Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 06/30/2026.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MolavianJazi et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0076384), the prior art discloses a reduced set for an MCS configuration can be used. For example, 3 bits are used to indicate an MCS index, for example from the first 8 MCS indexes from a legacy/NR configuration table, compared to 4 bits in NR. A motivation is that, particularly for a Msg3 PUSCH transmission with repetitions, operating corresponding spectral efficiency can be on the lower range and modulation schemes, pi/2 BPSK or QPSK, can suffice; see ¶ 245.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant remarks, filed on 06/30/2026, argues that under Step 2A, Prong One claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim only works [determining step] on a set of data [parameter/information field], which would be practical to be performed in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The amendments to the claims provide further details regarding the reception of the data, but fail to modify the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 recites the judicial exception directed towards a mental process.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong two claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argument recite that the claim uses the judicial exception “in a specific technological environment to control operation of a terminal device in a wireless network”. Examiner’s agree that the judicial exception is part of the specific technological environment. However, the judicial exception does not control the operation [integrated] of the terminal device in the wireless network, because the claim fails to explicitly describe that the set of data [parameter/information field] is used to change the operations of the network [transmitting the MSG3, via PUCCH, in a random access process]. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For these reasons discussed above the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 16-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention (i.e. “wherein the target MCS parameter is configured to determine a target MCS for transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PUSCH), the target MCS parameter indicates N MCS indexes, N being a positive integer greater than 1”). However, Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
35 USC § 103
Applicant remarks, filed on 06/30/2026, argues that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to disclose the features in claim 1, specifically, “determining, by a terminal device, a target MCS index for transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on a target MCS parameter and a target MCS information field”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pi discloses Determining a number of repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target MCS parameter] in a predetermined indication field [target MCS information field] in a received random access response (RAR); see figure 2 step 210 & ¶ 48. The first indication information [target MCS parameter] is index information of the MCS; see ¶ 54.
Furthermore, Applicant remarks indicate the “limitation provides a specific technical solution for accurately determining the MCS index for Msg3 PUSCH transmission when the MCS information field may have different bit lengths for initial transmission and retransmission in scenarios where retransmission is supported, which is neither taught nor suggested by the cited references”. Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “different bit lengths”/”retransmission”) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Applicant remarks indicate the that the function of the MCS field in Pi is to indirectly indicate the number of repetitions, rather than to determine a target MCS index for transmitting Msg3 PUSCH. Examiner notes that the limitation explicitly discloses that the target MCS parameter indicates the MCS index and the target MCS information field is only required to be present. Therefore, prior art meets the claim scope because it discloses a parameter indicating the index information for the MCS and MCS information field. Examiner suggest to amend the claim to explicitly disclose the steps than enable to use the target MCS information field in the determination of the MCS index.
For these reasons discussed above that the claim is met by the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 6 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “determining, in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured, a target MCS …”. The limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Claim 8 is a process claim that include at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “determining, in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured, a target MCS, …”. The limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections however those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
“receiving, by a termina device, a target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) parameter from a network device”
“determining, by a terminal device, a target MCS index for transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on a target MCS parameter and a target MCS information field,”
“wherein the target MCS parameter indicates N MCS indexes, N being a positive integer greater than 1, and”
“the PUSCH is configured to carry a message 3 (Msg3) in a random access process.”
Under step 2A prong one, the limitations:
The limitations “determining, by a terminal device, a target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on a target MCS parameter and a target MCS information field” only work on a set of data, which would be practical to be performed in the mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). As result, the claim is not patent eligible because it recites limitations that comprise mental steps.
Under step 2A prong two, the additional limitations:
The additional limitations “receiving, by a termina device, a target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) parameter from a network device” provide further details regarding the reception of the data;
“wherein the target MCS parameter indicates N MCS indexes, N being a positive integer greater than 1” is disclosing a constrains associated with the data value (e.g. N) such as the data value is associated with an MCS index and the data value is a positive integer greater than one; or
“the PUSCH is configured to carry a message 3 (Msg3) in a random access process” is disclosing a constrain associated with the PUSCH such as carrying a MSG3 of the random access process. However, the additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As result, the claim is not patent eligible because the limitations comprise mental steps, and the additional limitations fail to integrate the mental steps into a practical application.
Under step 2B, inventive concept of the claim:
The additional limitation fails to transform the abstract idea into something significantly more than the idea itself.
Claim 2 recites “wherein for initial transmission of the PUSCH, the target MCS information field is a first MCS information field carried in a random access response (RAR) uplink grant; or for retransmission of the PUSCH, the target MCS information field is a second MCS information field carried in a downlink control information (DCI) format 0_0 scrambled by a temporary cell radio network temporary identifier (TC-RNTI).”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 2, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the target MCS parameter comprises a second MCS parameter or a second default MCS parameter, the second MCS parameter being an MCS parameter for initial transmission and retransmission of the PUSCH, and the second default MCS parameter being a default MCS parameter for initial transmission and retransmission of the PUSCH”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 3, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the second MCS parameter indicates eight MCS indexes”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 4, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 5 recites the “wherein determining, by the terminal device, the target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the target MCS parameter and the target MCS information field comprises: determining a target MCS for initial transmission of the PUSCH based on two bits in a first MCS information field and first four MCS indexes in eight MCS indexes indicated by the second MCS parameter, wherein the two bits indicate a target MCS index in the first four MCS indexes”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 6 recites “wherein determining, by the terminal device, the target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) for transmitting the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on the target MCS parameter and the target MCS information field comprises: determining, in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured, a target MCS for initial transmission of the PUSCH based on two bits in a first MCS information field and first four MCS indexes in eight MCS indexes indicated by the second default MCS parameter, wherein the two bits indicate a target MCS index in the first four MCS indexes”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 6, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 7 recites “determining a target MCS for retransmission of the PUSCH based on three bits in a second MCS information field and eight MCS indexes indicated by the second MCS parameter, wherein the three bits indicate a target MCS index in the eight MCS indexes”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 7, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 8 recites “determining, in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured, a target MCS for retransmission of the PUSCH based on three bits in a second MCS information field and eight MCS indexes indicated by the second default MCS parameter, wherein the three bits indicate a target MCS index in the eight MCS indexes”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 8, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 9-15 are directed towards the apparatus rather than the process of claim 1. However, the same rationale applies to claims 9-15 as provided in the rejection to claims 1-8. As result, claims 9-15 are not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is directed towards the apparatus rather than the process of claim 1. However, the same rationale applies to claim 20 as provided in the rejection to claim 1. As result, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 16-18, and 20 is are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pi et al. (Publication Patent No. US 2023/0276436, hereinafter referred to as Pi).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 20, Pi discloses receiving, by a termina device, a target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) parameter from a network device (The first information is received in a random access response (RAR), wherein RAR includes the first indication information [target MCS parameter] in a predetermined indication field [target MCS information field]; see ¶ 48.)
determining, by a terminal device, a target MCS index for transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on a target MCS parameter and a target MCS information field (Determining a number of repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein the determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target MCS parameter] in a predetermined indication field [target MCS information field] in a received random access response (RAR); see figure 2 step 210 & ¶ 48. The first indication information [target MCS parameter] is index information of the MCS; see ¶ 54.),
wherein the target MCS parameter indicates N MCS indexes, N being a positive integer greater than 1 (The first indication information [target MCS parameter] is index information of the MCS; see ¶ 54.), and
the PUSCH is configured to carry a message 3 (Msg3) in a random access process (Transmitting the PUSCH to a network device, wherein the PUSCH is a PUSCH of Msg3 in a random access procedure; see figure 2 steps 210-220.).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Pi discloses that for initial transmission of the PUSCH, the target MCS information field is a first MCS information field carried in a random access response (RAR) uplink grant (Determining a number of repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein the determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target MCS parameter] in a predetermined indication field [target MCS information field] in a received random access response (RAR); see figure 2 step 210 & ¶ 48.); or
for retransmission of the PUSCH, the target MCS information field is a second MCS information field carried in a downlink control information (DCI) format 0_0 scrambled by a temporary cell radio network temporary identifier (TC-RNTI).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Pi discloses that the target MCS parameter comprises a second MCS parameter or a second default MCS parameter (The determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target/second MCS parameter]; see 48.),
the second MCS parameter being an MCS parameter for initial transmission and retransmission of the PUSCH (Determining a first number of repetitions for first transmission of the PUSCH; see ¶ 43), and
the second default MCS parameter being a default MCS parameter for initial transmission and retransmission of the PUSCH (determining a second number of repetitions for retransmission of the PUSCH; see ¶ 44).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); see claim interpretation. As result, the claim is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI); see claim interpretation. As result, the claim is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, Pi discloses a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (It is inherent that the network device includes a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, which when executed by the processor, enables the communication with the UE.):
transmit a target modulation and coding scheme (MCS) parameter to a terminal device, wherein the target MCS parameter is configured to determine a target MCS for transmitting a physical downlink shared channel (PUSCH) (Determining a number of repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein the determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target MCS parameter] in a predetermined indication field [target MCS information field] in a received random access response (RAR) from the network device; see figure 2 step 210 & ¶ 48.),
the target MCS parameter indicates N MCS indexes, N being a positive integer greater than 1 (The first indication information [target MCS parameter] is index information of the MCS; see ¶ 54.), and
the PUSCH is configured to carry a message 3 (Msg3) in a random access process (Transmitting the PUSCH to a network device, wherein the PUSCH is a PUSCH of Msg3 in a random access procedure; see figure 2 steps 210-220.).
Regarding claim 17, Pi discloses that wherein the target MCS is determined based on the target MCS parameter and a target MCS information field; and wherein for initial transmission of the PUSCH, the target MCS information field is a first MCS information field carried in a random access response (RAR) uplink grant (Determining a number of repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), wherein the determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target MCS parameter] in a predetermined indication field [target MCS information field] in a received random access response (RAR); see figure 2 step 210 & ¶ 48.), or
wherein for retransmission of the PUSCH, the target MCS information field is a second MCS information field carried in a downlink control information (DCI) format 0_0 scrambled by a temporary cell radio network temporary identifier (TC-RNTI).
Regarding claim 18, Pi discloses that the target MCS parameter comprises a second MCS parameter (The determining the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH is based on first indication information [target/second MCS parameter]; see 48),
the second MCS parameter being an MCS parameter for initial transmission and retransmission of the PUSCH (Determining a first number of repetitions for first transmission of the PUSCH; see ¶ 43).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0276436; hereinafter referred to as Pi) in view of Echigo et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0283559; hereinafter referred as Echigo).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, PI discloses that the first indication information [target MCS parameter] is index information of the MCS for PUSCH transmission, but fails to explicitly discloses that the second MCS parameter indicates eight MCS indexes. However, in analogous art, Echigo discloses when three bits are used for indicating the MCS index, for example, eight MCS indices with lower index values (e.g., 0, 1, . . . , 7, and 8) may be selectable; see ¶ 97. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pi ramdom access procedure with the MCS index of Echigo in order to provide a terminal capable of appropriately determining the number of repetitions, based on the MCS index, of an uplink signal in a random access channel procedure.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, PI discloses that the first indication information [target MCS parameter] is index information of the MCS for PUSCH transmission, but fails to explicitly discloses determining a target MCS index for initial transmission of the PUSCH based on two bits in a first MCS information field and first four MCS indexes in eight MCS indexes indicated by the second MCS parameter, wherein the two bits indicate a target MCS index in the first four MCS indexes. However, in analogous art, Echigo discloses when three bits are used for indicating the MCS index, for example, eight MCS indices with lower index values (e.g., 0, 1, . . . , 7, and 8) may be selectable; see ¶ 96. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pi ramdom access procedure with the MCS index of Echigo in order to provide a terminal capable of appropriately determining the number of repetitions, based on the MCS index, of an uplink signal in a random access channel procedure.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0276436; hereinafter referred to as Pi) in view of Papasakellariou et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0100422; hereinafter referred as Papasakellariou).
Regarding claim 7, PI discloses receiving a RAR with the first indication information including an index information of the MCS for PUSCH retransmission, but fails to explicitly discloses determining a target MCS index for retransmission of the PUSCH based on three bits in a second MCS information field and eight MCS indexes indicated by the second MCS parameter, wherein the three bits indicate a target MCS index in the eight MCS indexes. However, in analogous art, Papasakellariou discloses that the 4-bits MCS can be reduced in size or removed in a compact RAR message, wherein the MCS is reduced to 3 bits such that the MCS for Msg3 transmission is determined from 8 MCS indexes associated with QPSK modulation in Table 3, such as MCS indexes 0 through 7; see ¶ 108. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pi ramdom access procedure with the reduce MCS information of Papasakellariou in order to reduce the overhead of the MCS information.
Regarding claim 15, PI discloses receiving a RAR with the first indication information including an index information of the MCS for PUSCH retransmission, but fails to explicitly discloses determining a target MCS for retransmission of the PUSCH based on three bits in a second MCS information field and eight MCS indexes indicated by the second MCS parameter, wherein the three bits indicate a target MCS index in the eight MCS indexes; or
determining, in a case that the second MCS parameter is not configured, a target MCS for retransmission of the PUSCH based on three bits in a second MCS information field and eight MCS indexes indicated by the second default MCS parameter, wherein the three bits indicate a target MCS index in the eight MCS indexes. However, in analogous art, Papasakellariou discloses that the 4-bits MCS can be reduced in size or removed in a compact RAR message, wherein the MCS is reduced to 3 bits such that the MCS for Msg3 transmission is determined from 8 MCS indexes associated with QPSK modulation in Table 3, such as MCS indexes 0 through 7; see ¶ 108. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pi ramdom access procedure with the reduce MCS information of Papasakellariou in order to reduce the overhead of the MCS information.
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 Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights