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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 06/16/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 5 and 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024165208 (KARIMIDEHKORDI) in view of US 20050192846 (De Zwart) and in view of alternatively (US 20230417863 (Ko) or US 20240314725 (Duan)).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, KARIMIDEHKORDI teaches “A method comprising:
performing, by a first user equipment (UE) (paragraph 0039: the first UE 410 (e.g., target UE). Paragraph 0063: the method of FIG. 5 may be performed by a target UE, for instance, similar to apparatuses 10 or 20 illustrated in FIG. 7.), a first measurement between a second UE and a third UE (paragraph 0062: As illustrated in FIG. 4C, at operation 6, the target UE 410 may establish a positioning session with the selected anchor nodes (e.g., anchor nodes 1, 2, and 3, representing “a second UE and a third UE”). Additionally, at operation 7, anchor nodes 1, 2, and 3 may broadcast SL-PRS to the target UE 410, and at operation 8, the target UE 410 may perform TDOA positioning based on the received SL-PRS signals which involves performing “at least a first measurement”.);
receiving status data from the third UE, the status data comprising synchronization information associated with the third UE (paragraph 0050: At operation 2, the target UE 410 may send a request to at least one of the initially selected anchor UEs (e.g., one or more of anchor nodes 1-4). The request may include at least a request for assistance information about the synchronization status. Paragraph 0053: the target UE message/request may include a request for information about a reference synchronization source (e.g., 2d Embodiment 4 in FIG. 4A). Paragraph 0054: the request may be a request for a synchronization reference source with a threshold (e.g., 2e Embodiment 5 in FIG. 4B). Paragraphs 0060 – 0061: as a response to the target UE request in 2d operation 2 where the target UE requests information about the anchor nodes’ reference synchronization source (RSS) and the anchor node’s estimated PRS estimation accuracy (e.g., 4d Embodiment 4 response in FIG. 4A), anchor nodes 1 – 4 may respond with information about its synchronization sources and respective accuracy levels. As a response to the target UE request in 2e operation 2 where the target UE requests if anchor nodes are using GNSS as a reference synchronization source 420 with SL better than wO nsec (e.g., 4e Embodiment 5 response in FIG. 4B), the anchor nodes may respond with corresponding information. These responses correspond to the claimed “the status data comprising synchronization information associated with the third UE”, where “the third UE” is any one of the anchor nodes 412 – 418)…”
“…based on the status data, selecting the third UE for determining the first measurement (paragraph 0062: At operation 5 in FIG. 4B, the target UE 410 may realize that anchor nodes (e.g., anchor nodes 1, 2, 3) are sufficiently synchronized with each other. The target UE may determine to establish the positioning session with anchor nodes 1, 2, and 3. This is based on a plurality of information factors including “synchronization information associated with the third UE”)…”
“…performing a positioning determination based on the first measurement (paragraph 0062: As illustrated in FIG. 4C, at operation 6, the target UE 410 may establish a positioning session with the selected anchor nodes (e.g., anchor nodes 1, 2, and 3). Additionally, at operation 7, anchor nodes 1, 2, and 3 may broadcast SL-PRS to the target UE 410, and at operation 8, the target UE 410 may perform TDOA positioning based on the received SL-PRS signals.)…”
Although in KARIMIDEHKORDI performing the actual measurement is disclosed as the last step and is not disclosed as the first step, as appears to be in instant claims, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that the relative position of these steps is immaterial and may be switched around, as stated by the Applicant themselves in the specification as filed, with respect to description of the method in FIG 6, see paragraph 0130 (“The present disclosure is not limited to the sequence or number of the operations of the method 600 shown in FIG. 6, and can be altered into any desired sequence or number of operations as recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. For example, in some embodiments, the order may vary, some processes thereof may be performed concurrently or sequentially, or the method 600 may include fewer or additional operations.”)
KARIMIDEHKORDI does not teach “the synchronization information indicating a time at which the third UE synchronized with a synchronization source” and “based on the time at which the third UE synchronized with the synchronization source, determining an error associated with the first measurement.”
De Zwart teaches time coordination and synchronization (see title), and thus is concerned with the same problem as KARIMIDEHKORDI. Paragraph 0007 teaches recording events, and for each event there may be recorded a time of occurrence and clock information characterizing the time source from which the time of occurrence was obtained. The information characterizing the time source may comprise the identity of the time source and the quality of the time source. The information characterizing the time source may comprises information regarding the length of time since the time source was last synchronized with an accurate reference clock (corresponding to the claimed “the synchronization information indicating a time at which the third UE synchronized with a synchronization source”). The information characterizing the time source may comprise information regarding the drift of the time source. The drift may be calculated by measuring the time error relative to an accurate reference clock after an extended period of time (corresponding to the claimed “based on the time at which the third UE synchronized with the synchronization source, determining an error”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to include, in the received, by the target user equipment, status data comprising synchronization information associated with another user equipment of KARIMIDEHKORDI, such information as disclosed by De Zwart information regarding the length of time since the time source was last synchronized with an accurate reference clock as well as the calculated/measured clock drift. Doing so would have provided additional information regarding quality of synchronization of the other user equipment, so that the target user equipment can make better decision in selecting anchor/reference nodes to determine its position.
Lastly, KARIMIDEHKORDI does not disclose that the positioning determination performed by the target user equipment is also based on “the error”.
Ko in paragraphs 0117 – 0122 teaches a similar positioning method. Further, for correct OTDOA measurement, it may be necessary to measure a time of arrival (TOA) of a signal received from three or more TPs geometrically distributed. For example, a TOA may be measured for each of a TP1, a TP2, and a TP3, and RSTD for TP 1-TP 2, RSTD for TP 2-TP 3, and RSTD for TP 3-TP 1 may be calculated for the three TOAs. Based on this, a geometric hyperbola may be determined, and a point at which these hyperbolas intersect may be estimated as a position of a UE. In this case, since accuracy and/or uncertainty for each TOA measurement may be present, the estimated position of the UE may be known as a specific range based on measurement uncertainty (i.e. based on “the error”).
An example of calculation of RSTD for two TPs is given in equation 1 in paragraph 0121 which includes (Ti-T1) representing “real time differences (RTDs)” as a transmission time offset between two TPs which represents “an error associated with the first measurement” so that the positioning determination is thus based on “the error”. The transmission time offset is determined at least in part by the clock drift.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize an error value determined by the transmission time offset between two transmission points, as disclosed by Ko, in the system and method of KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have allowed to account for any errors arising from clock drift in positioning determination.
Additionally or alternatively, Duan also teaches sidelink aided time difference of arrival (TDOA) based positioning methods (see abstract). Par. 0086 teaches that a position estimate may include an expected error or uncertainty (e.g., by including an area or volume within which the location is expected to be included with some specified or default level of confidence, thus based on “the error”). Although not explicitly disclosed, the Examiner takes an official notice that any clock drift between reference/anchor devices contributes to uncertainty in position determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Duan inclusion of an expected error or uncertainty (such as introduced by the clock drift), in the position determination disclosed by KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have allowed to indicate possible area of uncertainty in the determined position thus providing additional information that might be helpful in carrying out any decision based on the determined position.
Regarding claim 2, KARIMIDEHKORDI teaches “wherein: the first UE serves as a target UE (paragraph 0039: the first UE 410 (e.g., target UE)); the second UE serves as a reference UE; the third UE serves as an anchor UE (any of the UEs 412 – 418 in FIG 4 are both “a reference UE” and “an anchor UE”); and
the synchronization information comprises at least one of a synchronization source type associated with the third UE (paragraph 0060: as a response to the target UE request in 2d operation 2 where the target UE requests information about the anchor nodes’ reference synchronization source (RSS) (e.g., 4d Embodiment 4 response in FIG. 4A), anchor node 1 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, anchor node 2 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, anchor node 3 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, anchor node 4 may respond that its RSS=LTE eNB) or a relative time difference (RTD) associated with the second UE and the third UE.”
Regarding claim 3, KARIMIDEHKORDI teaches “wherein: the target UE has a position to be determined and performs the first measurement (paragraph 0062: at operation 8, the target UE 410 may perform TDOA positioning based on the received SL-PRS signals.);
the reference UE has a known position (although not explicitly disclosed, it is either implied that the position of each anchor UE is known, or it would have been obvious for the position of each anchor UE to be known for the method to operate) and sends a first signal to the target UE for performing the first measurement; and the anchor UE participates in the first measurement by sending a second signal to the target UE for performing the first measurement (paragraph 0032: as illustrated in FIG. 1, a target UE 110 may be performing a SL positioning session (i.e., exchanging SL-PRS with at least two anchor UEs 112, 114 to determine the location of the target UE 110). In FIG. 1, the anchor UEs 112, 114 may provide SL-PRS assistance (including SL-PRS, corresponding to “the reference UE” sending “a first signal to the target UE for performing the first measurement; and the anchor UE participates in the first measurement by sending a second signal to the target UE for performing the first measurement”) to the target UE 110 to enable the target UE 110 to determine its location. Paragraph 0062: at operation 7, anchor nodes 1, 2, and 3 may broadcast SL-PRS to the target UE 410).”
Regarding claim 4, KARIMIDEHKORDI in combination with De Zwart teaches “wherein the synchronization information indicates a length of time since the third UE synchronized with a synchronization source (De Zwart, paragraph 0007: The information characterizing the time source may comprises information regarding the length of time since the time source was last synchronized with an accurate reference clock.).”
Regarding claim 5, KARIMIDEHKORDI teaches “wherein the synchronization information indicates a synchronization-source quality (paragraphs 0060 – 0061: as a response to the target UE request in 2d operation 2 where the target UE requests information about the anchor nodes’ reference synchronization source (RSS) and the anchor node’s estimated PRS estimation accuracy (e.g., 4d Embodiment 4 response in FIG. 4A), anchor node 1 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, with an SL=zl nsec. Further, anchor node 2 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, with an SL=z2 nsec. Additionally, anchor node 3 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, with an SL=z3 nsec. Further, anchor node 4 may respond that its RSS=LTE eNB with an SL=z4 nsec. In this case, the accuracy (synchronization level, SL) represents “synchronization-source quality”. Similar information is given with respect to other embodiments in FIG 4. Additionally, the fact that RSS is GNSS already conveys an implicit level of quality (highest)).”
Regarding claim 12, KARIMIDEHKORDI teaches “wherein the synchronization information comprises at least one of a synchronization source type associated with the third UE (paragraph 0060: as a response to the target UE request in 2d operation 2 where the target UE requests information about the anchor nodes’ reference synchronization source (RSS) (e.g., 4d Embodiment 4 response in FIG. 4A), anchor node 1 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, anchor node 2 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, anchor node 3 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, anchor node 4 may respond that its RSS=LTE eNB) or a relative time difference (RTD) associated with the second UE and the third UE.”
Regarding claim 13, KARIMIDEHKORDI alone or in combination with De Zwart teaches “wherein the synchronization information indicates: a length of time since the third UE synchronized with a synchronization source (De Zwart, paragraph 0007: The information characterizing the time source may comprises information regarding the length of time since the time source was last synchronized with an accurate reference clock.); or a synchronization-source quality (KARIMIDEHKORDI, paragraphs 0060 – 0061: as a response to the target UE request in 2d operation 2 where the target UE requests information about the anchor nodes’ reference synchronization source (RSS) and the anchor node’s estimated PRS estimation accuracy (e.g., 4d Embodiment 4 response in FIG. 4A), anchor node 1 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, with an SL=zl nsec. Further, anchor node 2 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, with an SL=z2 nsec. Additionally, anchor node 3 may respond that its RSS=GNSS, with an SL=z3 nsec. Further, anchor node 4 may respond that its RSS=LTE eNB with an SL=z4 nsec. In this case, the accuracy (synchronization level, SL) represents “synchronization-source quality”. Similar information is given with respect to other embodiments in FIG 4. Additionally, the fact that RSS is GNSS already conveys an implicit level of quality (highest)).”
Claims 6 – 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024165208 (KARIMIDEHKORDI) in view of US 20050192846 (De Zwart) and alternatively (US 20230417863 (Ko) or US 20240314725 (Duan)) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20230198700 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, KARIMIDEHKORDI does not teach “performing, by the first UE, a second measurement between the second UE and the third UE; and sending, by the first UE, an indication that the first measurement or the second measurement can be used to determine a clock drift of the first UE.”
YERRAMALLI in FIG 7 with corresponding description teaches or fairly suggests “performing, by the first UE, a second measurement between the second UE … (disclosed as transmission and reception of plurality of SL-PRS 708, 712 and 722 between first and second UEs 702 and 704, representing “the second UE” and “the first UE”, and measurement of parameters associated with transmission and reception of the signals.); and sending, by the first UE, an indication that the first measurement or the second measurement can be used to determine a clock drift of the first UE (Paragraph 0094: the transmission or reception of the first (“the first measurement”), second (“the second measurement”), or third SL-PRSs (also “the second measurement”) may allow for estimation of clock drift between the first UE and the second UE. Paragraph 0095: At 724, the second UE 704 (“the first UE”) may transmit an indication comprising measurements of the time based on the transmission or the reception of the first SL-PRS, the second SL-PRS, or the third SL-PRS. Since any of these can be used to determine the clock drift, this transmission represents at least an implicit “indication that the first measurement or the second measurement can be used to determine a clock drift of the first UE”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by YERRAMALLI method of clock drift determination, in the system of KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have allowed to determine the relative clock drift between the communicating devices, which would allow more accurate positioning.
Although disclosed between two devices, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to extend the method disclosed by YERRAMALLI to the communication between the first UE and the third UE, as is the case in the system of KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have allowed to determine the relative clock drift between the first and third UEs thus leading to more accurate positioning.
Regarding claim 7, KARIMIDEHKORDI in combination with YERRAMALLI teaches “sending, by the first UE, the first measurement and the second measurement (YERRAMALLI, paragraph 0095: At 724, the second UE 704 (“the first UE”) may transmit an indication comprising measurements of the time based on the transmission or the reception of the first SL-PRS, the second SL-PRS, or the third SL-PRS, representing “the first measurement and the second measurement”.)...”
YERRAMALLI does not teach whether these measurements are sent “in a same message” or in different messages.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that it is simply a matter of design choice whether to send these measurements in a same message or in different messages. Therefore, since the number of options is small and readily understood, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to transmit these measurements as a single message simply as design choice with predictable results since, according to the Supreme Court, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 8, KARIMIDEHKORDI in combination with YERRAMALLI teaches “sending, by the first UE, the first measurement and the second measurement (YERRAMALLI, paragraph 0095: At 724, the second UE 704 (“the first UE”) may transmit an indication comprising measurements of the time based on the transmission or the reception of the first SL-PRS, the second SL-PRS, or the third SL-PRS, representing “the first measurement and the second measurement”.)...”
YERRAMALLI does not teach whether these measurements are sent in a same message or “in different messages”.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that it is simply a matter of design choice whether to send these measurements in a same message or in different messages. Therefore, since the number of options is small and readily understood, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to transmit these measurements in different messages simply as design choice with predictable results since, according to the Supreme Court, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024165208 (KARIMIDEHKORDI) in view of US 20050192846 (De Zwart) and alternatively (US 20230417863 (Ko) or US 20240314725 (Duan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2024170235 (Munier).
Regarding claim 9, KARIMIDEHKORDI does not teach “performing, by a positioning reference unit (PRU), a second measurement between the second UE and the third UE; and associating the first measurement with the second measurement.”
Munier teaches in FIG 10 with corresponding description “performing, by a positioning reference unit (PRU), a second measurement between the second UE … (Paragraph 0078: At block 1010, the UEs perform SL positioning/ranging reserve SL-PRS by either scheme. This corresponds to “the first measurement” of independent claim 1. At block 1040, the target UEs request PRU to measure/overhear SL-PRS. Paragraph 0080: At block 1080, the PRU measures SL-PRS (“a second measurement”). The measurements may be positioning measurements (e.g., RSTD, RSRP, and UE Rx-Tx Time Difference measurements) – see paragraph 0015); and associating the first measurement with the second measurement (paragraph 0080: at block 1090b the PRU sends the measurement results to the target UE based on the request received from target UE. At block 1095, if block 1090b is performed, target UE may forward the measurements to LMF and the information about PRU including PRU’s location. The “association” at the PRU side is by the virtue of transmitting results of “the second measurement” to the target UE which performs “the first measurement”. The “association” at the target UE side is by the virtue of transmitting results of the both measurements to the LMF. The “association” at the LMF side is by the virtue of receiving results of both measurements from the same target UE.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Munier performing additional positional measurements by the PRU and reporting the results, in the system of KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have allowed to compare the PRU measurements by a location server with the measurements expected at the known PRU location to determine correction terms for other nearby target devices (see paragraph 0015).
Although disclosed between two devices UE1 and UE2 in Munier, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to extend the method disclosed by Munier to the communication between the first UE and the third UE, as is the case in the system of KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have allowed to further determine correction terms for additional nearby target devices thus leading to more accurate positioning.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024165208 (KARIMIDEHKORDI) in view of US 20050192846 (De Zwart) and alternatively (US 20230417863 (Ko) or US 20240314725 (Duan)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20240323898 (Farag).
Regarding claim 10, KARIMIDEHKORDI does not teach “wherein: the first UE comprises a first antenna and a second antenna separated from each other by a distance; the performing the first measurement comprises performing the first measurement with respect to the first antenna; and the method further comprises: performing a second measurement with respect to the second antenna; and determining a position of the first UE based on the first measurement, based on the second measurement, and based on the distance.”
Farag teaches “the first UE comprises a first antenna and a second antenna separated from each other by a distance (FIG 16 and paragraph 0463: a UE can have multiple antennas or multiple antenna panels. For example, a UE can have two antennas that are separated by a distance D.); the performing the first measurement comprises performing the first measurement with respect to the first antenna (paragraph 0463: By performing positioning measurements between each pair of antennas in the two cars, car 1 can determine the relative position of car 2 or vice versa. Paragraphs 0464 – 0467: Positioning measurements can include: Reference signal time difference at the antennas/antenna panels of target UE (e.g., UE2 or UE1) for the antennas/antenna panels of the source UE (e.g., UE1 or UE2). This can be time difference between different pairs for source UE antennas/antenna panels and target UE antennas/antenna panels. Paragraph 0470: SL positioning measurements are performed at the antennas or antenna panels of a second UE for the SL PRS signals transmitted from the antennas or antenna panels of the first UE. Particularly, and looking at FIG 16, if “the first antenna” is mapped to Ant1 of Car 1, “the first measurement with respect to the first antenna” is shown as the signal line, for example, d1 from Ant1 of Car 2 to Ant1 of Car 1, or d2 from Ant2 of Car 2 to Ant1 of Car 1.); and the method further comprises: performing a second measurement with respect to the second antenna (in FIG 16, if “the second antenna” is mapped to Ant2 of Car 1, “the second measurement with respect to the second antenna” is shown as the signal line, for example, d3 from Ant1 of Car 2 to Ant2 of Car 1, or d4 from Ant2 of Car 2 to Ant2 of Car 1.); and determining a position of the first UE based on the first measurement, based on the second measurement, and based on the distance (paragraph 0657: By combining the Rx-Tx measurements for the first UE and the second UE for each antenna/antenna panel pair, the round-trip time and correspondingly the distance between each pair of antennas or panels can be determined. Knowing the distance or relative position between the antennas or antenna panels of each UE, the position (e.g., relative position) of the UEs can be determined. Also see paragraphs 0659 – 0660 with respect to plural measurements between different antennas).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Farag position determination technique, in the system of KARIMIDEHKORDI. Doing so would have been especially beneficial for those devices which have multiple antennas (see Farag, paragraph 0463).
Claims 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024165208 (KARIMIDEHKORDI) in view of US 20050192846 (De Zwart).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 because claim 15 has similar but broader limitations (i.e. does not require position determination to also be based on “the error”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 because they have similar limitations.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2024165208 (KARIMIDEHKORDI) in view of US 20050192846 (De Zwart) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 20230198700 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 because they have similar limitations.
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights