DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 03/03/26.
Independent claims have been amended.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15-22, 26, 29, are 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0110146, “Xu”) in view of Park (US 2025/0056419, “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
- one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (See Fig.10, a memory and a processor) to cause the UE to:
- receive a control signal indicating a full-duplex configuration for time and frequency resources for full-duplex communications (See 610 Fig.6, UE receives ‘DCI message scheduling the first transmission’; See ¶.116, base station may configure and transmit one or more DCI messages to UE that indicate one or more scheduled transmissions and whether the scheduled transmissions are scheduled in a full-duplexing operation; See Fig.2, time and frequency resources for full-duplex), the control signal further indicating a subset of communication parameters for which the full-duplex configuration is applicable (See 615 Fig.6 and ¶.123, UE may identify a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation of the first message based on receiving the DCI message that includes the indication), wherein the subset of communication parameters is from a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity (See ¶.59, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions; See 620 Fig.6 and ¶.125, at 620, UE may communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message; See ¶.123, the set of parameters may include one or more of MCS tables, TCI states, control resource sets, power control parameters, self-interference measurements, CLI measurements, puncturing parameters, rate matching parameters, uplink TA, a transmission power of an uplink signal, a second indication to modify the transmission power of the uplink signal, or a combination thereof; Examiner’s Note: Park explicitly discloses the limitations “a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity”);
- determine whether to use the full-duplex configuration or another configuration for wireless communication with the network entity based at least in part on a communication parameter associated with the wireless communication (See ¶.26, selecting a communication beam for communicating the first message based on the indication included in the DCI message, where communicating the first message may be based on selecting the communication beam; See ¶.59, parameters related with communication between the two nodes; See ¶.76, different geographic coverage areas supported by the base station) and the subset of communication parameters associated with the full-duplex configuration (See ¶.27, the method may include determining to schedule a first message for full-duplex operation with a second message, transmitting, to a UE, a DCI message scheduling the first message and including an indication that the first message is scheduled for the full-duplex operation based on the determination, and communicating the first message using a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation based on the indication included in the DCI message; See ¶.61, a UE is more likely to successfully decode DCI and accurately identify whether a full-duplex operation or a half-duplex operation is scheduled; See ¶.96, the base station may configure the DCI to include an indication of whether the message being scheduled by the DCI is scheduled according to a full-duplex operation or a half-duplex operation; See ¶.59, for some parameters associated with wireless communication); and
- communicate with the network entity in accordance with the communication parameter (See ¶.26, selecting a communication beam for communicating the first message based on the indication included in the DCI message, where communicating the first message may be based on selecting the communication beam) and based at least in part on the determining (See 620 Fig.6 and ¶.125, UE may communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message; See ¶.27, the method may include determining to schedule a first message for full-duplex operation with a second message, transmitting, to a UE, a DCI message scheduling the first message and including an indication that the first message is scheduled for the full-duplex operation based on the determination).
Xu discloses that the UE may identify a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation of the first message based on receiving the DCI message that includes the indication, and the UE may communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message (Xu, See 620 Fig.6 and abstract) and further discloses that “UE 115-a may transmit one or more scheduled uplink transmissions (e.g., physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) 210) to base station 105-b via communication link 215-b. The one or more uplink transmissions and downlink transmissions may be scheduled according to a duplexing mode, such as a full-duplexing mode or a half-duplexing mode. For example, a UE 115 may support full-duplex operations), but does not explicitly disclose the limitation “the subset of communication parameters is from a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity.”
However, Park discloses the limitations “the subset of communication parameters is a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity” (Park, See ¶.7, performed by a user equipment (UE), of transmitting a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) in full-duplex communication. The method may include receiving at least one power control parameter set used to determine transmission power of the PUCCH from a base station, determining the transmission power of the PUCCH based on the at least one power control parameter set, and transmitting the PUCCH according to the determined transmission power, wherein the transmission power of the PUCCH is separately determined for a case where a symbol for transmitting the PUCCH is a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol and a case where the symbol is a non-SBFD symbol; Examiner’s Note: In the context of 5G New Radio (NR) and 3GPP standards, a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) is often treated or "equated" to a dedicated control link between the User Equipment (UE) and the network entity (gNB)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity” as taught by Park into the system of Xu, so that it provides a way for a UE to determine the transmission power of the uplink control channel based on the at least one power control parameter set (Park, See S820 Fig.8 and ¶.109).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses “receive a signal comprising an indication to use the other configuration based at least in part on the communication parameter being excluded from the subset of communication parameters, wherein communicating with the network entity is based at least in part on the other configuration (See ¶.36, the indication may be included in a TCI state field of the DCI message or a MCS field of the DCI message; See ¶.59, different parameters may be used for half-duplex operations than the parameters used for full-duplex operations; See ¶.92, UE may communicate with base station using different parameters for a half-duplex operation than UE uses for a full-duplex operation).”
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses “the signal comprises one of downlink control information (DCI), a radio resource control message, or a medium access control-control element (See ¶.110, the base station may determine the duration of the scheduling offset 410 and signal the determined duration to the UE via an RRC, MAC-CE, or DCI message 405).”
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses “determine to use the other configuration based at least in part on the communication parameter being excluded from the subset of communication parameters, wherein communicating with the network entity is based at least in part on the other configuration (See ¶.5, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions; See ¶.6, communicating the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message; See ¶.13, instructions for determining a failure by the UE to receive a second DCI message scheduling a second message for the full-duplex operation with the first message, and communicating the first message using the set of parameters and based on the indication included in the DCI message; See ¶.17, a second indication to modify the transmission power of the uplink signal, or combination thereof; See further ¶.35-39 for a plurality of indications).”
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses “determine to use the full-duplex configuration for the wireless communication based at least in part on the communication parameter being included in the subset of communication parameters, wherein communicating with the network entity is based at least in part on the full-duplex configuration (See ¶.17, ¶.27, and ¶.37, a set of parameters to use for full-duplex configuration).”
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses “determine that the time and frequency resources of the full-duplex configuration at least partially overlap with one or more channels, one or more reference signals, or any combination thereof, wherein determining whether to use the full-duplex configuration or the other configuration is further based at least in part on the time and frequency resources at least partially overlapping with the one or more channels, the one or more reference signals, or any combination thereof (See ¶.59, A base station may schedule full-duplex operations (e.g., uplink and downlink transmissions that overlap in time, frequency, or both) using DCI messages. For instance, the base station may transmit a first DCI (e.g., a legacy DCI) scheduling an uplink transmission, and may transmit a second DCI (e.g., a legacy DCI) scheduling a downlink transmission that overlaps in time with the uplink transmission. To perform the full-duplex operation, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions; See ¶.90, overlap in time and frequency; See ¶.104, a single bit may indicate whether the transmission being scheduled is a half-duplex or full-duplex transmission and the additional bits included in the duplexing field 315 may indicate the type of full-duplex (e.g., full band, subband), indicate whether the transmission is fully overlapped (e.g., in time and/or frequency), indicate whether the transmission partially overlaps (e.g., in time and/or frequency), etc.).”
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses “the one or more channels comprise a random access channel (RACH), a remaining minimum system information (RMSI) physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), an RMSI physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), a paging PDCCH, a paging PDSCH, or any combination thereof (See ¶.112-113, PDCCH and PDSCH).”
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses “the communication parameter comprises one or more beams, one or more signal thresholds associated with the one or more beams, a beam direction of the wireless communication, a geographic location of the UE, a downlink reception timing, an uplink transmission timing, a round-trip-time of the wireless communication, one or more timing advance group (TAG) identifiers, a type of the communication link between the UE and the network entity, one or more outputs of a machine learning model, or any combination thereof (See ¶.17, timing advance (TA), See ¶.26, selecting a communication beam; See ¶.83, geographic location; See ¶.92-93 for beams and TA values).”
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses “the beam direction of the wireless communication is associated with a synchronization signal block index, a downlink transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state, an uplink transmission configuration indicator state (TCI), spatial relationship of one or more communication beams, or a combination thereof (See ¶.70, each physical channel may carry acquisition signaling such as synchronization signals; See ¶.16, TCI state field of the DCI message; See ¶.93, determine UL/DL beam; See further ¶.99 for TCI states).”
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses “the set of communication parameters comprise a set of zones, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication that the UE is operating within a first zone of the set of zones, wherein determining whether to use the full-duplex configuration or the other configuration for the wireless communication is based at least in part on the indication that the UE is operating within the first zone (See ¶.64, Fig.1, ¶.64, ¶.74, ¶.78, and ¶.107, within geographic coverage area).”
Regarding claim 18, it is a UE claim corresponding to the claim 1, except the limitation “a plurality of full-duplex configurations (See Fig.3, ¶.48, and ¶.95, DCI configurations that support dynamic full-duplex communication in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Xu discloses “the signal includes an index of the first full-duplex configuration, an identifier associated with the first full-duplex configuration, or both (See ¶.105, the UE may receive the DCI message, identify the duplexing mode indicated in the DCI message, and adjust the transmission power of the UE accordingly; See further ¶.138).”
Regarding claims 21, 22, and 26, they are claims corresponding to claims 4, 8, & 12, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 29, it is a network entity claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 30, it is a network entity claim corresponding to the claim 18 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 3, 6, 9-11, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Park and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2025/0016751, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses “drop the full-duplex configuration based at least in part on the indication to use the other configuration (See ¶.93, base station may determine a receive beam or transmit beam to use according to whether UE is configured for full-duplex operation or half-duplex operation. However, if UE misses (e.g., fails to decode) either the first DCI or the second DCI, then UE may determine that uplink/downlink beam correspondence exists and may select a beam based on this determination, while base station may determine that UE cannot rely on uplink/downlink beam correspondence in a full-duplex mode and may select a beam based on that determination. Based on the mismatch of determinations, UE and base station may select mismatched beams and may fail to receive uplink or downlink communications. Thus, if scheduling DCIs for overlapping downlink and uplink transmissions are missed, or are not easily decodable, then transmissions may fail, latency may increase, and user experience may suffer; Examiner’s Note: Wang discloses the limitation “drop the full-duplex”).”
Xu discloses that “base station may determine a receive beam or transmit beam to use according to whether UE is configured for full-duplex operation or half-duplex operation (See ¶.93), but Xu and Park do not explicitly disclose what Wang discloses the limitation “drop the full-duplex configuration (Wang, See ¶.38-40, dropping the target uplink transmission; performing downlink reception; where the terminal has a half-duplex capability or does not have a full-duplex capability).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “drop the full-duplex configuration” as taught by Wang into the method of Xu and Park, so that it provides a way of simplifying the behavior and complexity of the terminal (Wang, See ¶.81).
Regarding claim 6, Xu and Wang disclose “drop the full-duplex configuration (Wang, See ¶.38-40, dropping the target uplink transmission; performing downlink reception; where the terminal has a half-duplex capability or does not have a full-duplex capability) based at least in part on the communication parameter being excluded from the subset of communication parameters (Xu, See ¶.93, base station may determine a receive beam or transmit beam to use according to whether UE is configured for full-duplex operation or half-duplex operation. However, if UE misses (e.g., fails to decode) either the first DCI or the second DCI, then UE may determine that uplink/downlink beam correspondence exists and may select a beam based on this determination, while base station may determine that UE cannot rely on uplink/downlink beam correspondence in a full-duplex mode and may select a beam based on that determination. Based on the mismatch of determinations, UE and base station may select mismatched beams and may fail to receive uplink or downlink communications. Thus, if scheduling DCIs for overlapping downlink and uplink transmissions are missed, or are not easily decodable, then transmissions may fail, latency may increase, and user experience may suffer).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Xu and Wang disclose “drop the full-duplex configuration based at least in part on the time and frequency resources (Wang, See ¶.38-40 as rejected in claim 3) at least partially overlapping with the one or more channels, the one or more reference signals, or any combination thereof, wherein communicating with the network entity is based at least in part on the other configuration (Xu, See ¶.59, to perform the full-duplex operation, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions. … Such parameters may include MCS tables, TCI states, beam configurations or assumptions, power control parameters, system information (SI) and CLI measurement, puncturing or rate matching around demodulation reference signals (DMRS), uplink TA values, or the like).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Xu and Wang disclose “receive a signal comprising an indication to use the other configuration based at least in part on the time and frequency resources at least partially overlapping with the one or more channels (Xu, See ¶.59, to perform the full-duplex operation, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions. … Such parameters may include MCS tables, TCI states, beam configurations or assumptions, power control parameters, system information (SI) and CLI measurement, puncturing or rate matching around demodulation reference signals (DMRS), uplink TA values, or the like, the one or more reference signals, or any combination thereof); and drop the full-duplex configuration based at least in part on the indication to use the other configuration, wherein communicating with the network entity is based at least in part on the other configuration (Wang, See ¶.38-40 for drop the full-duplex). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses “the signal comprising the indication is a second control signal configuring the one or more channels, a third control signal configuring the one or more reference signals, or any combination thereof (See ¶.10, receiving, from the base station, a second DCI message scheduling a second message and including a second indication that the second message may be scheduled for the full-duplex operation with the first message; See ¶.59, to perform the full-duplex operation, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions. Such parameters may include rate matching around demodulation reference signals (DMRS)).”
Regarding claims 23-25, they are claims corresponding to claims 9-11, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 13, 14, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Park and further in view of Rudolf et al. (US 2023/0292294, “Rudolf”).
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses “the UE is operating in a radio resource control inactive mode or a radio resource control idle mode, and the control signal comprises a system information signal (Xu, See ¶.110, RRC; See ¶.99, active state; See ¶.59, ¶.70, and ¶.92, system information signal),” but Xu and Park do not explicitly disclose what Rudolf discloses the limitation “RRC inactive or idle mode (Rudolf, See ¶.147, system information when access the cell from RRC IDLE).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “RRC idle or inactive mode” as taught by Rudolf into the system of Xu and Park, so that it provides a way for the UE to determine a common UL-DL frame configuration (Rudolf, See ¶.147).
Regarding claim 14, Xu and Rudolf disclose “the UE is operating in a radio resource control active mode, and the control signal comprises a radio resource control message (Xu, See ¶.110, RRC; See ¶.99, active state; See ¶.59, ¶.70, and ¶.92, system information signal; Rudolf, See ¶.71, an active UL BWP of the cell UL BW; See ¶.147, RRC connected).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, they are claims corresponding to claims 13 & 14, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 11-12, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that Xu fails to disclose “indication of whether the first transmission being scheduled by the first DCI message is scheduled according to a full-duplex operation" is the same as "a control signal indicating a full- duplex configuration [and] further indicating a subset of communication parameters for which the full-duplex configuration is applicable," much less that "the subset of communication parameters is from a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity," as recited in amended independent claim 1” by asserting that,
“Indeed, the Office Action has not pointed to any portions of Xu disclosing that Xu's DCI indicates any full-duplex configuration, nor has the Office Action shown that Xu's DCI indicates both "a full-duplex configuration" and "a subset of communication parameters for which the full-duplex configuration is applicable," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Further, the Office Action has not shown that Xu describes a subset of communication parameters that is from "a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity.” [applicant’s emphasis added].
In reply, the limitations “DCI indicates any full-duplex configuration” explicitly read on:
¶.[0005] of Xu discloses “a UE may receive, from a base station, a DCI message including an indication that the first message is scheduled for full-duplex operation. …The UE may identify a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation of the first message based on receiving the DCI message that includes the indication, and the UE may communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0048] of Xu discloses “FIG. 3 illustrates examples of DCI configurations that support dynamic full-duplex communication in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure.”
The limitations “a subset of communication parameters for which the full-duplex configuration is applicable” explicitly read on:
¶.[0005] of Xu discloses “the UE may identify a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation of the first message based on receiving the DCI message that includes the indication, and the UE may communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message.”
¶.[0007] of Xu discloses “receive, from a base station, a DCI message scheduling a first message and including an indication that the first message is scheduled for full-duplex operation, identify a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation of the first message based on receiving the DCI message that includes the indication, and communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message.”
¶.[0017] of Xu discloses “the set of parameters include one or more of MCS tables, TCI states, control resource sets, power control parameters, self-interference measurements, cross-link interference (CLI) measurements, puncturing parameters, rate matching parameters, uplink timing advance (TA), a transmission power of an uplink signal, a second indication to modify the transmission power of the uplink signal, or a combination thereof.”
¶.[0016] of Xu discloses “the indication may be included in a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state field of the DCI message or a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field of the DCI message, which is a subset of communication parameters.”
¶.[0037] of Xu discloses “the set of parameters include one or more of MCS tables, TCI states, control resource sets, power control parameters, self-interference measurements, CLI measurements, puncturing parameters, rate matching parameters, uplink TA, a transmission power of an uplink signal, a second indication to modify the transmission power of the uplink signal, or a combination thereof.”
¶.[0059] of Xu discloses “to perform the full-duplex operation, the UE may identify that the transmissions at least partially overlap and adjust one or more parameters to process the overlapping uplink and downlink transmissions. Such parameters may include MCS tables, TCI states, beam configurations or assumptions, power control parameters, system information (SI) and CLI measurement, puncturing or rate matching around demodulation reference signals (DMRS), uplink TA values, or the like. Different parameters may be used for half-duplex operations than the parameters used for full-duplex operations. Thus, if a UE fails to receive or decode one of the two DCIs, then the UE may fail to receive or transmit the transmission associated with the failed DCI, and may also communicate (e.g., transmit or receive) the other transmission using the wrong parameters. For instance, the UE may falsely assume that the UE can rely on uplink/downlink beam correspondence, and may select the wrong beams for an uplink or downlink transmission. This may result in failed transmissions or retransmissions, increased system congestion, increased system latency, and decreased user experience.”
¶.[0060] of Xu discloses “the UE may communicate the first message using the appropriate set of parameters (e.g., parameters associated with full-duplex operations) even if the UE does not receive a second DCI message that schedules a second message that is associated with the full-duplex operation.”
¶.[0138] of Xu discloses “a DCI message scheduling a first message and including an indication that the first message is scheduled for full-duplex operation. The parameter identifying manager may identify a set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation of the first message based on receiving the DCI message that includes the indication. The message communication manager 830 may communicate the first message using the set of parameters associated with the full-duplex operation and based on the indication included in the DCI message.”
The limitations “the subset of communication parameter is from a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity” read on:
¶.[0007] of Park discloses “performed by a user equipment (UE), of transmitting a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) in full-duplex communication. The method may include receiving at least one power control parameter set used to determine transmission power of the PUCCH from a base station, determining the transmission power of the PUCCH based on the at least one power control parameter set, and transmitting the PUCCH according to the determined transmission power, wherein the transmission power of the PUCCH is separately determined for a case where a symbol for transmitting the PUCCH is a subband full duplex (SBFD) symbol and a case where the symbol is a non-SBFD symbol.”
In other words, Xu discloses a set of communication parameters and a subset of the set of parameters for full-duplex operation and Park discloses at one power control parameter set for a respective communication channel/link. In the context of 5G New Radio (NR) and 3GPP standards, a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) is often treated or "equated" to a dedicated control link between the User Equipment (UE) and the network entity (gNB)).
Therefore, ordinary skill in the art applies “a set of communication parameters for a respective communication link between the UE and a network entity” as taught by Park into the system of Xu in order to determine the transmission power of the uplink control channel based on the at least one power control parameter set (Park, See S820 Fig.8 and ¶.109). Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights