DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the communication filed on 02/17/2026 and the amendment filed on the same date, in which claims 1-3 are cancelled claims 4-6 are amended, wherein claims 4-6 are recited in independent form. The present Application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/014756 with a filing date of 03/18/2022 and claims Foreign Priority to JP2021-088027 with a filing date of 05/26/2021 (certified copy received 11/20/2023).
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “at least one of following” would incorporate only a single option from the list of options which follow. At least one of following under the broadest reasonable interpretation would include only one of the plurality of options and any dependent claims which further modify an option not part of a broadest reasonable interpretation would also not be part of a broadest reasonable interpretation which incorporates a different option.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112, Applicants amendments made to address the previously held rejection under Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112, are sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4-6 have been considered but are moot because the Applicant has amended to the claims to include limitations which alter the scope of the claims from those previously examined. The Examiner addresses the new limitations, and the arguments pertaining thereto by relying on a new ground of rejection, wherein the newly added references(s) are applied to address the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In the arguments of 02/17/2026, Applicant asserts the limitations "wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided," are not taught by d1 in view of d2. The Examiner notes that d1 in view of d2 discloses use of parameters that are fairly construed as RRC parameter (implying a necessary acquiring) (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270). It is also suggested RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005- 0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174). Therefore, at the very least, d1 in view of d2 set forth acquiring an RRC parameter related to transmission of the PUSCH and available slots. In order to further demonstrate the limitation is known in the prior art Examiner turns to d3 (US-20220353885) which is combined with the teaching of d1 in view of d2 to add teaching applied to the RRC parameters taught in d1 in view of d2 but more explicitly discloses RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d3 para. 0157).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve reception reliability (see d3 paras. 0077-0078). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d3 para. 0077-0078) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of 32 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication US-20220361202 to Yi et al (hereinafter d1) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20240089026 to Bhamri et al (hereinafter d2) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20220353885 to Cozzo et al (hereinafter d3).
Regarding claim 4, as to the limitations “A use equipment (UE) comprising: higher layer processing circuitry” d1 discloses techniques in the field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d1 para. 0053), in connection with in system (see d1 Fig. 15) comprising at least a UE and BS which comprise elements which are fairly characterized as higher layer processing circuitry (see d1 Fig. 15) which control the devices of the system to execute a method (see d1 Figs. 37);
as to the limitation “acquire a first RRC parameter; and transmission circuitry configured to transmit a PUSCH in one or more slots, wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided, the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots, the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH, and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer in a case that the first RRC parameter is provided” d1 discloses RRC parameter use (implying a necessary acquiring) of RRC parameters (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270).
D1 may not explicitly disclose the limitation “the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots” above however d1 does disclose counting based on slots which is particularly relevant (see d1 para. 0289) (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section), in the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose any limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d2 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including a first RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve PUSCH performance (see d2 paras. 0034-0037). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d2 para. 0034-0037) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
As the limitations "wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided," are not taught by d1 in view of d2. The Examiner notes that d1 in view of d2 discloses use of parameters that are fairly construed as RRC parameter (implying a necessary acquiring) (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270). It is also suggested RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005- 0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174). Therefore, at the very least, d1 in view of d2 set forth acquiring an RRC parameter related to transmission of the PUSCH and available slots. In order to further demonstrate the limitation is known in the prior art Examiner turns to d3 (US-20220353885) which is combined with the teaching of d1 in view of d2 to add teaching applied to the RRC parameters taught in d1 in view of d2 but more explicitly discloses RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d3 para. 0157).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve reception reliability (see d3 paras. 0077-0078). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d3 para. 0077-0078) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 5, as to the limitations “A base station comprising: higher layer processing circuitry configured” d1 discloses techniques in the field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d1 para. 0053), in connection with in system (see d1 Fig. 15) comprising at least a UE and BS which comprise elements which are fairly characterized as higher layer processing circuitry (see d1 Fig. 15) which control the devices of the system to execute a method (see d1 Figs. 37);
as to the limitation “send a first RRC parameter; and reception circuitry configured to receive a PUSCH in one or more slots, wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided, the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots, the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH, and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer in a case that the first RRC parameter is provided” d1 discloses RRC parameter use (implying a necessary acquiring) of RRC parameters (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270).
D1 may not explicitly disclose the limitation “the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots” above however d1 does disclose counting based on slots which is particularly relevant (see d1 para. 0289) (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section), in the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose any limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d2 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including a first RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve PUSCH performance (see d2 paras. 0034-0037). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d2 para. 0034-0037) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
As the limitations "wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided," are not taught by d1 in view of d2. The Examiner notes that d1 in view of d2 discloses use of parameters that are fairly construed as RRC parameter (implying a necessary acquiring) (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270). It is also suggested RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005- 0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174). Therefore, at the very least, d1 in view of d2 set forth acquiring an RRC parameter related to transmission of the PUSCH and available slots. In order to further demonstrate the limitation is known in the prior art Examiner turns to d3 (US-20220353885) which is combined with the teaching of d1 in view of d2 to add teaching applied to the RRC parameters taught in d1 in view of d2 but more explicitly discloses RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d3 para. 0157).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve reception reliability (see d3 paras. 0077-0078). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d3 para. 0077-0078) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 6, as to the limitations “A method for a use equipment (UE)” d1 discloses techniques in the field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d1 para. 0053), in connection with in system (see d1 Fig. 15) comprising at least a UE and BS which comprise elements which are fairly characterized as higher layer processing circuitry (see d1 Fig. 15) which control the devices of the system to execute a method (see d1 Figs. 37);
as to the limitation “acquiring a first RRC parameter; and transmitting a PUSCH in one or more slots, wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided, the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots, the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH, and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer in a case that the first RRC parameter is provided” d1 discloses RRC parameter use (implying a necessary acquiring) of RRC parameters (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270).
D1 may not explicitly disclose the limitation “the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots” above however d1 does disclose counting based on slots which is particularly relevant (see d1 para. 0289) (although, given a broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations may be met by the cited section), in the event that it is determined that d1 does not explicitly disclose any limitation or is in some way disqualified as prior art, attention is directed to d2 which discloses limitation which also meet many of the limitations above as being met by d1 including a first RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve PUSCH performance (see d2 paras. 0034-0037). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d2 para. 0034-0037) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
As the limitations "wherein the one or more slots are determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided," are not taught by d1 in view of d2. The Examiner notes that d1 in view of d2 discloses use of parameters that are fairly construed as RRC parameter (implying a necessary acquiring) (see d1 para. 0269) wherein PUSCH are transmitted in a plurality of slots (see d1 para. 0267-0270), d1 also discloses determination of the slots based at least on the inclusion of an RRC parameter (see d1 para. 00267-0270); wherein a same symbol allocation is applied across slots for PUSCH transmission (see d1 para. 0270), and the PUSCH may be limited to a single transmission layer based on the RRC parameter (see d1 para. 0269-0270). It is also suggested RRC parameter use (which implies acquiring of such) (see d2 para. 0005-0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121); a PUSCH transmitted in one or more slots (see d2 para. 0035, 0040, 0068); determined at least based on whether or not the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0005- 0006, 0071, 0073, 0109, 0121), wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the one or more slots for the transmission of the PUSCH (see d2 para. 0066), and the PUSCH is limited to a single transmission layer if the first RRC parameter is provided (see d2 para. 0066); including wherein d2 also disclose that the first RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d2 para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0107, 0110, 0174). Therefore, at the very least, d1 in view of d2 set forth acquiring an RRC parameter related to transmission of the PUSCH and available slots. In order to further demonstrate the limitation is known in the prior art Examiner turns to d3 (US-20220353885) which is combined with the teaching of d1 in view of d2 to add teaching applied to the RRC parameters taught in d1 in view of d2 but more explicitly discloses RRC parameter indicates that transmission of the PUSCH is counted based on available slots (see d3 para. 0157).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 with d3 to arrive at the Applicant’s invention, according to the ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least to improve reception reliability (see d3 paras. 0077-0078). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D3 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (PUSCH techniques) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of higher PUSCH performance, and improved performance in the network (see d3 para. 0077-0078) with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d3 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 in view of d3 is considered as a whole and not individually.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643