DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks filed on July 29, 2026, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Response to Amendment
No amendment was filed. Claims 1-23 are pending for examination,
In light of amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 to claims 1-23 were withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant, in his remarks, stated that Yang does not disclose or suggest “parsing a single RU into sub- RU fragments or modulating fragments of the same RU with different modulations”.
To be specific, Applicant indicated that Yang never teaches or suggests taking a single RU, dividing it into a plurality of RU fragments, and modulating one RU fragment with a first modulation and another RU fragment of that same RU with a second, different modulation….
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Yang discloses an available frequency spectrum of a channel is divided/ parsed into multiple data units, e.g., resource units {RU} or bandwidth segment [7]. Also, Yang mentions performing data parsing before or after encoding [0194-0195 or Fig.6]; wherein encoding a set of information bits associated with a set of data units by jointly encoding all the information bits associated with the set of data units together, and distributing/ transmitting the set of encoded information bits to the set of RUs [0010] and each RU includes a number of different frequency subcarriers {tones}, e.g., RU fragment [0007]. Furthermore, Yang indicates that each RU may have a different RU length, a different modulation order, a different modulation coding scheme, and a different spatial stream relative to the other RUs of the set of RUs [0066].
Second, the claim does not require that the fragments be physically manufactured as separate subdivisions before transmission, nor does it require a particular RU-fragment boundary distinct from the parsing boundaries disclosed by Yang. Yang’s “combo RU,” aggregated RU, bandwidth segment, and RU-parser arrangements provide the claimed fragmented portions of the aggregate resource allocation. On the contrary, claim 2 reveals details that RU is equivalent to one RU fragment.
For example, Yang discloses: distributing coded bits sequentially among RUs; distributing bits cyclically in a round-robin process; filling one RU or bandwidth segment before assigning remaining bits to another; assigning coded bits to different portions of an aggregated RU; using an RU parser and a bandwidth-segment parser; and skipping punctured tones while distributing coded bits to available portions of the transmission bandwidth (Yang [0014]–[0021], [0031]–[0043], [0082]–[0089], [0098]–[0110], [0193]–[0196], [0226]–[0227], [0230], [0233]–[0240], [0246]–[0256], and [0411]–[0426]).
These disclosures teach parsing a single stream of information or coded bits into plural portions carried by different frequency resources. To the extent the claim uses “RU fragments” to describe such portions, Yang discloses or at least renders that limitation obvious.
Applicant’s distinction between a “single RU” and “multiple RUs” improperly focuses on the nomenclature used to describe the resource allocation rather than the disclosed signal-processing operation. Under Yang, multiple RUs may be processed as an aggregate RU, and the aggregate may be parsed into constituent portions for transmission (Yang, [0057]–[0061], [0121]–[0125], [0239]–[0240], and [0425]–[0426]. The fact that Yang may refer to the constituent portions as RUs, bandwidth segments, or data units does not patentably distinguish the claimed fragments where the claimed function is performed in the same manner.
Third, applicant further argues that Yang’s different modulation orders are applied only to separate whole RUs. That argument is also unpersuasive, given that claim 2 reveals details that RU is equivalent to one RU fragment.
Yang expressly discloses that at least one RU may have a different modulation order or MCS from other RUs in the set (Yang, [0066], states:
“at least one RU of the set of RUs may have … a different modulation order relative to the other RUs of the set of RUs.”
Yang similarly discloses that multiple RUs in an aggregation may support distinct modulation orders. Yang, paragraph 232. Yang also describes different MCSs associated with different RUs and distributing coded bits based on an MCS ratio and an RU-size ratio (Yang, [0020]–[0021], [0035]–[0038], [0088]–[0089], [0102]–[0105], [0237]–[0238], and [0247]–[0250].
Accordingly, Yang teaches applying a first modulation or MCS to one parsed resource portion and a second, different modulation or MCS to another parsed resource portion. Whether those portions are labeled “RUs,” “aggregated RUs,” “bandwidth segments,” or “data units” does not alter the underlying teaching. The claim’s use of the term “RU fragment” cannot distinguish over Yang merely by assigning a different label to a portion of the aggregated resource allocation.
Fourth, even if Yang were viewed as expressly disclosing different modulation orders only for separate RUs, applying those different modulation orders to the corresponding parsed portions of an aggregated RU would have been an obvious implementation choice.
Yang provides an express motivation for doing so: the wireless device may encounter noncontiguous or partially unavailable bandwidth caused by overlapping BSS traffic or incumbent technologies (Yang, [0005], [0191]–[0197], and [0218]–[0225]. Yang seeks to improve spectral efficiency and signaling throughput by flexibly assigning and parsing available frequency resources (Yang, [0191]–[0197]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the modulation order assigned to each parsed portion should be selected according to the transmission conditions and available resources associated with that portion. Using a higher or lower modulation order for different portions would have: accommodated different channel conditions; matched the modulation to the available RU or bandwidth-segment capacity; supported different data rates across portions having different sizes or interference conditions; and improved utilization of noncontiguous or punctured bandwidth.
Yang itself identifies the relevant variables, including RU size, modulation order, MCS, bandwidth segment, spatial stream, and beamforming configuration (Yang, [0066], [0074], [0129], [0137], [0232], [0242], and [0247]–[0250]. Thus, the proposed arrangement would have been the predictable use of known alternatives within Yang’s disclosed flexible channel-aggregation framework.
It is well established in wireless communications that adjusting modulation orders based on channel quality across subbands/ RU subcarriers sets, e.g., RU fragment, is standard practice. Modifying the parsing scheme of Yang to apply different modulation orders to different parsed blocks/ RU fragments would have been an obvious matter of channel efficiency optimization and interference alleviation between subcarriers associated with source data bits sequences, in RU -- Well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art – Suh [0056 and 0083].
Thus, Yang did suggest “taking a single RU, dividing it into a plurality of RU fragments, and modulating one RU fragment with a first modulation and another RU fragment of that same RU with a second, different modulation” as recited in independent claim 1.
Examiner’s remarks for another independent claim 19 is similar to those cited above with respect to independent claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of dependent [claims 2-18] and [claims 20-23], Examiner maintains the same ground of rejection for the reason similar to those discussed above.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20200305164 A1), hereafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 1:
Yang discloses a method for wireless transmission (method of data parsing, [0002]) comprising:
receiving bits of resource units (RU) at a physical layer processing unit of a wireless device (receiving set of information bits, e.g., RU bits, at PHY layer of wireless communication device [0251], wherein PHY layer includes a resource unit parser, e.g., PHY layer processing unit [0166]);
parsing the bits of the RUs into a plurality of RU fragments carried by one or more spatial streams (assigning information bits of set of information bits to set of RUs, e.g., RU fragments [0024] associated with spatial stream [0066]);
modulating one of the resource unit fragments with a first modulation (modulating {one} RU with a modulation order that is different relative to that of another RU [0066] or multiple RUs support distinct modulation orders [0232]);
modulating another of the resource unit fragments with a second modulation which is different from the first modulation (modulating {another} RU with a modulation order that is different relative to that of another RU [0066]); and
mapping each spatial stream carrying the resource units fragments which are modulated to one or more antenna for wireless transmission (mapping a number N.sub.SS of spatial streams carrying RUs -- to modulated symbols [0278, 0306] and providing modulated packets to antennas for transmission [0323], wherein packets carry set of information bits [0347]).
Also, Yang indicates performing data parsing before or after encoding [0194-0195 or Fig.6]; wherein encoding a set of information bits associated with a set of data units by jointly encoding all the information bits associated with the set of data units together, and distributing/ transmitting the set of encoded information bits to the set of RUs [0010] and each RU includes a number of different frequency subcarriers {tones}, e.g., RU fragment [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to map each spatial stream carrying modulated bits in resource units fragments to antennas, wherein the modulation scheme used for resource units fragments is different from one another; thus promoting increased spectral efficiency and signaling throughput over RUs within a wireless channel by applying data parsing – Yang [0197 and 0229].
Regarding claim 2:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further teaches parsing the bits of the RUs into a plurality of spatial streams of RUs (spanning number of {coded} bits over spatial streams [0225]),
and parsing a spatial stream of an RU into one or more RU fragments (and performing RU parsing after pre-segment parsing [0413]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to parse bits of the RUs into a plurality of spatial streams of RUs and parse a spatial stream of an RU into one or more RU fragments; thus avoiding the waste of frequency resources for MIMU transmissions.
Regarding claim 4:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further discloses parsing bits of the RUs into a plurality of RU fragments (assigning information bits of set of information bits to set of RUs, e.g., RU fragments [0024] associated with spatial stream [0066]); and parsing bits of an RU fragment into one or more spatial streams (spanning number of {coded} bits over spatial streams [0225]).
Regarding claim 6:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further discloses parsing an RU fragment of the plurality of RU fragments into a plurality of RU segments if the RU fragment size is larger than 80 MHz (parsing 320 MHz bandwidth segment into plurality of 80 MHz [0192]).
Regarding claim 7:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further discloses jointly encoding bits of the RU (jointly encoding all information bits associated with sets of data units [0011]).
Regarding claim 8:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further discloses parsing an RU fragment of the plurality of RU fragments into a plurality of RU segments (parsing 320 MHz bandwidth segment into plurality of 80 MHz [0192])
wherein a minimum RU segment size is 20 MHz ( minimum bandwidth of 20 MHz [0205]), or 80 MHz (bandwidth of 80 MHz [205]) and a maximum number of RU segments is four (and maximum number is four 80 MHz bandwidth segments in 320 MHz bandwidth [0192]).
Regarding claim 18:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further discloses, while x further teaches the one RU fragment is further parsed into RU segments which each have a different modulation (each RU includes a number of different frequency subcarriers/ tones, e.g., RU segments [0419] and multiple RUs have distinct modulation orders [0232]).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 19 is in a device claim format.
Regarding claims 20, 21 and 23:
[Claims 20, 21, and 23] are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to [claims 2, 4, and 18] above, respectively, except that [claims 20, 21, and 23] are recited in a device claim format.
Claims 3, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang, and further in view of Geng et al. (US 20180248591 A1, hereafter referred to as Geng.
Regarding claim 3:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Yang does not further teach different spatial streams are parsed into different resource unit fragments which have unequal modulation.
Geng, from the same field of endeavor, teaches different spatial streams are parsed into different resource unit fragments which have unequal modulation (spatial stream include a plurality {M} of RUs [0090] that are assumed to use different modulation types or orders, e.g., using unequal modulation [0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to parse spatial streams into different resource unit fragments which have unequal modulation; thus improving the throughput by controlling PER performance [0118].
Regarding claim 5:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 4.
Yang does not further teach different resource unit fragments are parsed into different numbers of spatial streams.
Geng, from the same field of endeavor, teaches different resource unit fragments are parsed into different numbers of spatial streams (RUs are included in spatial streams [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to parse different resource unit fragments into spatial streams; thus improving throughput by appropriately allocating spatial streams for data transmissions (Geng [0118]).
Regarding claim 10:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang does not further disclose the different modulation is based on interference detection or feedback from a receiver.
Geng teaches the different modulation is based on interference detection or feedback from a receiver (when channels between AP and various STAs vary due to interference, unequal MCS may be used [0214] or depending on the channel quality and STA feedback capability, both equal MCS and unequal MCS may be applied [0211]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to implement a different modulation based on detecting interference or feedback; thus achieving higher throughput by accommodating conditions for channels.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang, and further in view of Chu et al. (US 11464011 B1), hereafter referred to as Chu.
Regarding claim 9:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang further discloses the one RU fragment and the other RU fragment of an RU are to be transmitted to a first device (multiple RUs are assigned for each user [0220]).
Yang does not further disclose the other RU fragment overlaps with a bandwidth of a second device and the one RU fragment does not overlap with the bandwidth of the second device, the bandwidth of the second device being smaller than the bandwidth of the first device, the wireless transmission being a multi-user multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) transmission.
Chu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the other RU fragment overlaps with a bandwidth of a second device (first set of RUs 244 that are covered by RUs 248 [col.8, lines 65-66], wherein RUs 248 {referred to as 52-tone RUs} corresponding to a bandwidth of approximately 4.4 MHz [col.8, lines 34-54]), and the one RU fragment does not overlap with the bandwidth of the second device (second set of RUs 244 that are not covered by RUs 248 [col.8, lines 65-66], wherein RUs 248 {referred to as 52-tone RUs} corresponding to a bandwidth of approximately 4.4 MHz [col.8, lines 34-54]), the bandwidth of the second device being smaller than the bandwidth of the first device (bandwidth of 26 -tone RUs 244 is 2.2 MHz, smaller than 4.4 MHz [col.8, lines 34-54]), the wireless transmission being a multi-user multiple input multiple output (MU-MIMO) transmission (transmission being MU-MIMO [col.13, lines 40-43]).
Also, Chu states that transmitting independent data streams from multiple client stations in different frequency segments, or frequency RUs of a communication channel [col.1, lines 46-49] and each client station is assigned with RU including a data stream [col.2, lines 1-4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine the other RU fragment overlaps with a bandwidth of a second device, and the one RU fragment does not overlap with the bandwidth of the second device; thus improving channel efficiency for communications channels of different sizes (Chu [col.3, lines 53-60]).
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20230388165 A1), hereafter referred to as Yu.
Regarding claim 11:
Yang discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Yang does not further discloses signaling an unequal modulation for the resource unit fragments.
Yu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches signaling an unequal modulation for the resource unit fragments (PPDU, e.g., signaling, includes unequal modulation scheme of spatial streams are different, [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to signal an equal modulation to the resource unit fragment associated spatial streams; thus accommodating the conditions of each channel and achieving higher throughput.
Regarding claim 12:
Yang in view of Yu discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Yang further discloses the signaling is in one of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (PPDU is transmitted [0004]).
Yu indicates that transmission is based on triggering [0089, Table 2].
It is known in the art that triggering is performed by using a Basic Trigger frame. Thus, Yang in view of Yu discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to use PPDU or a basic trigger frame; thus supporting transmissions mechanisms - Yu [0024] by enhancing signaling capabilities – Yang [0197].
Regarding claim 14:
Yang in view of Yu discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Yang further discloses the signaling includes transmitting a frame (transmitting PPDU [0210]).
Yu additionally mentions that transmitting a frame which comprises for each resource unit fragment:
a field indicating a number of resource unit fragments in the resource unit (U-SIG field of PPDU comprises RU or multi-RU combination [0069]); and
a field indicating a differential modulation for one resource unit fragment with respect to modulation of the other resource unit fragment (delta MCS set to 1 indicating one MCS level lower than AP indicated MCS [0069]).
Also, Yu indicates it is allowed to modify some or all of received parameter values, e.g., values of RU, modulation coding scheme (MCS), and number of space time streams {NSTS}.
Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of spatial streams to transmit the resource unit fragments by not adding the field indicating the number of spatial streams, or by not inserting such number information in a PPDU field, in case when such spatial streams become unavailable; thus signaling overhead is reduced – Yu [0015].
Regarding claim 15:
Yang in view of Yu discloses all limitations of claim 14.
Yang does not, while Yu further discloses a user info field of the frame indicates one of a modulation and number of spatial streams for an RU (user field indicates a modulation scheme and a total number N of spatial streams, and [0009]); a maximum modulation and number of spatial streams for the resource unit fragments, and a modulation and number of spatial streams for the one resource unit fragment (user field indicates a modulation scheme and number of spatial streams in a spatial stream group [0009 and 0012]).
Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include modulation and number of spatial streams for RU and RU fragments in a user info field of the frame; thus gaining throughput rate by using varied information for transmission – Yu [0182].
Claims 13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yu, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20220132371 A1), hereafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 13:
Yang in view of Yu discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Yang further discloses the signaling includes transmitting a frame (transmitting PPDU [0210]).
Yang in view of Yu does not further disclose comprising for each resource unit fragment a field indicating a number of resource unit fragments in the resource unit a field indicating a differential modulation for one of the resource unit fragment with respect to modulation of the other resource unit fragment, and a differential number of spatial streams for transmitting the one resource unit fragment with respect to a number of spatial streams of the other resource unit fragment.
Wu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising for each resource unit fragment:
a field indicating a number of resource unit fragments in the resource unit (U-SIG field of PPDU comprises RU or multi-RU combination [0069]);
a field indicating a differential modulation for one of the resource unit fragment with respect to modulation of the other resource unit fragment (delta MCS set to 1 indicating one MCS level lower than AP indicated MCS [0069]); and
a differential number of spatial streams for transmitting the one resource unit fragment with respect to a number of spatial streams of the other resource unit fragment (delta space time streams {NSTS} field, e.g., spatial streams field, of PPDU set to 1 indicates one NSTS, e.g., spatial streams, less than AP indicated NSTS [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to include a number of RU fragments, a differential modulation, a differential number of spatial streams for resource unit fragment in the PPDU; thus increasing the efficiency, throughput, and reliability of PPDU transmissions by taking into account devices information and selected values – Wu [0032].
Regarding claim 16:
Yang in view of Yu discloses all limitations of claim 11.
Yang does not, while Yu further teaches the signaling includes transmitting a frame which comprises for each resource unit fragment:
a field indicating a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the one of the resource unit fragment (field indicating MCS indicating modulation mode of spatial stream group 1, Fig. 6);
a field indicating a number of spatial streams for transmitting the one of the resource unit fragment (field indicating number of spatial streams in spatial stream group, Fig.6);
an unequal modulation field indication (field indicating “Whether support unequal modulation {UEQM}, Fig. 5).
Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use various fields including modulation, number of spatial streams for RU fragments, and UEQM information in a frame; thus enabling a device to consider values for PPDU transmissions.
Yang in view of Yu does not further disclose including a differential modulation pattern for the other resource unit fragment based on a modulation indicated by the MCS.
Wu, from the field of same endeavor, teaches including a differential modulation pattern for the other resource unit fragment based on a modulation indicated by the MCS (including delta MCS set to 1 indicating one MCS level lower than AP indicated MCS [0069]).
Thus, it would be obvious to consider information on MCS, number of spatial streams for RU fragments, UEQM information, and differential modulation pattern for the other RU fragment in corresponding fields; thus enabling a device to perform efficient PPDU transmissions by using/adapting values in corresponding fields – Wu [0032].
Regarding claim 22:
Claims 22 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 16, except that claim 22 is recited in a device claim format.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yu and Wu, and further in view of Chu.
Regarding claim 17:
Yang in view of Yu and Wu discloses all limitations of claim 16.
Yang in view of Yu and Wu does not further disclose the signaling is performed in a MU-MIMO transmission where a bandwidth of the RU for one user partially overlaps with a bandwidth of another RU for another user, the bandwidths being different sizes.
Chu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the signaling is performed in a MU-MIMO transmission (transmission being MU-MIMO [col.13, lines 40-43]).
where a bandwidth of the RU for one user partially overlaps with a bandwidth of another RU for another user (where first set of RUs 244 {corresponding to 2.2 MHz} that are covered, e.g., overlapped, by RUs 248 [col.8, lines 65-66], wherein RUs 248 {referred to as 52-tone RUs} corresponding to a bandwidth of approximately 4.4MHz. [col.8, lines 34-54]), the bandwidths being different sizes device (bandwidths of 2.2 MHz and 4.4 MHz sizes [col.8, lines 34-54]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine a bandwidth of the RU for one user partially overlaps with a bandwidth of another RU for another user; thus enabling the control of the allocation information of RUs for MU transmission - Chu [col.2, lines 36-51].
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/SPE, Art Unit 2429
