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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification and Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification and Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered. It is acknowledged for record that “Applicant wishes to supplement the Office's identification of corresponding structure. For "means for obtaining," the corresponding structure also includes modem 212, as paragraph [0053] states that "the processor 210 and/or modem 212 may be configured to perform various operations, such as those associated with any of the methods described herein." For "means for transmitting," the corresponding structure also includes antennas 218, as paragraph [004 7] states that "the modem 212 may be coupled to the radio 250 including a transmit (TX) path 214 (also known as a transmit chain) for transmitting signals via one or more antennas 218."
With regard to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further in view of Nad’796 et al (US Publication No. 2022/0070796 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yi discloses, a method of wireless communication by a wireless device [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0087, a method of wireless communication by user equipment 715], comprising:
obtaining a first transmit power limit associated with a coherent transmission mode [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; obtaining a full/max transmission power associated with a coherent transmission mode; see, ¶0090, at step 720, the UE 715 adjusts a scaling factor for transmission power. If the UE 715 is fully coherent, the UE may modify the power control mechanism to support UL full power transmission without precluding the use of full-rate power amplifiers; further see ¶0091, If the UE 715 is a power class 3 UE, the UE 715 may deliver a total power of 23 dBm when transmitting the UL communication signal; further see ¶0029, UE may be fully coherent if each transmit chain included in the UE is capable of transmitting at full power. Transmission at full power may also be referred to as transmission at a maximum power; note that since the UE is in fully coherent mode and is configured to transmit signals at full/max power limit, it is required for the UE to determine its corresponding first transmission power limit], wherein the first transmit power limit is adjusted by a scaling factor associated with the coherent transmission mode [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0090, the full/max power limit is adjusted by a scaling factor associated with the coherent transmission mode]; and
transmitting first signals via a plurality of antennas in the coherent transmission mode at a first transmit power determined based at least in part on the first transmit power limit [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; transmitting an UL communication signal at each transmission chain in the coherent mode at a full power determined based on the full/max power limit; see ¶0089, the UE is fully coherent and each transmit chain is capable of transmitting at full power; note that each transmit chain is associated with each antenna (see, ¶0029, UE may include multiple transmit chains coupled to multiple antennas located at various locations on the UE) and transmission of a signal at each transmit chain of multiple transmit chains coupled to each antenna of multiple antennas results in transmission of multiple signals via the multiple multiple antennas; further see ¶0090-0091].
Although Yi discloses, “obtaining a first transmit power limit associated with a coherent transmission mode, wherein the first transmit power limit is adjusted by a scaling factor associated with the coherent transmission mode,” as set forth above, Yi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), wherein the scaling factor is based on (i) a radio frequency (RF) exposure level associated with a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) transmission and (ii) a combination of RF exposure levels associated with single antenna transmissions.
However, Zhou discloses, the scaling factor is based on (i) a radio frequency (RF) exposure level associated with a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) transmission and (ii) a combination of RF exposure levels associated with single antenna transmissions [¶0250, the electronic device 100 may preset a maximum exposure ratio, so that an exposure ratio of a single antenna and a total exposure ratio of the plurality of antennas are both less than or equal to the maximum exposure ratio; note that the transmit power is based on exposures associated with single antenna and a plurality of antennas].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Zhou in the system of Yi in order to cause the system to be able to balance between reducing the transmit power and ensuring the communication quality [e.g., ¶0004 of Zhou].
Regarding claim 15, Yi in view of Zhou discloses, an apparatus for wireless communication [FIGS. 5 and 7; their related descriptions; ¶0087, user equipment], comprising:
one or more memories collectively storing executable instructions [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0071-0072, memory 504 storing executable program code]; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0071-0072, processor 502 coupled to the memory 504, the processor configured to execute the executable program code to perform action(s)].
Since claim 15 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Yi discloses, an apparatus for wireless communication [FIGS. 5 and 7; their related descriptions; ¶0087, user equipment].
Since claim 20 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further of Nad’796 et al (US Publication No. 2022/0070796 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yi discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nad’796 discloses, the plurality of antennas is in an antenna group among a plurality of antenna groups [¶0027, each antenna group among the plurality of antenna groups]; and radio frequency (RF) exposure associated with the antenna group is treated as being mutually exclusive of RF exposure associated with each other antenna group among the plurality of antenna groups [¶0027, the antenna groups may be defined and/or operated so as to be mutually exclusive in terms of RF exposure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nad’796 in the system of Yi in view of Zhou in order to provide the system with different exposure scenarios for each group to ensure desirable uplink performance in a cellular network [e.g., ¶0027 of Nad’796].
Claims 3-5 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further of Wang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0037090 A1)1.
Regarding claim 3, Yi discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Wang discloses, transmitting a second signal via at least one of the plurality of antennas in a non-coherent transmission mode at a second transmit power determined based at least in part on the first transmit power limit [¶0095, transmitting a second signal via panel #B in a non-coherent transmission mode at a second output power determined based on a maximum power per panel (PMAX,f,c); further see ¶0096-0097].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yi in view of Zhou with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Wang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Wang into the system of Yi in view of Zhou would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling flexible power coordination across antennas meeting regulatory limit, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Yi discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Wang discloses, obtaining a second transmit power limit associated with a non-coherent transmission mode [¶0095-0097, calculating a second maximum power of panel #B associated with the non-coherent mode; note that since non-coherent codebook subset based transmission on the panel #B is in ¶0095 and the maximum power of each panel is calculated in ¶0096-0097, the maximum power of panel of panel #B is disclosed]; and transmitting a second signal via at least one of the plurality of antennas in the non-coherent transmission mode at a second transmit power determined based at least in part on the second transmit power limit [¶0095, transmitting a second signal via panel #B in a non-coherent transmission mode at a second output power determined based on a maximum power per panel (PMAX,f,c); further see ¶0096-0097], wherein the second transmit power limit differs from the first transmit power limit [see, FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0079-0080, note that since the max Tx power from Panel #1 is different from max Tx power from Panel #2, the respective max Tx powers of Panel #A and Panel B can be different from each other].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Wang in the system of Yi in view of Zhou for similar rationales as set forth above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Yi in view of Zhou and Wang discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Yi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Wang discloses, wherein the first transmit power limit is equal to a product of the second transmit power limit and the scaling factor [see, FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0079-0080, note that since the max Tx power from Panel #1 (e.g., 23 dBm) is equal to a product of the the max Tx power from Panel #2 (e.g., 20 dBm) and the scaling factor (e.g., 2)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Wang in the system of Yi in view of Zhou for similar rationales as set forth above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further of Wang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0037090 A1) and further in view of Fang et al (US Publication No. 2023/0155626 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yi in view of Zhou and Wang discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Although Yi in view of Zhou and Wang discloses, “the non-coherent transmission mode” as set forth above, Yi in view of Zhou and Wang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Fang discloses, wherein the non-coherent transmission mode comprises a single-input, single-output (SISO) transmission mode [¶0004, Single-input-single-output (SISO) communication system is a non-coherent communication system].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yi in view of Zhou and Wang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Fang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Fang into the system of Yi in view of Zhou and Wang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce processing and feedback complexity, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further Tsui et al (US Publication No. 2022/0279535 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yi in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Yi discloses, “the coherent transmission mode” as set forth above, Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Tsui discloses, wherein the coherent transmission mode comprises a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) transmission mode [¶0295, the combination of coherent modular antenna arrays is operated in single-user (Su)-MIMO mode for one or more other UEs].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yi in view of Zhou with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Tsui to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Tsui into the system of Yi in view of Zhou would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to increase data rate and spectral efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further of Nad’413 et al (US Patent No. 10,447,413 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Yi in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nad’413 discloses, determining a time-averaged exposure based on one or more transmit powers and the first transmit power limit [column 8, line 60 to column 9, line 7, [t]he processor 334 may determine time-averaged RF exposure measurements based on transmission power levels (i.e., one or more transmit powers) applied to the TX path 302 to set a transmission power level for a future time slot that meets a predetermined RF exposure limit (i.e., first transmit power limit) set by domestic and international regulations as further described herein; further see column 17 line 63 to column 18 line 10; column 17 lines 8-37, the wireless device may set the transmission power levels for the future time slot to be no greater than the maximum allowed transmission power level (i.e., first transmit power limit)]; and determining the first transmit power based on the time-averaged exposure satisfying a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit [column 8, line 60 to column 9, line 7, [t]he processor 334 may determine time-averaged RF exposure measurements based on transmission power levels applied to the TX path 302 (e.g., gain levels for the PA 316) to set a transmission power level (i.e., determines the first transmit power) for a future time slot that meets a predetermined RF exposure limit set by domestic and international regulations as further described herein; further see column 17 line 63 to column 18 line 10; note that the RF exposure measurements are used to determine the transmission power level; further see column 17 lines 8-37, the wireless device may set the transmission power levels for the future time slot to be no greater than the maximum allowed transmission power level (i.e., first transmit power limit)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nad’413 in the system of Yi in view of Zhou in order to cause the system to be able to adjust the transmission power of the wireless device to ensure compliance with the standards [e.g., column 1 lines 13-24 of Nad’413].
Regarding claim 10, Yi in view of Zhou and Nad’413 discloses, the method of claim 9 as set forth above.
Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nad’413 discloses, wherein determining the time-averaged exposure comprises performing a linear computation of the time-averaged exposure based on the first transmit power limit [FIG. 5; its descriptions; column 17 lines 8-37, the wireless device may compute the time-averaged RF exposure measurement 520 in which the transmission power levels for the future time slot 515(p+1) are variables in the time-averaged RF exposure measurement 520 (i.e., the time-averaged RF exposure measurement is a function of the transmission power levels for the future time slot 515(p+1)); note that the RF exposure measurement 520 is a linear combination of the transmission power levels for the RF exposure measurement 510(p+1) corresponding to the future time slot; further see column 17 lines 8-37, the wireless device may set the transmission power levels for the future time slot to be no greater than the maximum allowed transmission power level (i.e., first transmit power limit)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nad’413 in the system of Yi in view of Zhou for similar rationales set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Yi in view of Zhou and Nad’413 discloses, the method of claim 9 as set forth above.
Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nad’413 discloses, wherein determining the time-averaged exposure comprises determining a sum of the one or more transmit powers normalized by the first transmit power limit [FIG. 5; its descriptions; column 17 lines 8-37, the wireless device may compute the time-averaged RF exposure measurement 520 in which the transmission power levels for the future time slot 515(p+1) are variables in the time-averaged RF exposure measurement 520 (i.e., the time-averaged RF exposure measurement is a function of the transmission power levels for the future time slot 515(p+1)). The wireless device may then determine transmission power levels for the future time slot 515(p+1) such that the peak value in the time-averaged RF exposure measurement is equal to or less than one (e.g., satisfies the condition 1 in Equation (7) or (10)); further see column 10 lines 49-56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nad’413 in the system of Yi in view of Zhou for similar rationales set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Yi discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Nad’413 discloses, wherein the first transmit power limit comprises a maximum time-averaged transmit power associated with a radio frequency (RF) exposure limit [see FIG. 5 and its related descriptions and column 17 lines 8-37 with respect to column 8, line 60 to column 9, line 7, maximum allowed transmission power level associated with a RF exposure limit (Equation 7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nad’413 in the system of Yi in view of Zhou for similar rationales set forth above in claim 9.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105724 A1) in view of Zhou et al (US Publication No. 2025/0106785 A1) and further of Huang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0015039 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yi in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Yi discloses, wherein obtaining the first transmit power limit comprises . . . in response to detecting the wireless device is transmitting coherent signal [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; obtaining a full/max transmission power associated with a coherent transmission mode; see, ¶0090, at step 720, the UE 715 adjusts a scaling factor for transmission power. If the UE 715 is fully coherent, the UE may modify the power control mechanism to support UL full power transmission without precluding the use of full-rate power amplifiers], Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Huang discloses, selecting the first transmit power limit among a plurality of transmit power limits in response to detecting the wireless device is transmitting coherent signal [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; ¶0787, determining a power control scaling rule of an uplink signal according to the power capability of a terminal device; further see ¶0767, the power control scaling rule of the uplink signal is determined according to the power capability of the terminal device, and/or the power control scaling rule is determined according to the first instruction message from the network device, to scale the power of the uplink signal according to the scaling rule, so that the terminal device with the partial antenna coherent transmission capability and non-coherent transmission capability can perform the low-rank transmission at the maximum transmit power; note that the power control scaling rule is determined based on coherent transmission capability of the terminal device, and see ¶0870, different power control scaling rules corresponding to different power capabilities of the terminal].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yi in view of Zhou with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Huang to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Huang into the system of Yi in view of Zhou would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enable to adapt transmit power for coherent transmission and maintain link reliablity, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 14, Yi in view of Zhou discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Yi discloses, obtaining the first transmit power limit comprises . . . in response to detecting the wireless device is transmitting in the coherent transmission mode [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; obtaining a full/max transmission power associated with a coherent transmission mode; see, ¶0090, at step 720, the UE 715 adjusts a scaling factor for transmission power. If the UE 715 is fully coherent, the UE may modify the power control mechanism to support UL full power transmission without precluding the use of full-rate power amplifiers], Yi in view of Zhou does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Huang discloses, selecting the first transmit power limit among a plurality of transmit power limits in response to detecting the wireless device is transmitting in the coherent transmission mode [FIG. 1; its related descriptions; ¶0787, determining a power control scaling rule of an uplink signal according to the power capability of a terminal device; further see ¶0767, the power control scaling rule of the uplink signal is determined according to the power capability of the terminal device, and/or the power control scaling rule is determined according to the first instruction message from the network device, to scale the power of the uplink signal according to the scaling rule, so that the terminal device with the partial antenna coherent transmission capability and non-coherent transmission capability can perform the low-rank transmission at the maximum transmit power; note that the power control scaling rule is determined based on coherent transmission capability of the terminal device, and see ¶0870, different power control scaling rules corresponding to different power capabilities of the terminal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Huang in the system of Yi in view of Zhou for similar rationales set forth above in claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Wang was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights