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 .
Detailed Action
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/05/2026 to the application filed on 03/11/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 20230199518 A1 (hereinafter Blizard) in view of Hrbek et al., U.S. Patent 11528185 B1 (hereinafter Hrbek) and in view of Guchhait et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 20220353828 A1 (hereinafter Guchhait) and further in view of Martin et al., US 20230180019 A1 (hereinafter Martin) .
Regarding claim 1 Blizard teaches system and a method of integrating a wireless network site into a wireless network system (a wireless telecommunication network), the method comprising: receiving, by an orchestrator application (a hardware or software processor executing instructions) implemented on a computing system, integration data (configuration update) indicating integration stages (multiple stages) for integrating a wireless network site into a wireless network system, wherein the integration stages comprise a first integration stage (pre-check stage) and a second integration stage (configuration stage), wherein the integration data defines an implementation sequence for components and/or functionality associated with the wireless network site;
(“In step 600, a hardware or software processor executing instructions described in this application can obtain an indication of a configuration update to perform on a device associated with a wireless telecommunication network and an indication of the device associated with the wireless telecommunication network. The indication of the configuration update includes multiple stages defining an order in which to perform the configuration update. The multiple stages include a pre-check stage, a configuration stage, a verification stage, and optionally a rollback stage and a post-check stage. The device associated with the wireless telecommunication network can be a component of the wireless telecommunication network, such as a base station, the core network, a sector, an antenna, a wireless device, etc.”[0050])
Receiving, the orchestrator application, network 350) associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first integration stage (pre-check stage 320A);
(“If the network 350 passes the pre-check stage 320A, the system proceeds to the configuration or implementation stage 320B… The configuration or implementation stage 320B implements the configuration update. The verification stage 320C checks that that the configuration stage 320B was successful and that the network 350 is stable and functioning properly. The verification stage 320C can automatically run a suite of tests on the network 350 to ensure proper functioning of the network 350. If the verification stage 320C validates the network 350” [0035-0036])
Blizard does not expressly disclose a first signal indicating that a component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first integration stage in response to verifying that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first integration stage: determining, the orchestrator application, an entity associated with the second integration stage, based at least in part on the component associated with the wireless network site and the first integration stage; transmitting, via the orchestrator application, a signal to the entity, the signal associated with one or more tasks further associated with the second integration stage; receiving, by the orchestrator application, a second signal indicating that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second integration stage; wherein the wireless network site comprises one or more radio units; transmitting , by the orchestrator application, a first test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the first integration stage based on a response of the component to the first test signal; transmitting , by the orchestrator application, a first test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the first integration stage based on a response of the component to the first test signal; and transmitting, by the orchestrator application, a second test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the second integration stage based on a response of the component to the second test signal.
However Hrbek teaches a first signal(feedback) indicating that a component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first integration stage (completion of one or more jobs)
(“agent provisioning utilizes and conforms to a Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) framework supported by certain hardware device manufacturers for configuring network equipment. While performing agent-initiated provisioning jobs, the agent can update the provisioning server with feedback, such as the status of agent provisioning jobs. For example, the agent can send feedback corresponding to the start of agent provisioning, status and/or completion of one or more jobs related to agent provisioning, and feedback indicating the completion of agent provisioning.” [col 2, lines 51-60])
in response to verifying that the component (network device 101) associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first integration stage (provisioning jobs):
determining, the orchestrator application, an entity associated with the second integration stage (post-agent provisioning jobs), based at least in part on the component associated with the wireless network site and the first integration stage;
(“post-agent provisioning jobs are run only after a complete notification is received by the provisioning server to indicate that the configuration agent has completed its running of its provisioning jobs. By utilizing the feedback to initiate post-agent provisioning jobs, critical dependencies in the order of provisioning jobs can be maintained.” [col 4, lines 12-18] “Based on attributes of network device 101, a specific configuration plan is generated and/or retrieved from provisioning data store 109 and applied to network device 101.” [col 5, lines 37- 40])
transmitting, via the orchestrator application (provisioning server), a signal (an acknowledgement) to the entity (network device), the signal associated with one or more tasks further associated with the second integration stage (next job(s));
(“At 603, the start of agent provisioning is acknowledged. For example, in response to the agent start feedback message received at 601, an acknowledgement is sent from the provisioning server to the network device. In some embodiments, the acknowledgement includes a job number corresponding to a job identifier field. In some embodiments, the job number corresponds to a particular job to be executed by the agent on the network device as part of a configuration plan” [col 15, lines 14-22] “At 609, agent progress feedback received at 605 is acknowledged. In some embodiments, different acknowledgements are used depending on the type of feedback message. For example, progress feedback corresponding to job completion may include the information related to the next job(s) to be executed as part of the configuration plan. For example, multiple jobs can be specified to run multiple jobs in parallel and each job is specified in the acknowledgement. In some scenarios, a simple acknowledgement with no additional information is utilized.” [col 15, lines 58 - 67])
receiving, by the orchestrator application (the provisioning server), a second signal (complete feedback notifications) indicating that the component (network device) associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second integration stage (post-agent provisioning jobs);
(“a notification is received associated with the provisioning progress from the network device via the configuration agent. For example, the provision agent provides progress feedback notification(s) to the provisioning server. Notifications may include start and complete feedback notifications.” [col 4, lines 2-7] “or example, post-agent provisioning jobs are run only after a complete notification is received by the provisioning server to indicate that the configuration agent has completed its running of its provisioning jobs. By utilizing the feedback to initiate post-agent provisioning jobs, critical dependencies in the order of provisioning jobs can be maintained.” [col 4, lines 12-18]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Hrbek’s feedback based, dependency ordered provisioning technique into Blizard’s wireless network configuration system, so that subsequent provisioning tasks are initiated based on completion feedback from preceding tasks, for the benefit of maintaining critical dependencies in order of network provisioning.
Blizard in view of Hrbek does not expressly disclose wherein the wireless network site comprises one or more radio units; transmitting , by the orchestrator application, a first test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the first integration stage based on a response of the component to the first test signal; transmitting , by the orchestrator application, a first test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the first integration stage based on a response of the component to the first test signal; and transmitting, by the orchestrator application, a second test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the second integration stage based on a response of the component to the second test signal.
However Guchhait teaches wherein the wireless network site (an Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN)) comprises one or more radio units (an O-RAN compliant radio unit (O-RU 810));
(“an Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) that includes a fronthaul interface over which an O-RAN Distributed Unit (O-DU) and an O-RAN Radio Unit (O-RU) communicate with one another and exchange O-RAN standard defined user-plane (U-plane) packets and control-place (C-Plane) packets.”[0011] “The system includes (a) an O-RAN compliant distributed unit (O-DU 805) sending/receiving time-domain IQ samples based on functional split 8, and (b) an O-RAN compliant radio unit (O-RU 810) sending/receiving time-domain IQ samples based on functional split 8.” [0145]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Guchhait’s O-RAN radio unit architecture into the wireless network configuration and provisioning system of Blizard in view of Hrbek, so that the staged configuration and provisioning process is applied to an O-RAN wireless network including an O-RAN radio unit, for the benefit of enabling configuration and provisioning of radio access network components using an O-RAN fronthaul architecture.
Blizard in view of Hrbek and in further view of Guchhait does not expressly disclose transmitting , by the orchestrator application, a first test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the first integration stage based on a response of the component to the first test signal. and transmitting, by the orchestrator application, a second test signal to the component associated with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the second integration stage based on a response of the component to the second test signal.
However Martin teaches transmitting , by the orchestrator application, a first test signal (self-tests) to the component associated (access-point or DUT) with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the first integration stage (the installation) based on a response (the real measured communication performance versus the predicted communication performance) of the component to the first test signal;
(“when the installation of a node in a network is completed, a sequence of automated self-tests may be triggered to validate the installation and the real measured communication performance versus the predicted communication performance.”[0147] “the performance test suite may include: communication with neighbor access points to test some or all available radios (such as 2.4 5 and 6 GHz) and to validate functionality and that inter-access-point performance falls within predicted bounds of the predictive model or digital twin; and/or communication between the access-point or DUT main communications processor and an associated backhaul network interface (such as Ethernet or wireless if a mesh network is used) to validate communication performance… This testing of the communication between the access point or the DUT and the electronic device used by the installer may include: machine-generated specific verbal or visual instructions (e.g., via the user interface) for the installer to move to specific locations in a room to map the actual communication performance versus the predictive model or digital twin”[0148])
transmitting, by the orchestrator application, a second test signal (self-tests) to the component associated (access-point or DUT) with the wireless network site and verifying, by the orchestrator application, that the component is functioning according to the second integration stage (the installation)based on a response (the real measured communication performance versus the predicted communication performance) of the component to the second test signal.
(“when the installation of a node in a network is completed, a sequence of automated self-tests may be triggered to validate the installation and the real measured communication performance versus the predicted communication performance.”[0147] “the performance test suite may include: communication with neighbor access points to test some or all available radios (such as 2.4 5 and 6 GHz) and to validate functionality and that inter-access-point performance falls within predicted bounds of the predictive model or digital twin; and/or communication between the access-point or DUT main communications processor and an associated backhaul network interface (such as Ethernet or wireless if a mesh network is used) to validate communication performance… This testing of the communication between the access point or the DUT and the electronic device used by the installer may include: machine-generated specific verbal or visual instructions (e.g., via the user interface) for the installer to move to specific locations in a room to map the actual communication performance versus the predictive model or digital twin”[0148])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Martin’s automated testing and validation techniques, Guchhait’s O-RAN radio unit architecture, Hrbek’s dependency ordered provisioning workflow, into Blizard’s wireless network configuration system, so that wireless network components may be integrated according to an ordered sequence of tasks and verified for proper functionality during the integration process, for the benefit of ensuring proper installation and operation of the wireless network components.
Regarding claim 2, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches system and method further comprising:
determining, by the orchestrator application (processor) that a second component (second device) associated with the wireless network site is not functioning according to the second integration stage (configuration stage 320B);
( “Upon failing to verify functionality associated with the device, the processor can perform the rollback stage by restoring the state of the component to the expected state. Upon restoring the state of the component, the processor can perform the post-check stage by ensuring that the state of the component matches the expected state.”[0055] “The processor can obtain a dependency among multiple devices associated with the telecommunication network, where the multiple devices include the device and a second device… Upon determining that the device is not functioning, the processor can revert the device and the second device to a state that existed prior to commencement of the configuration update.” [0056] “The system can perform fact gathering during the pre-check stage 320A, after the configuration stage 320B, and after the rollback stage 320D.” [0038])
Accessing (query the database 360), by the orchestrator application (processor), data (configuration information) associated with the first integration stage (pre-check stage 320A) and the second integration stage (configuration stage 320B);
(“The system can perform fact gathering during the pre-check stage 320A, after the configuration stage 320B, and after the rollback stage 320D. The database 360 can store configuration information for each device in the network 350. The system can query the database 360 about a specific device and the specific configuration of the device.” [0038] ” Upon determining that the device is not functioning, the processor can revert the device and the second device to a state that existed prior to commencement of the configuration update.” [0056])
determining, by the orchestrator application (system/ processor), an entity (a second device) associated with the second integration stage (configuration update) and the second component (device and a second device) ;
(“Device dependencies facility 340 determines device interdependencies in the network 350. For example, if device A undergoes a configuration upgrade and device B depends on device A, that means that device B should also undergo the configuration upgrade. Specifically, a configuration upgrade does not necessarily upgrade all of the devices in the network 350.”[0039] “To determine which devices can be upgraded, the user can specify the devices to upgrade, or the system can automatically determine the devices to upgrade.” [0040] “The processor can obtain a dependency among multiple devices associated with the telecommunication network, where the multiple devices include the device and a second device. The dependency indicates a dependent functionality among the multiple devices. Upon determining that the device is not functioning, the processor can revert the device and the second device to a state that existed prior to commencement of the configuration update.” [0056])
and transmitting, by via the orchestrator application, a repair order to the entity associated with the second integration stage and the second component.
(Blizard teaches all three remaining limitations through its rollback and post-check stages. Upon the verification stage failing, Blizard’s system accesses Database 360, which stores pre-stage configuration information for each device (see section [0038] of Blizard). The device Dependency Facility 340 identifies the responsible entity (see section [0039]). The system then transmits a rollback instruction to restore the component and its dependent device to the pre-configuration stage “the processor can perform the rollback stage by restoring the state of the component to the expected state. Upon restoring the state of the component, the processor can perform the post-check stage by ensuring that the state of the component matches the expected state.”, [0056] ;”For example, the fact gathering facility 330 can gather the configuration information during the pre-check stage 320A on the devices that are undergoing the upgrade and store the configuration information in a database 360”,[0038], “Device dependencies facility 340 determines device interdependencies in the network 350”, [0039]; rollback instruction transmitted to the dependent device, restoring it to the expected pre-configuration state.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hrbek’s agent identification and task dispatch mechanism into Blizard, Guchhait, and Martin’s staged wireless network configuration framework for the benefit of automatically determine the correct entity and task set for each device based on its specific hardware and software attributes which directly reduces configuration errors.
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches a
wherein the wireless network site comprises a component associated with a standalone 5G network
(”the network 100 can include a 5G network”, Blizard [0019] and (see figure 2 described in section [0027]) illustrating components of a 5g standalone core network functions (AMF, SMF, UPF, PCF, AUSF, UDM, NSSF, NEF, NRF) communicating over a service-based architecture. Blizard therefore teaches a standalone 5G core network.)
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 3 have been discussed above. Guchait discloses system and method wherein
the standalone 5G network comprises an open radio access network
(“system of operating an enhanced Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) fronthaul interface, i.e., FH 815, supporting 2G radio access technologies simultaneously or standalone operations along with 3G, 4G and 5G radio technologies”, [0132] As shown “open radio access network”, [0132]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guchhait’s open radio access network architecture into Blizard, Hrbek and Martin’s staged wireless network configuration framework so that the stand alone 5G network comprises an open radio access network, for the benefit of supporting multiple radio access technologies using O-RAN fronthaul interface.
As for claim 6 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizzard discloses system and method
Wherein the component associated with the wireless network site comprises at least one of a server, a radio unit, and an antenna.
(“The device associated with the wireless telecommunication network can be a component of the wireless telecommunication network, such as a base station, the core network, a sector, an antenna, a wireless device, etc.”, [0050]).
As for claim 7 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hrbek teaches
wherein the first integration stage includes installing one or more radio units (network device) at the wireless network site.
(”At 305, the network device for provisioning is physically installed”; Hrbek Col 9 Lines 21-22”network device 101 is installed as part of network infrastructure 100. For example, network device 101 is a switch or a router that is installed in a rack in a data center and plugged into network infrastructure 100 via one or more network interfaces”, Col 5 Lines 13-17; “ At 305, the network device for provisioning is physically installed”, Col 9 Lines 21-22).
Hrbek does explicitly teach network device is a radio unit. However, Guchait teaches network device is a radio unit
(“an Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) that includes a fronthaul interface over which an O-RAN Distributed Unit (O-DU) and an O-RAN Radio Unit (O-RU) communicate with one another and exchange O-RAN standard defined user-plane (U-plane) packets and control-place (C-Plane) packets.”[0011] “The system includes (a) an O-RAN compliant distributed unit (O-DU 805) sending/receiving time-domain IQ samples based on functional split 8, and (b) an O-RAN compliant radio unit (O-RU 810) sending/receiving time-domain IQ samples based on functional split 8.” [0145]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guchait’s O-Ran compliant radio unit into Hrbek’s network device provisioning system with Blizard and Martin’s staged wireless network configuration framework . So that the network devicice being physically installed and provisioned comprises a radio unit, for the benefit of enabling provisioning of O-Ran radio access network components.
Regarding claims 8, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches
wherein the second integration stage includes provisioning a compute instance with one or more network functions associated with a 5G network.
(configuration stage 320 B in figure 3 as described in section [0035]) configures to the 5G core network functions (see figure 2 described in section [0027] AMF, SMF, UPF, PCF, AUSF, UDM, NSSF, NEF, NRF). These software-based functions, by the nature of 3GPP 5G standalone architecture are instantiated and executed as software processes on underlying compute infrastructure; “the network 100 can include a 5G network”, [0019]; “FIG. 2 is a block diagram that illustrates an architecture 200 including 5G core network functions (NFs) that can implement aspects of the present technology. A wireless device 202 can access the 5G network”, Blizard [0027]).
As for claim 9, claim 9 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
(“FIG. 7 is a block diagram that illustrates an example of a computer system 700 in which at least some operations described herein can be implemented. As shown, the computer system 700 can include: one or more processors 702… a drive unit 724 that includes a machine-readable (storage) medium 726”, [0063]).
As for claim 10, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale
As for claim 11, Limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
(“The machine-readable (storage) medium 726 can include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the computing system 700. The machine-readable (storage) medium 726 can be non-transitory or comprise a non-transitory device.”, [0066]).
As for claim 17, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches
Wherein the wireless network system comprises a 5G wireless network.
(”the network 100 can include a 5G network”, Blizard [0019])
As for claim 19, limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard in view of Hrbek in view of Guchhait and further in view of Martin as applied to claims 1,9, and 16 above and further in view of Atwal et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 20220247678 A1 (hereinafter Atwal).
Regarding claim 5 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches system and method
wherein the component associated with the wireless network site comprises one or more network components hosted on … available cloud network.
(“In some implementations, the computer system 700… may include one or more cloud components in one or more networks”, [0064]; In addition, the 5G core network functions are cloud-native in nature (see figure 2 as described in sections [0027] – [0033])).
Blizzard does not appear to explicitly teach the components hosted on a publicly available cloud network However, Atwal teaches system method
wherein the component associated with the wireless network site comprises one or more network components hosted on publicly available cloud network
(“every applicable component of the platform may be cloud native. In these examples, all code may be ‘born in the cloud’ and in doing so, a microservice and may run in any public, private, or hybrid cloud environment.", [0083]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Atwal with Blizard, Hrbek, Guchhait, and Martin. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because the combination applies cloud native 5G deployment principles to a staged configuration framework, is a simple substitution of known components and their function yielding predictable results with reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 12, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Specification objection
Based on the amendments the specification objections for paragraph [0003] is withdrawn.
Claim objections
Based on the amendments the claim objections for claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Based on the amendments the claim rejections under 101 for claims 1-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blizard fails to disclose or suggest receiving integration data defining an implementation sequence for components and/or functionality associated with a wireless network site, first and second integration stages, and verification of functionality at each of the first and second stages. Applicant further argues that Hrbek, Guchhait, and Atwal fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Blizard [pages 12 - 13]
As stated in the rejection above, the presently applied combination teaches the claimed limitations. Blizard teaches the staged wireless network configuration process, and Martin further teaches the testing and validation of wireless network components as set forth in the rejection above. Accordingly, the references, when considered in combination, teach the claimed subject matter of independent claims 1, 9, and 16.
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 FAVOUR O MADU whose telephone number is (571)272-9730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.O.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
