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 . This Action is in response to Applicant’s remarks and amended claims filed on April 28, 2026. Claims 50-70 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
2. The outstanding rejections of Claims 50-70 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claims 50, 59, and 69-70 filed on April 28, 2026.
Drawings
3. The amendments to the drawings regarding Fig.1 received on April 28, 2026. These amendments to Fig.1 are accepted.
Specification
4. The amendments to the specification regarding the title received on April 28, 2026. These amendments to the title are accepted.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 50-52, 57-61, and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0073755 A1), in view of Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0309398 A1), and Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0030476 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Yan et al. teach a method for a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate with a wireless network via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) (Fig.1), the method comprising:
receiving, from the wireless network (Fig.1 @ 102-A and 102-B), a plurality of configurations for a corresponding plurality of candidate PCells (read as “the UE receiving a configuration signaling including first configuration information or second configuration information.”(Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry; Paragraph [0163]));
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach selecting one of the configurations based on a prediction that radio link failure (RLF) will occur in a first cell configured as the PCell; and
switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Watanabe teaches a processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47) for selecting one of the configurations based on a prediction that radio link failure (RLF) will occur in a first cell configured as the PCell (read as handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig(s).7 @ 47, 9, and 10; Paragraph [0091]); For example, “the handover preparatory procedure processing unit 47 may predict the possibility of occurrence of RLF not only in the handover target candidate cell 4b but also in the adjoining cells 4d and 4e common to the serving cell 4a and the handover target candidate cell 4b. The handover preparatory procedure processing unit 47 may determine whether or not the handover preparatory procedure to the reserve candidate cell 4c is to be executed based on the possibility of occurrence of RLF in the handover target candidate cell 4b and the adjoining cells 4d, 4e.”(Fig(s).7 @ 47 and 9-10; Paragraph [0091]) For example, “predicting possibility of occurrence of radio link failure in said first cell; and executing a preparatory procedure with another base station apparatus covering a second cell among said plurality of cells for handover of said mobile station apparatus, when the possibility of occurrence of radio link failure in said first cell exceeds said reference.”(Fig.7 @ 47; page 9));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource failure forecasting by devices in a communication network.
However, Yan et al. and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Park et al. teach a method for switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claim 59, Yan et al. teach a method for a network node configured to communicate with a user equipment (UE) via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) in a wireless network, the method comprising:
sending, to the UE (Fig.1 @ 101), a plurality of configurations for a corresponding plurality of candidate PCells (read as “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0037]) For example, “the UE receiving a configuration signaling including first configuration information or second configuration information.”(Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry; Paragraph [0163]));
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach selecting one of the configurations based on a prediction that radio link failure (RLF) will occur in a first cell configured as the PCell; and
switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Watanabe teaches a processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47) for selecting one of the configurations based on a prediction that radio link failure (RLF) will occur in a first cell configured as the PCell (read as handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig(s).7 @ 47, 9, and 10; Paragraph [0091]); For example, “the handover preparatory procedure processing unit 47 may predict the possibility of occurrence of RLF not only in the handover target candidate cell 4b but also in the adjoining cells 4d and 4e common to the serving cell 4a and the handover target candidate cell 4b. The handover preparatory procedure processing unit 47 may determine whether or not the handover preparatory procedure to the reserve candidate cell 4c is to be executed based on the possibility of occurrence of RLF in the handover target candidate cell 4b and the adjoining cells 4d, 4e.”(Fig(s).7 @ 47 and 9-10; Paragraph [0091]) For example, “predicting possibility of occurrence of radio link failure in said first cell; and executing a preparatory procedure with another base station apparatus covering a second cell among said plurality of cells for handover of said mobile station apparatus, when the possibility of occurrence of radio link failure in said first cell exceeds said reference.”(Fig.7 @ 47; page 9));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource failure forecasting by devices in a communication network.
However, Yan et al. and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Park et al. teach a method for switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claim 69, Yan et al. teach a user equipment (UE) configured to communicate with a wireless network via a primary cell (PCell) and one or more secondary cells (SCells) (Fig(s).1 and 8), the UE comprising communication interface circuitry (Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry and transmitting circuitry) and processing circuitry (Fig.8 @ processor) that are operable coupled and are configured to:
receive, from the wireless network (Fig.1 @ 102-A and 102-B), a plurality of configurations for a corresponding plurality of candidate PCells (read as “the UE receiving a configuration signaling including first configuration information or second configuration information.”(Fig(s).1 and 8 @ receiving circuitry; Paragraph [0163]));
However, Yan et al. fail to explicitly teach the steps to select one of the configurations based on a prediction that radio link failure (RLF) will occur in a first cell configured as the PCell; and
switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Watanabe teaches a processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47) capable to select one of the configurations based on a prediction that radio link failure (RLF) will occur in a first cell configured as the PCell (read as handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig(s).7 @ 47, 9, and 10; Paragraph [0091]); For example, “the handover preparatory procedure processing unit 47 may predict the possibility of occurrence of RLF not only in the handover target candidate cell 4b but also in the adjoining cells 4d and 4e common to the serving cell 4a and the handover target candidate cell 4b. The handover preparatory procedure processing unit 47 may determine whether or not the handover preparatory procedure to the reserve candidate cell 4c is to be executed based on the possibility of occurrence of RLF in the handover target candidate cell 4b and the adjoining cells 4d, 4e.”(Fig(s).7 @ 47 and 9-10; Paragraph [0091]) For example, “predicting possibility of occurrence of radio link failure in said first cell; and executing a preparatory procedure with another base station apparatus covering a second cell among said plurality of cells for handover of said mobile station apparatus, when the possibility of occurrence of radio link failure in said first cell exceeds said reference.”(Fig.7 @ 47; page 9));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource failure forecasting by devices in a communication network.
However, Yan et al. and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach the step to switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration.
Park et al. teach a method to switch the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell corresponding to the selected configuration. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 51 and 60, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al. teach a method wherein:
the one or more SCells include a second cell that is configured as an active SCell before the failure event (read as an SCG SCells (Paragraph [0070])); and
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
However, Yan et al. and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach the method further comprises, based on switching the PCell to the candidate PCell, switching the active SCell from the second cell to a candidate SCell associated with the candidate PCell.
Park et al. teach the method further comprises, based on switching the PCell to the candidate PCell, switching the active SCell from the second cell to a candidate SCell associated with the candidate PCell. (read as “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the UE as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 52 and 61, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al., as modified by Watanabe and Park et al., teach a method wherein each of the plurality of configurations has one or more of the following characteristics:
corresponds to a candidate PCell that is different than the first cell (read as PCell (Abstract));
includes one or more candidate SCells that are different than currently active SCells (read as an SCG SCells (Paragraph [0070]));
facilitates sending an indication about a PCell failure event to the wireless network (Fig.8 @ transmitting circuitry);
facilitates switching PCell without performing a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedure (read as “performing data transmission with the target PSCell without triggering a RRC re-establishment procedure.”(Paragraph [0016])); and
facilitates switching at least one currently active SCell without performing an RRC reconfiguration procedure. (read as “performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to the second target PCell.”(Paragraph [0008]))
Regarding claims 57 and 67, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al., as modified by Watanabe and Park et al., teach a method wherein one or more of the following applies:
the candidate PCell of the selected configuration is a currently active SCell or a configured but currently inactive SCell (read as an SCG SCells (Paragraph [0070])); and
switching the PCell from the first cell to the candidate PCell of the selected configuration is performed without a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedure. (read as “performing data transmission with the target PSCell without triggering a RRC re-establishment procedure.”(Paragraph [0016]))
Regarding claims 58 and 68, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al., as modified by Watanabe and Park et al., teach a method wherein selecting one of the configurations is based on one or more of the following:
measurements by the UE in the respective candidate PCells of the plurality of configurations; (read as a measurement report (Paragraph [0113]))
respective selection criteria included in the plurality of configurations (read as a predefined criteria (Paragraph [0167])); and
whether use of the respective configurations require radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration procedures. (read as “performing a radio resource control (RRC) re-establishment procedure to the second target PCell.”(Paragraph [0008]))
Regarding claim 70, Yan et al. teach a network node comprising communication interface circuitry (Fig.1)
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
However, Yan et al. and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach a processing circuitry that are operable coupled and configured to perform the method of claim 59.
Park et al. teach the network node (Fig(s).1 @ 110-1, 110-2, 110-3 and 2 @ 200) comprising:
processing circuitry that are operable coupled and configured to perform the method of claim 59. (Fig.2 @ 210 and 230)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the base station computer hardware and the cell switching function as taught by Park et al. and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Claims 53-56 and 62-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0073755 A1), in view of Watanabe (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2012/0309398 A1), Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0030476 A1), and Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0400373 A1).
Regarding claims 53 and 62, and as applied to claims 50 and 59 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037]) Also, Yan et al. teach a method wherein
on one or more of the following:
in-sync and out-of-sync indications from the UE's physical layer; and
measurements made by the UE in the first cell. (read as a measurement report (Paragraph [0113]))
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al., Watanabe, and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach the method further comprises predicting the RLF in the first cell based on a machine learning (ML) model and
Zhu et al. teach the method further comprises predicting the RLF in the first cell based on a machine learning (ML) model (read as “a capability to perform an (ML-based) radio link failure (RLF) …”(Paragraph [0067])) and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF as taught by Zhu et al., the cell switching function as taught by Park et al., and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 54 and 63, and as applied to claims 53 and 62 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037]) Also, Yan et al. teach a method further comprising sending an indication of the predicted RLF to the wireless network (Fig(s).1 and 8 @ transmitting circuitry),
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al., Watanabe, and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein one or more of the following applies:
the indication of the predicted RLF is sent at least a preconfigured duration before a predicted time of the RLF; and
the indication of the predicted RLF includes a predicted time of the RLF.
Zhu et al. teach a method wherein one or more of the following applies:
the indication of the predicted RLF is sent at least a preconfigured duration before a predicted time of the RLF (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067])); and
the indication of the predicted RLF includes a predicted time of the RLF. (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al., the cell switching function as taught by Park et al., and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claim 64, and as applied to claim 59 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037])
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al., Watanabe, and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach the method further comprises receiving from the UE an indication of the RLF predicted by the UE based on a machine learning (ML) model.
Zhu et al. teach the method further comprises receiving from the UE an indication of the RLF predicted by the UE based on a machine learning (ML) model. (read as “the radio capability of the UE may indicate a capability of the UE to perform one or more wireless communications management procedures, which may be ML-based.”(Fig(s).1 and 7 @ 720; Paragraph [0067]) Also, the UE has “a capability to perform an (ML-based) radio link failure (RLF) …”(Paragraph [0067]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al., the cell switching function as taught by Park et al., and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 55 and 65, and as applied to claims 53 and 64 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037])
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al., Watanabe, and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach receiving the ML model from the wireless network and sending to the UE the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF in the first cell,
wherein the received ML model includes one or more of the following:
a prediction accuracy for the ML model;
an indication of whether the UE should report accuracy of RLF predictions based on the ML model;
duration of applicability for the ML model; how far in advance the UE should report an RLF predicted based on the ML model; and
whether the UE should report an RLF duration predicted based on the ML model.
Zhu et al. teach a method further comprising receiving the ML model from the wireless network and sending to the UE the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF in the first cell (Fig.1),
wherein the ML model sent to the UE includes one or more of the following:
a prediction accuracy for the ML model;
an indication of whether the UE should report accuracy of RLF predictions based on the ML model (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067]));
duration of applicability for the ML model; how far in advance the UE should report an RLF predicted based on the ML model; and
whether the UE should report an RLF duration predicted based on the ML model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al., the cell switching function as taught by Park et al., and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Regarding claims 56 and 66, and as applied to claims 53 and 64 above, Yan et al. teach “the BS may communicate with UE 101 using the 3GPP 5G protocols.”(Fig(s).1 and 8; Paragraph [0037])
Watanabe teaches a handover preparatory procedure processing unit (Fig.7 @ 47 and 9-10))
Park et al. teach a method for “switching the first cell to a candidate PCell, and changing a PCell of the first terminal from the first cell to a second cell determined as a handover target among the one or more candidate PCells.”(Paragraph [0009])
However, Yan et al., Watanabe, and Park et al. fail to explicitly teach training an initial ML model received from the wireless network to obtain the ML model used for predicting the RLF and sending to the UE an initial ML model to be trained by the UE to obtain the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF,
wherein the initial ML model sent to the UE includes a duration that the UE should train the initial ML model.
Zhu et al. teach a method further comprising training an initial ML model received from the wireless network to obtain the ML model used for predicting the RLF and sending to the UE an initial ML model to be trained by the UE to obtain the ML model used by the UE to predict the RLF (Fig(s).1-2),
wherein the initial ML model sent to the UE includes a duration that the UE should train the initial ML model. (read as a UE capability indication (Paragraph [0067]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for performing ML based RLF based on a received UE capability indication as taught by Zhu et al., the cell switching function as taught by Park et al., and the handover preparatory procedure processing unit as taught by Watanabe with the base station as taught by Yan et al. for the purpose of improving handover procedures in a communication network.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 50-70 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Michel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0237516 A1) teach “a user equipment ("UE") that is to transmit a handover error report to an access node. An access node may use information in the handover error report to adjust configurations for parameters that are used to make handover decisions. A UE may transmit such a handover error report in response to an undesirable handover procedure from a source access node to a target access node, such as a failed or nearly failed or too early handover procedure. The UE may transmit this handover error report to either the source access node or the target access node or another node.”(Abstract)
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0256634 A1) teach “a wireless device to perform a synchronization (e.g., a random access procedure) with a cell, selected for the RRC connection reestablishment, using stored configuration of PSCell based on the selected cell being the PSCell when the wireless device determines a radio link failure from a primary cell.”(Paragraph [0318])
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.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights