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 submitted on 4/9/24 and 11/12/24 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that the claim requires simultaneous evaluation of both the first execution condition (PCell) and the second execution condition (PSCell) upon receiving the configuration message, and that Yan fails to disclose this.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not require both conditions to be evaluated at the same time or jointly for each decision. In particular, the claim recites that the configuration message includes both conditions, “wherein the first execution condition and the second execution condition … enable the UE to determine whether to perform a conditional handover … and whether to change or add the PSCell by evaluating the first execution condition and the second execution condition upon receiving the configuration message.” This language is reasonably interpreted as requiring that both conditions are provided to the UE in the message and that the UE evaluates them after receiving the message—not that the UE must evaluate both conditions simultaneously or use both conditions together for each determination.
In other words, the claim reads on implementations where the UE evaluates the first execution condition to determine whether to perform the conditional handover, and evaluates the second execution condition to determine whether to change or add the PSCell, including where those evaluations occur sequentially.
Yan discloses that both the CHO execution condition (for the PCell) and the CPA execution condition (for the PSCell) are included in the same message received by the UE . After receiving the message, the UE evaluates the CHO condition and, after handover, evaluates the CPA condition. Since both conditions are provided in the same message and are evaluated based on that message, Yan meets the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1,3,6,7,8-11,13,15,16,19,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) AND 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2022141470, hereinafter Yan).
Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses a method of handling conditional handover with a candidate secondary cell group (SCG), applied to a source master node (MN), comprising:
determining, by the source MN, a first execution condition of a first candidate primary cell (PCell) (Par. 109: Lines 1-2; The source MN generates the conditional handover (CHO) execution condition for each candidate PCell); and
receiving, by the source MN from the secondary MN, a parameter of a second execution condition of a first candidate primary SCG cell (PSCell) (Par. 103 and Figure. 6a; Message 603 is from the candidate MNs to the source MN. This message includes conditional PSCell addition (CPA ) configuration; Par. 107; CPA configuration includes CPA execution condition and candidate PSCell information),
wherein the method further comprises:
providing, by the source MN, the first execution condition of the first candidate PCell (Par. 104: Lines 1-3 and Fig. 6a; The source MN transmits a message 604 to the UE. This message includes CHO configuration; Par. 105; CHO configuration includes CHO execution condition and candidate PCell information for each candidate PCell), comprising:
transmitting, by the source MN to a user equipment (UE), a configuration message, wherein the configuration message comprises the first execution condition of the first candidate PCell (Par. 104: Lines 1-3 and Fig. 6a; The source MN transmits a message 604 to the UE. This message includes CHO configuration; Par. 105; CHO configuration includes CHO execution condition and candidate PCell information for each candidate PCell), wherein the configuration message further comprises the second execution condition of the first candidate PSCell (Par. 104: Lines 1-3 and Fig. 6a; The source MN transmits a message 604 to the UE. This message includes CPA configuration; Par. 107; The CPA configuration can include CPA execution condition and candidate PSCell information; Par. 110; The UE may receive a RRC reconfiguration message that includes CHO execution condition for a candidate PCell and CPA executing condition for candidate PSCell), wherein the first execution condition and the second execution condition in the configuration message enable the UE to determine whether to perform a conditional handover to the first candidate PCell (Par. 112; After the UE receives the configuration message, the UE begins evaluating the CHO condition. If it is met, the handover to the candidate PCell is executed) and whether to change a serving PSCell to the first candidate PSCell or add the first candidate PSCell as the serving PSCell (Par. 114: Lines 1-5; The UE evaluates the CPA execution condition for the candidate PSCell. If the condition is met, the candidate PSCell is added as the PSCell) by evaluating the first execution condition (Page 112: Lines 1-4; The CHO (first) execution condition is evaluated) and the second execution condition (Par. 114: Lines 1-2; The CPA (second) execution condition is evaluated) upon receiving the configuration message (Page 112: Line 1-3; Upon receiving the RRC reconfiguration message, the UE starts to evaluate the CHO condition).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Yan discloses providing, by the source MN, the second execution condition for the first candidate PSCell (Par. 104: Lines 1-3 and Fig. 6a; The source MN transmits a message 604 to the UE. This message includes CPA configuration; Par. 107; The CPA configuration can include CPA execution condition and candidate PSCell information).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, wherein the configuration message is a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message (Par. 110; The UE may receive a RRC reconfiguration message that includes CHO execution condition for a candidate PCell and CPA executing condition for candidate PSCell).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Yan discloses receiving, by the source MN from the first candidate MN, a first configuration of the first candidate PSCell (Par. 103 and Fig. 6a; The candidate MN transmits a message 603 to the source MN. This message contains CPA configuration; Par. 107; The CPA configuration can include CPA execution condition and candidate PSCell information); and including, by the source MN, the first configuration of the first candidate PSCell in the configuration message (Par. 104; The source MN transmits the RRC configuration message to the UE that includes CPA configuration).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Yan discloses wherein the first candidate PCell belongs to the first candidate MN (Par. 99: Lines 1-3; Source MN is referred to as C-target1; Par. 110: 1; Candidate PCell belongs to C-target1 (MN)), and the first candidate PCell is associated with the first candidate PSCell (Par. 5: Line 7; The candidate PSCells are associated with the candidate PCell).
Regarding claim 11, Yan discloses a master node (MN), comprising: a transceiver; a processor, coupled to the transceiver (A MN capable of performing the stated functions necessarily includes a transceiver and a controller).
The remaining limitations of claim 11 have been addressed in the rejections of claim 1. Therefore, the remaining limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 13, the rejections of claim 1 and claim 10 address the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 13, Yan discloses if the first execution condition of the first candidate PCell is met, synchronizing, by the UE, to the first candidate PCell and transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message to the first candidate MN (Par. 112 and Par. 113; If the CHO execution is met, the UE performs a handover procedure to the corresponding candidate PCell. The UE sends a RRC reconfiguration complete message to the target node (MN)).
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15, Yan discloses if the first execution condition of the first candidate PCell is met (Par. 112: If the CHO condition is met, the UE performs handover and a RRC configuration complete message is sent to the target MN) and the configuration message does not comprise at least one second execution condition of at least one candidate primary SCG cell (PSCell) (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “or”) or no second execution condition is met (Par. 115: Lines 1-3; Handover can still be successful even if no CPA execution condition is met), synchronizing to the first candidate PCell and transmitting the RRC reconfiguration complete message to the first candidate MN (Par. 112 and Par. 115: Lines 1-3; The handover and RRC complete message can still be sent to the target MN if the CHO condition is met and the CPA condition is not met).
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 13, Yan discloses if the first execution condition of the first candidate PCell is met and the second execution condition of the first candidate PSCell is met, applying a first configuration of the first candidate PSCell and a second configuration of the first candidate PCell (Par. 112; If the first execution condition of the candidate PCell is met, the UE performs a handover procedure (e.g. random-access channel (RACH) procedure); Par. 114: Lines 2-4; If the second execution condition of the candidate PSCell is met, the UE performs a RACH procedure to this PSCell).
Regarding claim 28, Yan teaches a transceiver and a processor, coupled to the transceiver, (A transceiver and a processor are necessary components to have the ability to perform the stated functions).
The remaining limitations of claim 28 have been addressed in the rejections of claim 13 and claim 15. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 28 have been addressed.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2022141470, hereinafter Yan) in view of Kim (US 20220182900).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Yan does not disclose wherein the parameter of the second execution condition comprises at least one of a threshold value associated with a trigger quantity and an offset value, wherein the trigger quantity comprises at least one of a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), and a Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR).
Kim, however, discloses wherein the parameter of the second execution condition comprises at least one of a threshold value associated with a trigger quantity and an offset value, wherein the trigger quantity comprises at least one of a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), and a Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR) (Par. 139; The conditional PSCell change (CPC) trigger can include RSRP, RSRQ, and SINR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan’s second-execution condition to be expressly parameterized by standard radio-quality measurements as taught by Kim. This would provide a clear, measurable criterion for when to execute PSCell procedure, align the PSCell trigger with existing measurement reporting and mobility evaluation, and improve stability and avoid unnecessary reconfiguration by gating execution on objective link-quality levels.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2022141470, hereinafter Yan) in view of Chen et al. (ID P202202133, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 13, Yan does not teach if the second execution condition of a first candidate PSCell is met and no first execution condition of any of the at least one candidate PCell is met, evaluating, by the UE, the at least one first execution condition of the at least one candidate PCell and the at least one second execution condition of the at least one candidate PSCell.
Chen, however, discloses if the second execution condition of a first candidate PSCell is met and no first execution condition of any of the at least one candidate PCell is met (Page. 10: Par. 8; If the PSCell addition execution condition is met, the UE may continue to evaluate the trigger condition for the PCell change (i.e. PCell condition not yet met)), evaluating, by the UE, the at least one first execution condition of the at least one candidate PCell and the at least one second execution condition of the at least one candidate PSCell (Page. 10: Par. 8; If the PSCell addition execution condition is met, the UE may continue to evaluate the trigger condition for the PCell change; Page 11: Par. 2; The UE may continue to evaluate for PSCell addition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan so that when a PSCell execution condition is satisfied while no PCell execution condition is satisfied, the UE continues evaluating both execution conditions as taught by Chen. Doing so would allow the UE to opportunistically add/change a PSCell to improve throughput/latency without forfeiting an impending, higher-priority PCell change. This avoids idle gaps where neither path is pursued.
Claim 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2022141470, hereinafter Yan) in view of Xie (CA 3212711).
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 13, Yan does not disclose if a notification condition of a candidate PSCell among at least one candidate PSCell is met, providing, by the UE, a cell identity of the candidate PSCell to the first candidate PSCell.
Xie, however, discloses if a notification condition of a candidate PSCell among at least one candidate PSCell is met (Par. 68 and Par. 71; One or more multiple events trigger a conditional PSCell addition/change (CPAC); Par. 154: Lines 3-10; The notification events that can trigger CPAC include A3, A4, and A5 events), providing, by the UE, a cell identity of the candidate PSCell to a network side device (Par. 52, Par. 53, and Par. 62; ID of CPAC candidate cell is provided by the UE to a network side device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan to incorporate the reporting mechanism of Xie such that, when the notification condition for a candidate PSCell is met, the UE provides the cell identity of the candidate PSCell during communication with a network-side device. In the context of Yan, the network-side device corresponds to the candidate master node (MN) associated with the candidate cell. Accordingly, the provided cell identity would be received by the first candidate MN. Such a modification would have been obvious in order to allow the candidate MN to obtain relevant candidate PSCell information from the UE, thereby enabling improved PSCell addition/change and handover decision-making
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 20, Yan discloses if the first execution condition of the first candidate PCell is met, synchronizing, by the UE, to the first candidate PCell and transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message to the first candidate MN (Par. 112 and Par. 113; If the CHO execution is met, the UE performs a handover procedure to the corresponding candidate PCell. The UE sends a RRC reconfiguration complete message to the target node (MN)); and in response to a second execution condition of the candidate PSCell is met, transmitting a RRC reconfiguration complete message (Par. 67: Lines 6-7 and Par. 68: Lines 3-4; If the CPA execution condition for a candidate PSCell is met, the UE transmits a RRC reconfiguration complete message).
Yan does not disclose the second execution condition being a notification condition.
Xie, however, discloses the second executing condition belonging to the PSCell being a notification condition (Par. 68 and Par. 71; One or more multiple events trigger a conditional PSCell addition/change (CPAC); Par. 154: Lines 3-10; The notification events that can trigger CPAC include A3, A4, and A5 events).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan so that the PSCell-side executing condition is a notification event. These events are the 3GPP defined mechanisms the UE already used for mobility triggering and are configured with well known parameters. This would reduce implementation complexity and ambiguity.
Yan disclosed an RRC reconfiguration complete message being sent in response to the second executing condition being met but does not disclose including the cell identity of the candidate PSCell.
Xie, however, discloses providing, by the UE, the cell identity of the candidate PSCell (Par. 52, Par. 53, and Par. 62; ID of CPAC candidate cell is provided by the UE to a network side device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the RRC reconfiguration complete message of Yan, with the ability to include the ID of the candidate PSCell in a message of Xie. Doing so would let the network immediately identify which configured PSCell triggered, correlate the event to that cell, and optimize HO/CPAC parameters with no extra round trips. This would reduce ambiguity and signaling.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 20, Yan does not disclose wherein the notification condition is shared by the at least one candidate PSCell.
Xie, however, discloses wherein the notification condition is shared by the at least one candidate PSCell (Par. 156: The UE reports whether the configured CPAC condition(s) were triggered; This shows a single set of configured CPAC trigger events whose status is reported (i.e. a notification condition shared across the CPAC candidates)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan so that the PSCell-side notification condition is configured once and shared across all configured candidate PSCells, as taught by Xie. Using a common (shared) CPAC trigger set (e.g., standard A3/A5/A4/B1 events) would have been a predictable design choice that (i) reduces signaling and configuration overhead versus per-cell bespoke triggers, (ii) simplifies UE evaluation/reporting logic by checking one uniform condition set for every candidate, and (iii) improves consistency and interoperability with existing 3GPP measurement frameworks.
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 20, Yan does not disclose wherein the notification condition is a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell, wherein the dedicated condition includes a second execution condition of the candidate PSCell.
Xie, however, discloses wherein the notification condition is a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell, wherein the dedicated condition includes a second execution condition of the candidate PSCell (Par. 162: Notification conditions such as A3, A4, and A5 events are tied to a CPAC candidate cell configured by the network side; The network configures a singular PSCell candidate which corresponds to a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan’s conditional PSCell procedure so that each candidate PSCell is configured with its own dedicated notification condition as taught by Xie. Doing so would eliminate ambiguity about which PSCell caused the trigger, simplify UE logic for deciding when to send the completion/notification, and improve network-side optimization and coordination.
Regarding claim 24 as applied to claim 21, Yan discloses a RRC configuration complete message (Par. 67: Lines 6-7 and Par. 68: Lines 3-4; If the CPA execution condition for a candidate PSCell is met, the UE transmits a RRC reconfiguration complete message).
Yan does not disclose the RRC reconfiguration complete message further comprises the notification condition of the candidate PSCell if the notification condition is a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell.
Xie, however, discloses a notification condition that is a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell (Par. 162: Notification conditions such as A3, A4, and A5 events are tied to a CPAC candidate cell configured by the network side; The network configures a singular PSCell candidate which corresponds to a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan’s RRC complete message to have included Xie’s notification condition of the candidate PSCell if the notification condition is a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell. Doing so would (i) unambiguously inform the network which candidate PSCell and which specific trigger caused the CPA execution, (ii) eliminate follow-up signaling to query the UE about the trigger, thereby reducing latency and control overhead, (iii) let the MN/SN immediately correlate the executed CPA for faster parameter tuning and troubleshooting, and (iv) require only a straightforward extension of an existing completion message field that the UE is already sending.
Claim 25,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2022141470, hereinafter Yan) in view of Xie (CA 3212711) in further view of Xu et al. (WO 2021158089, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 25 as applied to claim 20, Yan in view of Xie does not disclose in response to the notification condition of the candidate PSCell is met, including the cell identity of the candidate PSCell in a notification message transmitted to the first candidate MN.
Xu, however, discloses in response to the notification condition of the candidate PSCell is met (Par. 270: Lines 1-2; The PSCell change condition is met; Par. 50: Lines 1-3; The change condition can be related to a A3 or A5 event (i.e. notification condition)), including the cell identity of the candidate PSCell in a notification message transmitted to the first candidate MN (Par. 271: Lines 1-3; The UE sends a RRC message to the MN including the PSCell ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan (as supplemented by Xie’s teaching of configuring/using PSCell-specific notification conditions) so that, when the configured notification condition for a candidate PSCell is satisfied, the UE sends a notification to the MN that explicitly carries the identity of the triggered PSCell, as taught by Xu. Yan already employs an RRC completion/notification toward the MN upon PSCell execution; Xie teaches using standard measurement-event notification conditions (e.g., A3/A5) for CPAC candidates; and Xu teaches formatting the UE’s notification as an RRC message that includes the PSCell ID. Adopting Xu’s payload (PSCell identity) in Yan’s existing RRC notification yields the predictable benefits of immediately identifying the specific candidate PSCell that met the condition, enabling the MN/SN to coordinate context and resource handling without follow-up queries, reducing latency and control overhead.
Regarding claim 26 as applied to claim 25, Yan teaches a notification message sent to the MN (Par. 113: Lines 3-4; The UE sends a RRC reconfiguration complete message (i.e. notification message) to the target node).
Yan does not teach the notification message comprising the notification condition of the candidate PSCell when the notification condition is a dedicated condition to the candidate PSCell.
Xie, however, teaches CPAC information for a dedicated candidate PSCell reported by the terminal including the associated triggering event (Par. 149, Par. 151, Par. 161, and Par. 162: Lines 1-3; The UE reports CPAC information that includes the triggering event such as an A3,A4, or A5, event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yan’s UE-to-MN notification (the RRC Reconfiguration Complete) to also include the specific dedicated notification condition (e.g., the A3/A4/A5 event and its parameters) as taught by Xie. Doing so would (i) unambiguously identify which configured PSCell and which exact trigger caused the CPA/CPC execution, (ii) let the MN/SN immediately correlate network measurements with the UE’s trigger to optimize mobility/RA parameters without extra query signaling, (iii) reduce latency and control overhead by avoiding follow-up messages requesting the trigger details, and (iv) require only a straightforward extension of a message the UE already transmits (RRC Reconfiguration Complete).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (WO 2022141470, hereinafter Yan) in view of Xu et al. (WO 2021158089, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 27 as applied to claim 15, Yan teaches a RRC reconfiguration complete message (Par. 113: Lines 3-4; The UE sends a RRC reconfiguration complete message (i.e. notification message) to the targe node).
Yan does not teach the RRC reconfiguration complete message including a cell identity and at least one of a Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), and a Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR) of each of at least one candidate primary SCG cell (PSCell).
Xu, however, teaches, including the cell identity of the candidate PSCell in a notification message transmitted to the first candidate MN (Par. 271: Lines 1-3; The UE sends a RRC message to the MN including the PSCell ID) and using RSRP to determine candidate target cells and make mobility decisions (Par. 174: Lines 2-6; RSRP may be used to make mobility decisions and determine candidate cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yan’s RRC Reconfiguration Complete to carry (for each candidate PSCell) the PSCell identity and at least one of RSRP/RSRQ/SINR, by combining Xu’s teaching to include the PSCell ID in an RRC message with Xie’s teaching to report candidate-specific CPAC/measurement information and Kim’s teaching that RSRP/RSRQ/SINR are the conventional metrics for PSCell decisions. Doing so would (i) let the MN immediately correlate the completion with the exact candidate(s) and their link qualities, (ii) reduce follow-up signaling to query measurements, (iii) enable faster and more accurate parameter optimization (e.g., RA/CHO/CPAC thresholds) across candidates, and (iv) require only a straightforward extension of an existing completion message fieldset.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights