafter “Iwabuchi”).
With Respect to claim 3, Kamei teaches the communication system according to claim 1, where a base station (a first communication station) can communicate with a UE (a second communication station or relay-UE) directly or in relayed communication, as depicted in Figs. 2, 12, and 15.
However, Kamei does not explicitly teach:
wherein a modulation signal in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station includes a guard interval between a symbol and another symbol, each of the symbol and another symbol corresponding to an interval of same bit information,
the controller sets propagation delay time of a second signal so that the propagation delay time of a first signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station without any of the one or more relay stations takes a value different from a value of the propagation delay time of the second signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station any of the one or more relay stations and the propagation delay time of the second signal being set within such a range that the second signal does not delay equally to or longer than time of the guard interval, and
the relay station intervening in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station performs non-regenerative relay for the second signal, based on the set propagation delay time of the second signal.
Iwabuchi does teach:
a modulated signal between a first communication station and a second communication station including a guard interval between symbols, corresponding to an interval of same bit information (paras. [0009]-[0011]; and Fig. 1 —a cyclic prefix (CP) is a guard interval that can be set between symbols of the same bit stream, such as for modulated 5G communications between a base station 2 and UE 3 of Fig. 1 —the Examiner interprets this limitation to relate to any communications between the first and second communication station, relayed or not),
setting a propagation delay time of a second signal so that the propagation delay time of a first signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station without any of the one or more relay stations (the Examiner interprets this limitation to relate to a non-relayed communication between the first and second communication stations) takes a value different from a value of the propagation delay time of the second signal reaching the second communication station from the first communication station any of the one or more relay stations (the Examiner interprets this limitation to relate to a relayed communication between the first and second communication stations) and the propagation delay time of the second signal being set within such a range that the second signal does not delay equally to or longer than time of the guard interval (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0075]-[0076], [0087], and [0097]-[0098]; and Fig. 1 —a relayed signal between a base station and a UE can be set with an adjusted CP interval (i.e., a guard interval), such that a propagation delay associated with the relayed communication remains less than an adjusted CP interval in an effort to avoid interference, i.e., self-interference —in contrast, a non-relayed communication between the base station and the UE would not have the same relay propagation delay, and would therefore be less than that of the relayed communication —the Examiner interprets the above to refer to a relayed second signal communication taking longer to reach a destination station, than a non-relayed first signal communication, in terms of propagation delay time, and notes that a relayed second signal delay would be less than an extended guard interval/cyclic prefix set to avoid interference), and
an intermediary relay station performing non-regenerative relaying for a second signal, based on a set propagation delay time of the second signal (paras. [0105]-[0106] —an intermediary relay may be a repeater-type relay that amplifies and forwards a received signal in accordance with a delay time thereof).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei’s relayed communications solution with the CP/guard interval adjustment and delay compensation, as taught by Iwabuchi.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce self-interference caused by propagation delay for non-regenerative relay devices, i.e., active repeaters, as recognized by Iwabuchi (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0075]-[0076], and [0105]-[0106]).
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Iwabuchi, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Iwabuchi, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of Iwabuchi, in further view of US PG Pub 2013/0010601 A1, Senarath et al. (hereinafter “Senarath”).
With respect to claim 4, Kamei in view of Iwabuchi teaches the communication system according to claim 3.
Kamei further teaches base station calculating, for each relay station in a viable path between source and destination stations, limitation information relating to a capacity/number of communications a relay station can handle and a usage/number of relayed communications thereof, as well as a remaining battery level capacity. Further Kamei teaches that the limitation information may be taken into consideration for priority in relay station selection, and that remaining battery can be of a highest priority in selection criteria (paras. [0154]-[0154]; and 1926 of Fig. 19). In this regard Kamei fairly teaches evaluating each communication path capacity to actual channel usage between first and second communication stations with each relay station intervening in the communications between the first and second communications stations, and selecting the best relay station by prioritizing a relay station having the largest unused capacity and least attenuation from within the one or more relay stations.
However, Kamei in view of Iwabuchi do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller calculates a ratio of each communication path capacity, to a propagation delay quantity of the second relayed signal between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station, and where selection of the relay station is based on prioritizing base on a largest/best ratio among the one or more relay stations.
Senarath does teach:
wherein the controller calculates a ratio of each communication path capacity, to a propagation delay quantity of the second relayed signal between each of the one or more relay stations and the second communication station, and where selection of the relay station is based on prioritizing based on a largest/best ratio among the one or more relay stations (paras. [0031], and [0044]-[0048]; and Figs. 1 and 6 —the ratio between relay path capacity and packet delay along a relayed path can be evaluated in association with a capacity penalty ration Kd, to prioritize the best relayed path for selection among multiple paths, which can be analogously achieved by penalizing paths with the worst ratio).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei in view of Iwabuchi’s relayed communications prioritized relay selection based on evaluating a ratio of each communication path capacity to a packet/propagation delay quantity, as taught by Senarath.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce self-interference and improve relay selection by prioritizing relays having the best path capacity to packet delay ratio, as described by Senarath (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0075]-[0076], and [0105]-[0106]).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Iwabuchi and Senarath, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Iwabuchi and Senarath, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of US PG Pub 2010/0323614 A1, Yu et al. (hereinafter “Yu”).
With respect to claim 6, Kamei teaches:
The communication system according to claim 1, wherein
on a downlink, the first communication station is a base station, and the second communication station is a terminal station (paras. [0058] and [0062]-[0064]; and Figs. 1-2 —the base station 102/220 can communicate with communication terminal/UE 101/210 on the DL),
on an uplink, the first communication station is the terminal station, and the second communication station is the base station (paras. [0058] and [0062]-[0064]; and Figs. 1-2 —the communication terminal/UE 101/210 can communicate with base station 102/220 on the UL), and
the controller (the base station 102 can comprise a controller/selector 121 of Fig. 1):
obtains, per wireless frame via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on a reference signal transmitted from the base station and received by the terminal station without any of the one or more relay stations (paras. [0063]-[0065], [0087], and [0136]-[0137]] —a base station/selector can receive a measured RS report, i.e., a signal strength, etc., from a Pro-Se UE with a measurer directly as depicted in Figs. 2, 12, and 15);
obtains, via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on the reference signals transmitted from the base station and received by the one or more relay stations (paras. [0063]-[0065], [0087], and [0136]-[0137]] —a base station/selector can receive a measured RS report, i.e., a signal strength, etc., from a dedicated relay terminal with a measurer as depicted in Figs. 2, 12, and 15);
determines the relay station intervening in the communications between the base station and the terminal station (paras. [0058] and [0064]; selector 121 of Fig. 1, and Fig. 4 —the base station selector can select a relay station intervening between the BS and the UE, with the best measured/determined RS strength difference, as depicted in block S411).
However, Kamei does not explicitly teach:
obtaining, via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on the reference signals transmitted from the terminal station and received by the one or more relay stations.
Yu does teach:
obtaining, via the base station, the radio wave propagation characteristics measured based on the reference signals transmitted from the terminal station and received by the one or more relay stations (paras. [0049]-[0050], [0074]-[0076] and [0110]; and blocks 900 and 902 of Fig. 9 —a UE can transmit a sounding reference signal (and UL RS) that can be received and measured by a relay station and/or a base station (i.e., for direct path) —the relay measurements can be forwarded to a network BS for further evaluations).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamei’s relay selection solution with the UL RS evaluations, as taught by Yu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve relay selection by considering UL communications signal measurement between a UE and a candidate relay, as described by Yu (paras. [0049]-[0050], [0074]-[0076] and [0110]; and blocks 900 and 902 of Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 7, Kamei in view of Yu teaches:
The communication system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is included in the base station (Kamei: paras. [0058] and [0082]-[0083]; and base station 102/220 selector 121 of Figs. 1-2 —the Examiner interprets the relay selector to be a controller for selecting relay terminals as part of relayed communications path selection).
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Yu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Kamei in view of Yu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are each objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., independent claim 1 incorporating ALL of the limitations of claims 3 and 5; independent claim 8 incorporating ALL of the limitations of claims 10 and 12; and independent claim 15 incorporating ALL of the limitations of claims 17 and 19).
The Examiner notes that none of the cited references appear to reasonably teach/suggest the claimed features of: “integrat[ing] propagation delay quantities of the second signals between the one or more relay stations and the second communication station in the sequence of the determined relay stations intervening in the communications,” “set[ting] the propagation delay time of the second signal via each of the certain number of relay stations intervening in the communications, based on an integrated value of the propagation delay quantities integrated up to the relay station determined immediately before each of the certain number of relay stations intervening in the communications” and then “determin[ing] in the sequence, from within the one or more relay stations, the certain number of relay stations intervening in the communications between the first communication station and the second communication station, the certain number being set in such a range that the second signal is not delayed equally to or longer than the guard interval time, based on the set propagation delay time,” as recited in each of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, in combination with subject matter of the claims from which these claims respectively depend.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights