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 08/03/2026 to the application filed on 03/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 9, and 17 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oroskar et al., US Patent 9999000 B1 (hereinafter Oroskar) in view of Yang et al., WO 2022260565 A1 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Oroskar teaches a Device and Method comprising:
determining, by a network device (access node), an uplink interference (noise level for one or more uplink signals);
“At 510, a noise level for one or more uplink signals received from wireless devices attached to an access node is determined to meet or exceed a predefined threshold.” (col 8, lines 21-23). “Exemplary methods for minimizing interference in a wireless network include determining that a first wireless device assigned to a first power class is located in a potential interference zone of a coverage area of an access node, and deactivating a high-powered transmission mode of the first wireless device” (col 2, lines 3-8).
determining, by the network device (access nodes) in response to the uplink interference (potential interference zone), position information (location) of an end device;
“At 420, a location is monitored for each of the high-powered wireless devices and compared with the potential interference zone. The location may be monitored based on periodic measurements reported from each high-powered wireless device. Alternatively or in addition, the location is obtained access nodes or a controller node from any other method such as retrieving locations from (and sharing locations with) other access nodes or a controller node in communication with each access node” (col 7, lines 52-59). “At 520, locations of each source wireless devices (i.e. the subset of standard-powered wireless devices suffering from uplink interference) are obtained or approximated”, (col 8, lines 31-33).
determining, by the network device based on the position (monitored location) information, that the end device (high-powered wireless device 232) contributes to the uplink interference (potential interference zone);
“If, at 430, the monitored location matches a location with the potential interference zone, the high-powered transmission mode is deactivated at 440, as further described herein” (col 7, lines 61-62). “Instructions in memory 212 further include monitoring a location of high-powered wireless device 232 and, if the location falls within the potential interference zone, to deactivate the high-powered transmission mode for high-powered wireless device 232.” (col 6, lines 36-41).
and transmitting (broadcasting), by the network device to the end device (wireless device 330), a message that includes (a system information message) the reduced uplink transmit power value (standard maximum uplink transmission power value).
“broadcasting the standard maximum uplink transmission power value to wireless device 330 via a system information message such as, for example, a downlink control indicator (DCI) message.” (col 7, lines 18-22)
calculating, by the network device (serving access node), a reduced uplink transmit power value (standard maximum uplink transmission power value) relative to a current uplink transmit power of the end device;
“At 720, the wireless device operating in a high-powered transmission mode and determined to be located within the potential interference zone is instructed to utilize a standard-powered uplink transmission level. The standard maximum transmission power level may be associated with a lower power class, such as one of power classes 3 or 4” (col 10, lines 16-21). “Controlling the transmit power level or changing the power class of wireless device 330 can be performed by setting a maximum uplink transmission power value allowed by a serving access node to be equal to a standard maximum uplink transmission power value associated with standard-powered wireless devices” (col 7, lines 13-18).
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, Oroskar fails to teach based on an application service the end device is using and a correlated interference value afforded to the application service. However, Yang teaches calculating, by the network device, [a UE specific power target] based on an application service (individual QoS demands) the end device is using and a correlated interference value [an interference related backoff determined based on the QoS derived BLER target] afforded to the application service. See below for Yang’s teachings.
“The method comprises determining 202, for a UE, a UE-specific SINR link adaption target (SINRLA), based on UE-specific QoS information for the UE, determining 204 a power target (P0) for the UE, based on the UE-specific SINRLA and on an estimated interference for UL signals at the network node, and sending 208 information on the determined P0 to the UE, so that the UE can transmit packets in UL with a transmission power based on the determined P0…QoS information may be Packet Error Rate (PER) target, Block Error Rate (BLER) target, latency budget etc…The estimated interference may be a general estimation of interference at the network node, or a specific interference experienced for signals sent by this particular UE… By such a method, each UE will have an individually set SINRLA, based on individual QoS demands, i.e. each UE's individual QoS demands. Further, as the P0 is determined based on the individually set SINRLA, the UL transmitted packets can meet individual QoS demands for each UE when received at the network node. Hereby, QoS can be met for e.g. URLLC-classified UEs, that is, UEs with extreme reliability and latency requirements, and at the same time other UEs that do not have the same high QoS demands can have lower SINRLA and therefore can transmit with a lower power than the URLLC-classified UEs.”[pages 8-9] “a BLER target is derived from the QoS information, and the P0 is determined 204 based on the UE-specific SINRLA on the estimated maximum interference for UL signals at the network node and also on an additional backoff, the backoff being added when the BLER target is lower than a defined threshold T” [page 10] “the lower the BLER target is than the BLER threshold, the higher the backoff may be set.”[page 11]. In other words each application /service may have its own QoS requirements and power requirements, and each application/QoS also has an associated estimated interference amount, where both the estimated interference and QoS/application is used to calculate the power.
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 Yang’s teaching of determining a UE specific power target based on UE specific QoS/SINR requirements and estimated uplink interference with Oroskar’s teaching of reducing the uplink transmit power of an interfering wireless device, such that the Oroskar’s reduced uplink power value is determined based on the application/service used by the end device and correlated interference value associated with that service. The modification would provide service specific uplink power control that accounts for interference while satisfying the QoS requirements of the end devices’ service. The combination would yield the predictable result of determining Oroskar’s reduced uplink transmit power value according to the service requirements and corresponding interference of the end device.
Regarding claim 2, Limitations of parent claim 1, have been discussed above. Oroskar teaches device and method
wherein determining that the end device (wireless devices 131, 132) contributes to the uplink interference comprises: storing (database 105), by the network device (controller node 104), power control information that includes network topology information(locations)and interference information (transmission mode capabilities);
“controller node 104 includes a database 105 for storing information related to elements within system 100, such as locations, power class assignments, and transmission mode capabilities of wireless devices 131, 132, presence and transmit power allowances of access node 110, and so on.”(col 5, lines 55-59)
and applying (deactivated/ monitoring/limited), by the network device, the positioning information (monitored location/ potential interference) and the current uplink transmit power (available power headroom/ transmission power level )of the end device to the power control information (high-powered transmission mode).”
“If, at 430, the monitored location matches a location with the potential interference zone, the high-powered transmission mode is deactivated”(col 7, lines 59-62).
“Instructions in memory 212 further include monitoring a location of high-powered wireless device 232 and, if the location falls within the potential interference zone, to deactivate the high-powered transmission mode for high-powered wireless device 232” (col 6, lines36 -41). “An available power headroom level may be received in a power headroom report from the high-powered wireless device. The available power headroom level reported by the high-powered wireless device may be limited based on the standard maximum transmission power level, rather than on the boosted transmission power level typically enabled by the higher power classes” (col 10, lines 36- 42).
Regarding claim 5, Limitations of parent claim 1, have been discussed above. Oroskar teaches device and method
further comprising: starting (expiration of a timer is monitored at 450), by the network device in response to the transmitting, a timer which upon expiration, interference is reevaluated.
“If, at 430, the monitored location does not match the potential interference zone, then expiration of a timer is monitored at 450. If the timer has not expired, the method loops to operation 420 monitoring high-powered wireless devices, enabling ongoing monitoring 430 and deactivating 440. If the timer is expired, then the timer is reset at 460, and the method loops back to identifying the potential interference zone of the access node 410.” (col 7 lines 62 - 67 and col 8 lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 7, Limitations of parent claim 1, have been discussed above. Oroskar teaches device and method
wherein the uplink interference pertains to an uplink of a neighboring network device (neighboring access nodes) or an uplink of the network device.
“in a system comprising a plurality of access nodes, there may exist a potential for interference caused to wireless devices attached to neighboring access nodes that may be utilizing a common frequency band or sub-band.” (col 7, lines 28-31). “each of the two or more neighboring access nodes may monitor the number of wireless devices attached thereto, and communicate this information in real-time to the other access nodes via a communication link such as, for instance, an X2 link” (col 11, lines 32-36).
Regarding 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.
Processor
“ FIG. 1. Access node 210 provides wireless devices 231, 232 with access to network services and applications on network 201. Access node 210 is illustrated as comprising a processor 211, memory 212, transceiver 213, and antenna 214. Processor 211 executes instructions stored on memory 212, while transceiver 213 and antenna 214 enable communication with wireless devices 232, 234 over communication links 242, 244, respectively. Instructions stored on memory 212 can include instructions for determining a potential interference zone within a coverage area of access node 210 based on a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of uplink transmissions from one or more standard-powered wireless devices, such as standard-powered wireless device 231 utilizing a standard-powered communication link 241.” (col 6, lines 15-29)
Regarding 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 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding 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 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding 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.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
“The methods, systems, devices, networks, access nodes, and equipment described above may be implemented with, contain, or be executed by one or more computer systems and/or processing nodes. The methods described above may also be stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium. Many of the elements of system 100 may be, comprise, or include computers systems and/or processing nodes. This includes, but is not limited to: access nodes 110, 120, controller node 104, and/or network 101.” (col 12, lines 52-60)
Regarding claim 18, Limitations of parent claim 17, have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oroskar and Yang in further view of Marzban et al., US 20230292351 A1 (hereinafter Marzban).
Regarding claim 3, Limitations of parent claim 2, have been discussed above. Marzban teaches of device and method
wherein the interference information includes an interference probability value (predicted interference) and a first interference value (corresponding range of interference power).
“Method 1000 then proceeds to step 1010 with predicting, for each of at least one communications resource, a predicted interference at the UE, wherein the predicted interference comprises a set of probability values, each probability value of the set of probability values being associated with a different class of a set of classes, each class of the set of classes associated with a corresponding range of interference power.”[0150] ” the neural network 500 can output, for a future communication resource, a plurality of probability values 522.sub.1-522.sub.n for a plurality of interference classes c.sub.1 to c.sub.n… each interference class associated with a different range of interference power levels. The neural network 500 determines a probability value that the interference power level for the future communication resource will be within the range of interference power levels for each of the defined interference classes.”[0092] “a soft prediction could be that there is an 80% probability the interference in the first communications resource as experienced at the UE will be within the first class, and a 20% probability that the interference will be in the second class.”[0026]“c.sub.1 (interference class 1) corresponds to a range of −80 dBm or less (e.g., interval (−∞, −80 dBm]), c.sub.2 (interference class 2) to a range of greater than −80 dBm to less than or equal to −78 dBm (e.g., interval (−80 dBm, −78 dBm])”[0095]
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 incorporate Marzban, which teaches representing predicted interference using probability values associated with corresponding interference power ranges with Oroskar and Yang which teaches determining and using uplink interface information for interference mitigation. Such that the interference information includes both an interference probability value and an interference value. The modification would provide information regarding both the likelihood and magnitude of interference, thereby improving interference based power control decisions. The combination would yield the predictable result of more accurately characterizing uplink interference for use in controlling wireless device transmissions.
Regarding 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 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oroskar and Yang in further view of Legg et al., US 20140286209 A1 (hereinafter Legg).
Regarding claim 4, Limitations of parent claim 1, have been discussed above. Legg teaches device and method
wherein the uplink interference (ISCP) is a prospective interference pertaining to one or more end devices (expected interference … following the admission of the UE i) that will prospectively connect (new admission attempt/ candidate mobile i) to the network device (Node B/ prospective serving cell).
“This algorithm identifies the best candidate timeslot(s) for new admissions (this may be a new call attempt, a handover or a midcall reallocation). The candidate timeslots are held in an ordered list--the CAC algorithm then takes timeslot(s) from the head of this list when a new admission attempt is to be processed.”[0082] “When an admission attempt is to be processed, the UE concerned is instructed to perform ISCP (Interference Signal Code Power, a measure of intercell interference) measurements for the existing (in use) DL DCH timeslots in the prospective serving cell of the UE (there are n.sub.DL.sub.--.sub.DCH timeslots).”[0083] “All the Node B's under the RNC are instructed to measure ISCP for all possible uplink DCH timeslots (i.e., over n.sub.UL.sub.--.sub.DCH.sub.--.sub.MAX slots). In the uplink, the ISCP is the uplink intercell interference measured at the Node B.”[0085] “j is the prospective serving cell N is the number of cells under the RNC, and ISCP.sub.n,t is the intercell interference at cell n in timeslot t An alternative metric, metricB, is presented below. This metric estimates the maximum value of the ISCP across the set of cells under the RNC for each cell following the admission of UE i.The expected interference at cell n.noteq.j in timeslot t following the admission of the UE i in cell j is: I.sub.n,t=ISCP.sub.n,t(1+SIR.sub.tgtg.sub.in/g.sub.ij) where SIR.sub.tgt is the SIR (Signal to Interference Ratio) target for UE g.sub.in is the path gain from UE i to cell n.noteq.j, and g.sub.ij is the path gain from UE i to cell j” [0090 -0097] ” The CAC takes a timeslot from the top of this list and evaluates whether the addition of the UE into this timeslot would generate acceptable interference to existing calls.” [0025] “Test (3) Acceptability of resulting interference level: Check on whether the intercell interference levels at the cell sites will be acceptable after the admission: relative load calculation.”[0125] “path gain measurements from candidate mobile i to all neighbour cells (the UE will only take measurements on the strongest neighbours, this is set N.sub.i)”[0128]
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 incorporate Oroskar and Yang’s uplink interference identification system with Legg’s prospective UE admission and expected interference framework , for the benefit of predicting the interference contribution associated with a candidate UE begore admission and enabling proactive power reduction decisions before the UE connects to the serving cell. This combination would yield the predictable result of identifying and mitigating prospective uplink interference associated with devices that will prospectively connect to the network.
Regarding 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 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Limitations of parent claim 17, have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oroskar and Yang in further view of, US 20220046549 A1 (hereinafter Vivanco).
Regarding claim 6, Limitations of parent claim 1, have been discussed above. Vivanco teaches device and method
wherein the message includes a radio resource control (RRC) Connection Reconfiguration message (LTE RRC connection reconfiguration message 235.)
“The SgNB configures a power allocation for uplink transmission based on the information provided by the MeNB, and forwards its uplink power configuration 234 to the MeNB. In this embodiment, the 5G-NR uplink power configuration includes the power control methodology (Open vs. Closed Loop Power Control), power control parameters, and maximum uplink power pMaxNR. The MeNB sends the information received from the SgNB to the UE via an LTE RRC connection reconfiguration message 235. In this embodiment, the MeNB may send updated LTE and 5G-NR uplink information with a new RRC connection reconfiguration message at any time while the connection is established.”[0039] ” if uplink power needs to be updated while the UE is connected to the network, it is necessary to send new SIB1 and RRC connection reconfiguration messages to the UE.”[0040]
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 Vivanco’s RRC connection Reconfiguration signaling framework with Oroskar and Yang’s uplink interference identification system, for the benefit of providing a standardized dedicated signaling mechanism for communicating updated uplink power control information, including maximum uplink power values, to the end device while the connection is established. The combination would yield the predictable result of transmitting Oroskar’s reduced uplink transmit power information to the end device using an RRC connection reconfiguration message.
Regarding 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 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Limitations of parent claim 17, have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oroskar and Yang in further view of Muruganathan et al., (U.S. Patent Pub. 11368915 B2) (hereinafter Muruganathan).
Regarding claim 8, Limitations of parent claim 9, have been discussed above. Muruganathan teaches device and method
wherein the network device (network nodes) comprises a next generation Node B (New Radio (NR) Node Bs (gNBs)), a centralized unit (CU), or a distributed unit (DU) of a radio access network.
“Examples of network nodes include, but are not limited to, Access Points (APs) (e.g., radio APs), Base Stations (BSs) (e.g., radio base stations, Node Bs, eNBs, and New Radio (NR) Node Bs (gNBs)).” (col 20, lines 38-42) “the wireless network may be configured to operate according to specific standards or other types of predefined rules or procedures. Thus, particular embodiments of the wireless network may implement communication standards, such as Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), LTE, and/or other suitable Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Generation (2G, 3G, 4G, or 5G) standards.” (col 20, lines 1-9)
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 incorporate the next generation Node B (gNB, centralized unit (CU), or distributed unit (DU)architecture taught by Muruganathan into the uplink interference minimizing framework of Oroskar and Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the LTE eNB network device of Oroskar with the successor 5G architecture of Muruganathan for the benefit of implementing Oroskar’s interference identification and power reduction method on commercially deployed 5G NR infrastructure. This combination yields only the predictable result of 5G compatible uplink interference management system that applies the same location-based identification and DCI power reduction technique to the modern successor architecture to the LTE eNB.
Regarding claim 16, Limitations of parent claim 9, have been discussed above. Claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Traversal of Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) based on Oroskar
Applicant argues “Oroskar fails to anticipate or render obvious amended independent claim 1”, (Remarks page 8) because “Oroskar fails to describe at least the ‘calculating’ feature, as recited in amended independent claim 1 and the ‘calculating’ feature as recited in amended independent claim 1 includes features previously recited in original claim 6, which the Examiner acknowledges are not taught by Oroskar.”, (Remarks pages 8-9).
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Contrary to applicant’s argument, the amended portion of claim 1 was not previously recited in the original claim 6. Original claim 6 recites “calculating, by the network device, the reduced uplink transmit power value based on an application service the end device is using via an uplink channel of the network device” which amended portion of current claim 1 recites “based on an application service the end device is using and a correlated interference value afforded to the application service”. The amended limitation “using and a correlated interference value afforded to the application service” was not present in original claim 6.
As such, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “amended independent claims 9 and 17 are also not anticipated or rendered obvious by Oroskar for at least the reasons explained for amended independent claim 1”, (Remarks) since “independent claims 9 and 17 recites features similar to the features described supra with respect to amended independent claim 1”, (Remarks page 9).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument as explained regarding claim 1 above.
Applicant argues “claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 19 are not anticipated or rendered obvious by Oroskar at least by virtue of their dependencies”, (Remarks page 10) because “Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 depend on amended independent claim 1. Claims 10, 12, and 14 depend on amended independent claim 9. Claims 18 and 19 depend on amended independent claim 17”, (Remarks pages 9-10).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Traversal of Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Oroskar and Vivanco
Applicant argues “at least by virtue of their dependencies, claims 3, 6, 11, 15, and 20 are not rendered obvious by Oroskar and Vivanco”, (Remarks page 11) because “Vivanco fails to describe or suggest the "calculate" feature and the "transmit" feature”, (Remarks page 11) since “In view of the features recited in amended independent claim 1 relative to original claim 6….Vivanco fails to describe or suggest at least the claimed correlated interference value”, (Remarks page 10).
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Vivanco was cited in the previous office action for rejection of original claim 6. However, contrary to applicant’s argument “correlated interference value” was NOT part of the original dependent claim 6. As such, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3, 6, 11, 15, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Traversal of Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Oroskar and Muruganathan
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights