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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, on line 3, it appears that the word “routes” should instead be “route”. Appropriate correction is required.
Current amendments made by Applicant to claims 1, 9, 14, 17, and 18 to obviate the other claim objections presented in the previous Office Action are proper and have been entered. These objections have accordingly been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Current amendments made by Applicant to claims 5, 6, 10-13, and 15 to obviate the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, presented in the previous Office Action, are proper and have been entered. These particular rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-14, 16, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. 2023/0388894) (hereinafter “Chen”). Chen teaches all of the limitations of the specified claims with the reasoning that follows.
Regarding claim 1, “a method for operating a wireless communication network, the method comprising: using multi connectivity of an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) or relay node to establish, with the IAB or relay node, a first link for a first path to a network node of the wireless communication network and a second link for a second path to a network node of the wireless communication network” is anticipated by the multi-hop IAB network topology (wireless communication network) shown in Figure 3, where the network supports Multi-Radio-Dual Connectivity including an IAB node 304 being dual-connected (multi connectivity via established first, second links) with two parent IAB nodes 306, 308, and multiple routing paths (first, second paths) existing between the IAB node and a donor DU 316 (network node) as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027].
“Routing a data traffic of the IAB or relay node via the first path” is anticipated by IAB node 304 that determines a next hop node based on a routing table and destination IAB node and/or a path ID and then delivers (routes) a data packet (data traffic) to the next hop node as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0026]; where a first network path may include IAB node 304, IAB node 306, IAB node 310, IAB node 312, and donor DU 316 as shown in Figure 3 and spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027].
“Measuring a link characteristic by one or more of: data rate/throughput, packet delay or jitter, packet loss, level of RSSI, RSRP, SNR, SINR, PMI, rank of the link measured at the IAB or relay node, level carrier frequency offset is above a predetermined threshold, or synchronization loss, occurrence/probability/observation of radio link failure, value or result of cost function or costs, amount/number of newly available links in the wireless communication network” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that determines that a measured RSRP value (link characteristic) is lower than a RSRP threshold as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0045].
Lastly, “re-routing at least a part of the data traffic over the second path in case of a change of a link characteristic of a link of a path of the wireless communication network” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that, based on the measured RSRP value being lower than the RSRP threshold (change of a link characteristic), triggers packet rerouting for DL/UL traffic by finding a backup routing path (second path) for the packet that is to be rerouted and delivering the data packet to the next hop of the backup routing path as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0047].
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the first path relates to an aggregation of parallel links between two nodes; or a concatenation of links over multiple hops” is anticipated by the multi-hop path(s) including a plurality of links (concatenation of links over multiple hops) between IAB node 304 and Donor DU 316 as shown in Figure 3 and spoken of on page 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0027].
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the routed data traffic is routed from the IAB or relay node via the first path comprising the first link; and the re-routed data traffic is routed from the IAB or relay node via the different second path comprising the second link; or wherein the routed data traffic is routed to the IAB or relay node via the first path comprising the first link; and the re-routed data traffic is routed to the IAB or relay node via the different second path or a part of the second path comprising the second link” is anticipated by the multi-hop path(s) (first path, second path) including a plurality of links between IAB node 304 and Donor DU 316 as shown in Figure 3 and spoken of on page 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0027]; where the IAB node 304, based on the measured RSRP value being lower than the RSRP threshold (change of link characteristic), triggers packet rerouting for DL/UL traffic by finding a backup routing path (second path) for the packet that is to be rerouted and delivering the data packet to the next hop of the backup routing path as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0047].
Regarding claim 5, “operating the IAB or relay node to locally re-route the part of the data traffic based on a reception of a single, or multiple flow-control indications from a child node” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that reroutes a data packet transmission in response to receiving flow control feedback information (flow control indication) from a child IAB node as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0046].
Regarding claim 6, “transmitting a congestion control information from the IAB or relay node or a device served by the IAB or relay node to a central unit of the wireless communication network to indicate a persisting congestion; re-routing the data traffic based on the congestion control information” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that receives packet rerouting trigger information including a buffer occupancy ratio threshold, an available buffer size threshold, an occupied buffer size threshold, and a packet buffer time threshold (congestion control information) which can be used to determine a congestion level; where the IAB node may trigger packet rerouting in relation to these threshold values as spoken of on page 5, paragraphs [0044]-[0045].
Regarding claim 8, “wherein re-routing the data traffic comprises to transmit at least a part of the data traffic along the second path; wherein re-routing the data traffic comprises to split a first part from a second part of the data traffic and transmitting the first part of the data traffic over the second link and not the second part” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that detects radio link failure or congestion over one egress link or routing path, and reroutes data packet(s) to another less congested egress link or routing path; where it is considered which traffic should be rerouted (split of first part of data traffic from second part of data traffic) to maintain a network load balance and avoid repeated rerouting and/or routing loops as spoken of on page 6, paragraph [0055].
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the first part is at least a part of a control plane related data in the data traffic and the second part comprises at least a part of a user plane related data in the data traffic; or wherein the first part is at least a part of a user plane related data in the data traffic and the second part is at least a part of a control plane related data in the data traffic” is anticipated by the configuration of routing tables for each IAB node and donor DU in order to support the multi-hop routing of control plane (CP) (first part), user plane (UP) (second part), and/or operation and maintenance (OAM) traffic as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0028].
Regarding claim 10, “evaluating a priority of the data traffic; and selecting the first part to comprise a higher priority when compared to the second part” is anticipated by the received packet rerouting configuration information including a channel priority level threshold; where the IAB node 304 checks whether the backhaul channel’s priority value (evaluating priority) is equal to or lower than the priority threshold, and accordingly reroutes the data packet(s) as spoken of on page 6, paragraph [0056].
Regarding claim 11, “configuring or pre-configuring at least one path node in the second path to perform re-routing or to instruct the IAB or relay node to perform rerouting in case a link of the at least one path node experiences degradation due to an additional load caused by re-routing the data traffic” is anticipated by a donor CU 712 (central unit) that configures the IAB node(s) or donor DUs with a rerouting indication, which indicates whether the IAB node or donor DU is allowed to perform inter-donor DU rerouting as spoken of on page 6, paragraph [0053].
Regarding claim 12, “operating the IAB or relay node to locally re-route the part of the data traffic based on a reception of a single, or multiple flow-control indications from a child node; and informing the wireless communication network about the re-routing” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that reroutes a data packet transmission in response to receiving flow control feedback information (flow control indication) from a child IAB node as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0046]; where the IAB node 304 also sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (informing a central unit) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 13, “informing the wireless communication network about the change of the link characteristic; and reconfiguring at least one path of at least one IAB or relay node of the wireless communication network based on the informing” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that detects that the buffer occupancy ratio for DL/UL traffic is equal to or larger than the configured buffer occupancy ratio threshold, and triggers the packet rerouting (reconfiguring of path of IAB node) for the DL/UL as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0045]; where the IAB node 304 also sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (informing a central unit) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the re-routing is executed such that an existing service flows stay on a same path, whereas a previously established routes is switched over using a different path” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that detects radio link failure or congestion over one egress link or routing path, and reroutes data packet(s) to another less congested egress link or routing path; where it is considered which traffic should be rerouted (existing service flows stay on same path while switching other routes) to maintain a network load balance and avoid repeated rerouting and/or routing loops as spoken of on page 6, paragraph [0055].
Regarding claim 16, “determining the change of the link characteristic; and requesting a node for re-routing the data traffic; and re-routing the data traffic accordingly; or detecting the change of the link characteristic; and informing another node of the wireless communication network about the change” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that detects that the buffer occupancy ratio for DL/UL traffic is equal to or larger than the configured buffer occupancy ratio threshold (detects change of link characteristic), and triggers the packet rerouting for the DL/UL as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0045]; where the IAB node 304 also sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (informing another node) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 18, “a network node configured for operating in a wireless communication network, the network node comprising a wireless interface and configured for: determining a change of a link characteristic and requesting a node for re-routing data traffic; or detecting a change of a link characteristic of a link to an Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) node or of a relay node of a path of the wireless communication network; and informing another node of the wireless communication network about the change” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 (network node) that detects that the buffer occupancy ratio for DL/UL traffic is equal to or larger than the configured buffer occupancy ratio threshold, or detects that the measured RSRP is lower than the RSRP threshold, or detects that the data transmission rate is equal to or lower than the data transmission rate threshold (detects change of link characteristic), and triggers the packet rerouting for the DL/UL as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0045]; where the IAB node 304 also sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (informing another node) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 19, “the network node of claim 18 being a user equipment, UE” is anticipated by the IAB nodes 106a-106d that include a base station function as well as a mobile terminal function such that the IAB node can function as a mobile terminal (UE) as spoken of on page 1, paragraph [0007].
Regarding claim 20, “using multi connectivity of an IAB or relay node to establish, with the IAB or relay node, a first link for a first path to a network node of the wireless communication network and a second link for a second path to a network node of the wireless communication network; routing a data traffic of the IAB or relay node via the first path; and re-routing at least a part of the data traffic over the second path in case of the change of the link characteristic” is anticipated by the multi-hop IAB network topology (wireless communication network) shown in Figure 3, where the network supports Multi-Radio-Dual Connectivity including an IAB node 304 being dual-connected (multi connectivity via established first, second links) with two parent IAB nodes 306, 308, and multiple routing paths (first, second paths) existing between the IAB node and a donor DU 316 (network node) as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027]; as well as IAB node 304 that determines a next hop node based on a routing table and destination IAB node and/or a path ID and then delivers (routes) a data packet (data traffic) to the next hop node as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0026]; where a first network path may include IAB node 304, IAB node 306, IAB node 310, IAB node 312, and donor DU 316 as shown in Figure 3 and spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027]; as well as the IAB node 304 that, based on the measured RSRP value being lower than the RSRP threshold (change of link characteristic), triggers packet rerouting for DL/UL traffic by finding a backup routing path (second path) for the packet that is to be rerouted and delivering the data packet to the next hop of the backup routing path as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0047].
Regarding claim 21, “transmitting a congestion control information or a radio link failure (RLF) information, to a central unit of the wireless communication network to indicate a persisting congestion or RLF” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (central unit); where the rerouting reporting information includes information associated with radio link failure as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 22, “informing the wireless communication network about the change of the link characteristic” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that sends (informs) rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (central unit of wireless communication network); where the rerouting reporting information includes information associated with radio link failure (about the change of link characteristic) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 23, “a user equipment (UE) configured for operating in a wireless communication network, the UE comprising a wireless interface and configured for: determining a change of a link characteristic; or detecting a change of a link characteristic of a relay path of a path of the wireless communication network; informing another node of the wireless communication network about the change” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 (user equipment) that detects that the buffer occupancy ratio for DL/UL traffic is equal to or larger than the configured buffer occupancy ratio threshold, or detects that the measured RSRP is lower than the RSRP threshold, or detects that the data transmission rate is equal to or lower than the data transmission rate threshold (detects change of link characteristic), and triggers the packet rerouting for the DL/UL as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0045]; where the IAB node 304 also sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (informing another node) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050]; and where the IAB nodes 106a-106d (of Figure 1), 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, 314 (of Figure 3) each include a base station function as well as a mobile terminal function such that the IAB node can function as a mobile terminal (UE) as spoken of on page 1, paragraph [0007].
Lastly, “transmitting a congestion control information or a radio link failure (RLF) information, to a central unit of the wireless communication network to indicate a persisting congestion or RLF” is anticipated by the IAB node 304 that sends rerouting reporting information regarding the rerouting to the donor CU 318 (central unit); where the rerouting reporting information includes information associated with radio link failure as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0050].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fujishiro et al. (U.S. 2023/0180327) (hereinafter “Fujishiro”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches claim 1 as described above. Chen does not explicitly teach “for an uplink, UL, direction performing local re-routing of a backhaul, BH, traffic being part of the data traffic, based on a number of scheduling requests exceeding a predefined threshold”.
However, Fujishiro teaches a communication control method utilizing IAB nodes where an IAB node 300 determines whether a start condition of local routing has been satisfied, where the start condition may relate to scheduling requests transmitted from the IAB node 300 to a certain parent node have been ignored a certain number of times or more (exceeding threshold) as spoken of on pages 6-7, paragraphs [0118]-[0120].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the routing of data traffic in relation to a number of scheduling requests as taught in Fujishiro to the system of Chen in order to improve the data routing in the network system by taking into account current network throughput, thereby reducing the potential for network congestion as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0120] of Fujishiro.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu et al. (U.S. 2021/0258244) (hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches claim 1 as described above. Chen does not explicitly teach “generating redundancy information for at least a part of the data traffic and transmitting the redundancy information along different paths through the wireless communication network”.
However, Xu teaches a method and system for dynamic route selection in an IAB system where a donor CU 210 may send preference information to branching IAB node(s) 230, where the preference information indicates circumstances when a branching point should switch to a less preferred route/branch or start duplicating packets (redundancy information) for transmission on both branches as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0046].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the packet duplication taught in Xu to the system of Chen in order to increase the information redundancy in the network system, thereby increasing the probability that data traffic is received successfully and improving the overall network reliability as spoken of on page 4, paragraphs [0046] and [0057] of Xu.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Bochkar (U.S. 2020/0084142).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the multi-hop IAB network topology (wireless communication network) shown in Figure 3, where the network supports Multi-Radio-Dual Connectivity including an IAB node 304 being dual-connected (multi connectivity via established first, second links) with two parent IAB nodes 306, 308, and multiple routing paths (first, second paths) existing between the IAB node and a donor DU 316 (network node) as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027]; where the wireless IAB node 504 includes a transceiver 514 (wireless interface) as shown in Figure 9.
Chen also teaches IAB node 304 that determines a next hop node based on a routing table and destination IAB node and/or a path ID and then delivers (routes) a data packet (data traffic) to the next hop node as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0026]; where a first network path may include IAB node 304, IAB node 306, IAB node 310, IAB node 312, and donor DU 316 as shown in Figure 3 and spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027].
While Chen also teaches the IAB node 304 that, based on the measured RSRP value being lower than the RSRP threshold (change of link characteristic), triggers packet rerouting for DL/UL traffic by finding a backup routing path (second path) for the packet that is to be rerouted and delivering the data packet to the next hop of the backup routing path as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0047], Chen does not explicitly teach “an expected change of a link characteristic”.
However, Bochkar teaches a multi-network scenario utilizing predictive routing where rerouting of traffic is performed based upon prediction of future changes (expected change) in a condition of a primary access network as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0027].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the rerouting of traffic in relation to prediction of future network changes as taught in Bochkar to the system of Chen in order to provide rerouting of traffic through a secondary network (link, route) before conditions on the primary access network deteriorate to the point that traffic is substantially affected, thereby improving the quality of service provided by the network as spoken of on page 2, paragraphs [0027]-[0028] of Bochkar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/26 pertaining to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues that Chen fails to teach re-routing in case of an expected change of a link characteristic as required by these claims.
However, these claims currently do not recite this language. Rather, these claims currently recite “re-routing at least a part of the data traffic over the second path in case of a (the) change of a link characteristic”. Using a broadest reasonable interpretation, this language would include a broader range of link characteristic changes. Based on this, it is maintained that Chen teaches this limitation as described above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Applicant argues that Chen does not teach parsing of content type or packet plane of individual packets to split control plane and user plane traffic on separate physical paths.
However, as provided in the previous Office Action and reiterated above, Chen teaches the IAB node 304 that detects radio link failure or congestion over one egress link or routing path, and reroutes data packet(s) to another less congested egress link or routing path; where it is considered which traffic should be rerouted (split of first part of data traffic from second part of data traffic) to maintain a network load balance and avoid repeated rerouting and/or routing loops as spoken of on page 6, paragraph [0055].
Chen also teaches the configuration of routing tables for each IAB node and donor DU in order to support the multi-hop routing of control plane (CP) (first part), user plane (UP) (second part), and/or operation and maintenance (OAM) traffic as spoken of on page 2, paragraph [0028].
In other words, the above describes where a part of traffic is determined to be rerouted to another routing path, where the traffic may include control plane as well as user plane traffic. Using a broadest reasonable interpretation, it is maintained that Chen teaches “split a first part from a second part of the data traffic” where “the first part is at least a part of user plane related data in the data traffic and the second part is at least a part of a control plane related data in the data traffic”.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Chen does not teach executing re-routing such that an existing active service flow stays on its current path while only previously established routes are switched over.
However, this claim currently does not recite this language. Rather, this claim currently recites “wherein the re-routing is executed such that an existing service flow stays on a same path, whereas a previously established routes is switched over using a different path”.
As provided in the previous Office Action and reiterated above, Chen teaches the IAB node 304 that detects radio link failure or congestion over one egress link or routing path, and reroutes data packet(s) to another less congested egress link or routing path; where it is considered which traffic should be rerouted (existing service flows stay on same path while switching other routes) to maintain a network load balance and avoid repeated rerouting and/or routing loops as spoken of on page 6, paragraph [0055].
In other words, Chen describes where it is determined which traffic should be rerouted to a less congested link or routing path, where the traffic may include traffic of existing flows and/or traffic of established routes as spoken of page 6, paragraph [0055]. See also page 3, paragraph [0030], as well as page 6, paragraph [0058] for additional description of traffic flows and routing paths.
Based on this, it is maintained that Chen teaches the above limitation in question.
Regarding amended claim 15, Applicant argues that Xu does not teach generating redundancy information in response to proactive forecasts of an expected change in link characteristics.
However, this claim currently does not recite this language. Rather, this claim currently recites “the method of claim 1, comprising: generating redundancy information for at least a part of the data traffic and transmitting the redundancy information along different paths through the wireless communication network”. Similar to claim 1 above, claim 15 recites language that would include a broader range of link characteristic changes that is not limited to “proactive forecasts of an expected change in link characteristics”.
As provided in the previous Office Action and reiterated above, Xu teaches a method and system for dynamic route selection in an IAB system where a donor CU 210 may send preference information to branching IAB node(s) 230, where the preference information indicates circumstances when a branching point should switch to a less preferred route/branch or start duplicating packets (redundancy information) for transmission on both branches as spoken of on page 4, paragraph [0046].
Using a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the above packet duplication of Xu is considered generating of redundancy information for at least part of the data traffic, as redundant copies of the packet data are generated for transmission on multiple branches/routes.
Based on this, it is maintained that Chen teaches the above limitation in question.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
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 MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights