DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment(s) filed 08/07/2026 have been entered.
Per the 08/07/2026 amendment(s):
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 11-12, 14, 16 and 20 are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-11 of Remarks, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14-16 and 20 under §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Damnjanovic (US 2012/0134305 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the DRX configuration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the DRX configuration" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 5, and appropriate correction in Claim 5 is sufficient to correct Claim 6.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the DRX configuration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the DRX configuration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that Claim 16 does not depend upon Claim 15 and must be corrected independently or amended to depend upon (corrected) Claim 15 to mirror Claim 6 depending upon Claim 5.
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.
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) 1, 4-6, 11, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meylan (US 2022/0124781 A1) in view of Damnjanovic (US 2012/0134305 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Meylan discloses the below limitation(s): determining whether the user equipment receives a scheduling request (SR) configuration from a network (Meylan Fig 5 block 520 configuration message(s) and associated [0123] in which base station configures UE for scheduling requests);
systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a (Fig 5 block 560 identify next prescheduling grant occurrence; [0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur); and
transmitting a SR signal according to selected SR occasions (Fig 5 block 565 scheduling request transmitted from UE 515 to BS 505; [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data).
Meylan does not disclose the below limitation(s): systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a predetermined selection of a plurality of SR occasions; and
In the same field of endeavor of configuration of scheduling requests, Damnjanovic does disclose the below limitation(s): systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a predetermined selection of a plurality of SR occasions (Damnjanovic [0046] base station may configure user equipment via RRC signaling to send scheduling requests at predetermined SR occasions);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Meylan to reduce SR transmission by performing SR occasion selection and combine it with Damnjanovic that teaches predetermination of selected SR occasions. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to preselect a number of SR occasions for SR transmission to reduce the overall number of SR transmission and lower congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Meylan and Damnjanovic disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein in selection of the SR occasions, one of a plurality of SR transmission candidates which is closest to a data coming time and greater than the data coming time is selected (Meylan [0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur, which is interpreted as selecting SR based on next data coming time (i.e. arrival time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/device to include selecting an SR occasion based on arrival time as taught by Meylan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to select SR occasions as close to arrival time as possible to reduce the delay in communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Meylan and Damnjanovic disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): selecting some of the SR occasions or controlling data pattern according to the DRX configuration, if the user equipment receives the DRX configuration from the network (Meylan [0054] wireless device (UE) may be configured with a DRX cycle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/device to include using DRX configuration for wireless communication as taught by Meylan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable the network to configure the UE for wireless communication using DRX. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Meylan and Damnjanovic disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 5.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein if the user equipment receives the DRX configuration from the network (Meylan [0054] wireless device (UE) may be configured with a DRX cycle),
the SR occasion is selected from one of a plurality of SR transmission candidates which is closest to On-Duration timer start time or the user equipment is controlled to have minimize DRX active time within one or a plurality of DRX cycles ([0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur, which is interpreted as selecting SR based on next data coming time (i.e. arrival time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/device to include performing SR occasion selection based on a time metric, for example DRX cycle, as taught by Meylan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to select an SR occasion within the DRX active time to reduce a delay in communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Meylan discloses the below limitation(s):A modem chip equipped in a user equipment which is a communication device (Meylan Fig 9 and [0188] transceiver 920 may include a modem to module the packets),
wherein the modem chip is used to determine whether the user equipment receives a scheduling request (SR) configuration from a network (Fig 5 block 520 configuration message(s) and associated [0123] in which base station configures UE for scheduling requests);
systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a (Fig 5 block 560 identify next prescheduling grant occurrence; [0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur); and
control the wireless communication module to transmit a SR signal according to selected SR occasions (Fig 5 block 565 scheduling request transmitted from UE 515 to BS 505; [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data).
Meylan does not disclose the below limitation(s): systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a predetermined selection of a plurality of SR occasions;
In the same field of endeavor of configuration of scheduling requests, Damnjanovic does disclose the below limitation(s): systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a predetermined selection of a plurality of SR occasions (Damnjanovic [0046] base station may configure user equipment via RRC signaling to send scheduling requests at predetermined SR occasions);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Meylan to reduce SR transmission by performing SR occasion selection and combine it with Damnjanovic that teaches predetermination of selected SR occasions. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to preselect a number of SR occasions for SR transmission to reduce the overall number of SR transmission and lower congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Meylan and Damnjanovic disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein in selection of the SR occasions, one of a plurality of SR transmission candidates which is closest to a data coming time and greater than the data coming time is selected (Meylan [0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur, which is interpreted as selecting SR based on next data coming time (i.e. arrival time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/device to include selecting an SR occasion based on arrival time as taught by Meylan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to select SR occasions as close to arrival time as possible to reduce the delay in communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Meylan and Damnjanovic disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): selecting some of the SR occasions or controlling data pattern according to the DRX configuration, if the user equipment receives the DRX configuration from the network (Meylan [0054] wireless device (UE) may be configured with a DRX cycle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/device to include using DRX configuration for wireless communication as taught by Meylan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable the network to configure the UE for wireless communication using DRX. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Meylan and Damnjanovic disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein if the user equipment receives the DRX configuration from the network (Meylan [0054] wireless device (UE) may be configured with a DRX cycle),
the SR occasion is selected from one of a plurality of SR transmission candidates which is closest to On-Duration timer start time or the user equipment is controlled to have minimize DRX active time within one or a plurality of DRX cycles ([0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur, which is interpreted as selecting SR based on next data coming time (i.e. arrival time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/device to include performing SR occasion selection based on a time metric, for example DRX cycle, as taught by Meylan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to select an SR occasion within the DRX active time to reduce a delay in communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Meylan discloses the below limitation(s): a wireless communication module; a modem chip, connected to the wireless communication module (Meylan Fig 9 and [0188] transceiver 920 (i.e. wireless communication module) may include a modem to module the packets), wherein the modem chip is used to determine whether the user equipment receives a scheduling request (SR) configuration from a network (Fig 5 block 520 configuration message(s) and associated [0123] in which base station configures UE for scheduling requests);
systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a (Fig 5 block 560 identify next prescheduling grant occurrence; [0005] wireless device may refrain from transmitting a scheduling request based on a duration until a next instance of preschedule communication resources is expected to occur); and
control the wireless communication module to transmit a SR signal according to selected SR occasions (Fig 5 block 565 scheduling request transmitted from UE 515 to BS 505; [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data).
Meylan does not disclose the below limitation(s): systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a predetermined selection of a plurality of SR occasions; and
In the same field of endeavor of configuration of scheduling requests, Damnjanovic does disclose the below limitation(s): systematically reducing SR transmission frequency through a predetermined selection of a plurality of SR occasions (Damnjanovic [0046] base station may configure user equipment via RRC signaling to send scheduling requests at predetermined SR occasions);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Meylan to reduce SR transmission by performing SR occasion selection and combine it with Damnjanovic that teaches predetermination of selected SR occasions. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to preselect a number of SR occasions for SR transmission to reduce the overall number of SR transmission and lower congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Damnjanovic to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meylan in view of Damnjanovic and further in view of Zacharias (US 2023/0047375 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein selected SR occasions are decided according to an accept delay (Meylan Fig 4 and [0116] UE may determine a duration between time 403 and an occurrence of SR occasion 405 (duration may be referred to as an SR occasion delay)), and
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): the accept delay is determined according to current on-going services including VoLTE and/or VoNR and/or streaming, or a pre-defined value.
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Zacharias does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein selected SR occasions are decided according to an accept delay (Zacharias [0133] UE may determine an awake time for a first SR occasion based in part of a delay value that occurs between SR and DCI), and
the accept delay is determined according to current on-going services including VoLTE and/or VoNR and/or streaming, or a pre-defined value ([0005] invention is directed to power optimization at a UE in a voice over new radio (VoNR) system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include using delay to determine when to send a scheduling request as taught by Zacharias. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to transmit SR according to delay to prevent excessive transmission of SR that could cause congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan, Damnjanovic and Zacharias to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): increasing the SR transmission number, if the BLER is larger than the pre-defined threshold (Meylan [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data; [0116] an event that triggers the transmission of an SR may occur at the UE - e.g. a threshold associated with data generated at the UE for transmission to a base station may be exceeded).
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a block error rate (BLER) is larger than a pre-defined threshold; and
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Zacharias does disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a block error rate (BLER) is larger than a pre-defined threshold (Zacharias [0007] wireless device may determine whether to wake up or sleep for a duration of a second timer based on a prior block error rate (BLER), wherein examiner is interpreting wake up based on BLER as "increasing SR transmission number");
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include using BLER during scheduling as taught by Zacharias. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to increase the number of SR when BLER exceeds a threshold to enable the network device to perform error correction on received data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan, Damnjanovic and Zacharias to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): wherein selected SR occasions are decided according to an accept delay (Meylan Fig 4 and [0116] UE may determine a duration between time 403 and an occurrence of SR occasion 405 (duration may be referred to as an SR occasion delay)), and
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): the accept delay is determined according to current on-going services including VoLTE and/or VoNR and/or streaming, or a pre-defined value.
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Zacharias does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein selected SR occasions are decided according to an accept delay (Zacharias [0133] UE may determine an awake time for a first SR occasion based in part of a delay value that occurs between SR and DCI), and
the accept delay is determined according to current on-going services including VoLTE and/or VoNR and/or streaming, or a pre-defined value ([0005] invention is directed to power optimization at a UE in a voice over new radio (VoNR) system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include using delay to determine when to send a scheduling request as taught by Zacharias. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to transmit SR according to delay to prevent excessive transmission of SR that could cause congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan, Damnjanovic and Zacharias to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): increasing the SR transmission number, if the BLER is larger than the pre-defined threshold (Meylan [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data; [0116] an event that triggers the transmission of an SR may occur at the UE - e.g. a threshold associated with data generated at the UE for transmission to a base station may be exceeded).
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a block error rate (BLER) is larger than a pre-defined threshold; and
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Zacharias does disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a block error rate (BLER) is larger than a pre-defined threshold (Zacharias [0007] wireless device may determine whether to wake up or sleep for a duration of a second timer based on a prior block error rate (BLER), wherein examiner is interpreting wake up based on BLER as "increasing SR transmission number");
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include using BLER during scheduling as taught by Zacharias. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to increase the number of SR when BLER exceeds a threshold to enable the network device to perform error correction on received data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan, Damnjanovic and Zacharias to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meylan in view of Damnjanovic and further in view of Turakhia (US 2016/0080984 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): increasing the SR transmission number, if the packet drop ratio is larger than the pre-defined threshold (Meylan [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data; [0116] an event that triggers the transmission of an SR may occur at the UE - e.g. a threshold associated with data generated at the UE for transmission to a base station may be exceeded).
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a packet drop ratio is larger than a pre-defined threshold;
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Turakhia does disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a packet drop ratio is larger than a pre-defined threshold (Turakhia [0016] identifying channel condition or performance condition can include determining that a voice (i.e. VoLTE or VoNR) packet loss value (i.e. packet drop ratio) exceeds a voice packet loss threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include using channel condition of packet loss to determine scheduling of subsequent traffic as taught by Turakhia. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to increase the number of SRs to account for a large amount of dropped packets to enable the network to perform error correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan, Damnjanovic and Turakhia to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Meylan further discloses the below limitation(s): increasing the SR transmission number, if the packet drop ratio is larger than the pre-defined threshold (Meylan [0105] UE may determine whether to transmit an SR based on configuration data; [0116] an event that triggers the transmission of an SR may occur at the UE - e.g. a threshold associated with data generated at the UE for transmission to a base station may be exceeded).
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a packet drop ratio is larger than a pre-defined threshold;
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Turakhia does disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether a packet drop ratio is larger than a pre-defined threshold (Turakhia [0016] identifying channel condition or performance condition can include determining that a voice (i.e. VoLTE or VoNR) packet loss value (i.e. packet drop ratio) exceeds a voice packet loss threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include using channel condition of packet loss to determine scheduling of subsequent traffic as taught by Turakhia. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to increase the number of SRs to account for a large amount of dropped packets to enable the network to perform error correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan, Damnjanovic and Turakhia to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meylan in view of Damnjanovic and further in view of Abotabl (US 2023/0397101 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Meylan and Damnjanovic discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Meylan and Damnjanovic do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether the user equipment is at a silence mode; and
increasing the SR transmission number, if the user equipment is at the silence mode.
In the same field of endeavor of scheduling wireless communication between a UE and a network device, Abotabl does disclose the below limitation(s): determining whether the user equipment is at a silence mode (Abotabl [0109] one or more operating states may include a silence window (interpreted as silence mode) at the beginning of the energy saving mode); and
increasing the SR transmission number, if the user equipment is at the silence mode ([0109] during silence window, UE may transmit scheduling request at one or more scheduling request occasions, which is interpreted as increasing the number of SR transmission because energy saving mode typically involves refraining from sending SR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method(s) performed by a UE to include increasing SR (e.g. from 0 to 1) when a UE is in a silence mode as taught by Abotabl. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable a UE to schedule wireless communication while it is in silence mode to reduce latency between exiting the silence mode and communicating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meylan and Abotabl to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a thorough and complete search has been conducted and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on each element of the indicated claim(s).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights