DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 05/06/26.
Independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 14, 15, and 18-20 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Amended claim 10 should depend on claim 1, but number “1” has been missed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an indication" in line 6 and 12, respectively. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the “an indication” is another new indication or the “an indication” in line 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "an indication" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the “an indication” is another new indication or the “an indication” in line 4 in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2023/0371111, “Xu”) in view of Lu (US 2023/0071186, “Lu”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a first relay node discovery method, applied to a second relay node, comprising:
- receiving a first message, wherein the first message carries a service identifier of a first service (See S1301 Fig.13, the source terminal, i.e. the remote terminal, sends a discovery message A including an identifier of the source terminal and an identifier of the target terminal; See ¶.286, the relay terminal (or the remote terminal) sends a broadcast message, to search for UE that meets a condition (where for example, the broadcast message may indicate one or more services; See ¶.403, the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal may be represented as: an identifier of the first application and an identifier of the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal; See ¶.27, when the RSC (Relay Service Code) exists in the first relay mode, the remote terminal may send the RSC corresponding to the first relay mode, or the remote terminal may further determine the first indication information corresponding to the first relay mode. Therefore, the remote terminal may indicate the first relay mode to the relay terminal by sending the first indication information; See ¶.41, the information about the second relay mode includes at least one of the following: an RSC corresponding to the second relay mode; or third indication information indicating the second relay mode; Examiner’s Note: Lu discloses the limitation “a service identifier”), and
- the first message is used for an indication to assist in discovering a first relay node capable of accessing the first service (See S1301 Fig.13, ‘send a discovery message A’ to relay terminal;
PNG
media_image1.png
293
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See ¶.15, the remote terminal selects, based on the capability of the remote terminal, the first relay mode from the relay mode supported by the remote terminal and the first policy information, to better match the capability of the remote terminal, and improve performance of transmitting the data of the first application by the remote terminal in the first relay mode; See ¶.387, based on a capability of the remote terminal, the relay mode supported by the remote terminal. In a possible implementation, considering that different relay modes have different complexity, the remote terminal may determine, based on the processing capability of the remote terminal, the relay mode that can be supported;); and broadcasting the first message (See ¶.25, the remote terminal may send the first message in a broadcast manner, so that the relay terminal can obtain the information about the first relay mode by using the received first message, and prepare for transmitting the data of the first application between the remote terminal and the relay terminal in the first relay mode);
- wherein the first message is used for an indication to assist a remote terminal in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service (See S1308 Fig.13,
PNG
media_image2.png
106
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
- wherein the receiving the first message comprises: receiving the first message broadcast by the remote terminal; or receiving the first message, broadcast by a further second relay node, from the remote terminal; wherein the first message further carries a terminal identifier of the remote terminal (See S1301 Fig.13,
PNG
media_image3.png
293
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
); or
- wherein the first message is used for an indication to assist the first relay node capable of accessing the first service in being discovered; wherein the receiving the first message comprises; receiving the first message broadcast by the first relay node; or receiving the first message, broadcast by a further second relay node, from the first relay node; wherein the first message further carries a node identifier of the first relay node (See S1302 Fig.13,
PNG
media_image4.png
120
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Xu discloses the method “the remote terminal may send the relay service code, which is considered as a code identifying service, corresponding to the first relay mode (Xu, See ¶.27); the relay terminal (or the remote terminal) sends a broadcast message, to search for UE that meets a condition (where for example, the broadcast message may indicate one or more services, and UE that can support the service is the UE that meets the condition) (Xu, See ¶.286); and the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal may be represented as: an identifier of the first application and an identifier of the relay mode corresponding to the first application of the remote terminal” (Xu, See ¶.403), but does not explicitly disclose the limitation “a service identifier of a first service”.
However, Lu explicitly discloses “a service identifier of a first service (Lu, See ¶.40, the remote terminal may send a discovery request message. The discovery request message may include the discovery process related information, such as an application service identifier (Lu, See ¶.40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “a service identifier of a first service” as taught by Lu into the system of Xu, so that it provides a way of having a discovery response message from the remote terminal (Lu, See ¶.40).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses “the first message further carries indication information on whether the first service is allowed to be accessed through a relay mode (See ¶.312, the remote terminal is authorized to serve as a remote terminal to access the network via the relay terminal); wherein the broadcasting the first message comprises: determining, according to the first message, whether the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode; and broadcasting the first message if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (See Fig.13 and ¶.312; Examiner’s Note: Lu further discloses the method for the relay terminal is granted to respond to the remote terminal, See Lu, ¶.40).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Xu and Lu disclose “the broadcasting the first message if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (Xu, See ¶.312, the remote terminal is authorized to serve as a remote terminal to access the network via the relay terminal) comprises: if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (Lu, See ¶.40, If the relay terminal is granted to respond to the remote terminal, then a discovery response message may be sent to the remote terminal), determining whether a service allowed to be accessed by the second relay node comprises the first service; and if the service allowed to be accessed by the second relay node comprises the first service, broadcasting the first message (Lu, See ¶.81-84, after viewing the discovery request message, the relay terminal sends a discovery response message to the remote terminal in a case that the relay terminal is granted to respond to the discovery request message. The discovery response message includes the SIB1. [0082] Here, SIB1 is carried in the discovery response message and serves as a container in form of a byte stream that has been encoded by the Uu interface. [0083] The remote terminal receives the discovery response message, and acquires the SIB1 from the discovery response message. [0084] Here, the remote terminal may determine based on the SIB1 whether to allow initiation of a call in the serving cell of the relay terminal).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses “before receiving the first message, further comprising: obtaining a policy parameter of the second relay node from a network device, wherein the policy parameter comprises a service identifier of the service allowed to be accessed by the second relay node (See ¶.309, the relay terminal is registered with a network, and obtains authorization information of the relay terminal and communication parameter information of the relay terminal; See ¶.310, the relay terminal obtains the authorization information of the relay terminal and the communication parameter information of the relay terminal from a PCF (a PCF that is responsible for providing a policy for the relay terminal during registration of the relay terminal) corresponding to the relay terminal, where the authorization information includes information about that the relay terminal is authorized to perform indirect communication, and the relay terminal is authorized to serve as a relay terminal to provide a relay service for the remote terminal. The communication parameter information may include a PC5 QoS parameter for authorization; See further S601 Fig.6 and ¶.311-313).”
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses “wherein the network device comprises a policy control function (PCF) (See Fig.6, PCF), and the obtaining the policy parameter of the second relay node from the network device (See S202 Fig.2 and aS601 Fig.6), comprises: sending a second message to the PCF, wherein the second message is used to request the policy parameter from the PCF and indicates a capability of the second relay node; and receiving the policy parameter configured by the PCF for the second relay node (See S505 Fig.5, transmit data of a first application in the first relay mode to PCF; See S606 Fig.6-Fig.12).”
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses “receiving a connection request message sent by the remote terminal, wherein the connection request message is used for an indication to assist the remote terminal in connecting to the first relay node capable of accessing the first service; and establishing, based on the second relay node and the connection request message, a communication between the remote terminal and the first relay node (See S204 Fig.2, receiving a connection request from the remote terminal to establish between an the remote terminal and UE-network; See ¶.300, Specifically, the relay terminal forwards an RRC connection request of the remote terminal based on an access stratum configuration (for example, configuration information of a radio bearer or the layer 2 identifier of the PC5 link established between the remote terminal and the relay terminal); See S1305-S1308 Fig.13, establishing a PC5 connection between relay nodes).”
Regarding claim 11, it is a first relay node discovery method claim applied to a remote terminal corresponding to the method claim 1 applied to a second relay node and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is a first relay node discovery method claim applied to a first relay node corresponding to the method claim 1 applied to a second relay node and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it is a first relay node discovery apparatus claim applied to a second relay node corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations “a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (See Fig.18)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, it is a first relay node discovery apparatus claim applied to a remote terminal corresponding to the method claim 11, except the limitations “a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (See Fig.18)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, it is a first relay node discovery apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 12, except the limitations “a memory, a transceiver, and a processor (See Fig.18)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 21, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 22, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 11 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lu and further in view of Seo (US 2017/0086125, “Seo”).
Regarding claim 5, Xu and Seo disclose “the first message further carries a remaining number of hops for which the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode; wherein the broadcasting the first message if the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode comprises: determining whether the remaining number of hops for which the first service is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode is greater than or equal to 1; if the remaining number of hops is greater than or equal to 1, updating the remaining number of hops and broadcasting the first message, wherein the broadcast first message carries the updated remaining number of hops (Seo, ¶.69, the hop count is reduced one by one whenever the discovery signal is relayed. That is, the source UE may establish the maximum hop count (N) to the hop count, and may transmit the established hop count. Thereafter, the UE having received the discovery signal having “Hop Count=N” may set the hop count to “Hop Count=N−1” whenever the discovery signal is relayed. The discovery signal having “Hop Count=0” is no longer relayed. In this case, the hop count may indicate the number of remaining hops to be relayed in the future; Examiner’s Note: as rejected in claim 1, Xu discloses the method of the first service being allowed to be accessed through the relay mode, See S1303 & S1304 Fig.13, ¶.403-404 and ¶.413).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the first message further carries a remaining number of hops” as taught by Seo into the system of Xu and Lu, so that it provides a way of indicating the number of remaining hops to be relayed in the future (Seo, See ¶.69).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lu and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2023/0337301, “Guo”).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses “receiving a first response message sent by the first relay node (Xu. See S1303 Fig.13, the target terminal sends a discovery response), wherein the first response message is used for an indication to the second relay node to assist in informing the remote terminal that the first relay node capable of accessing the first service has been discovered; and sending a second response message to the remote terminal (See S1304 Fig.13, relay terminal sends a discovery response message to the source terminal, i.e. remote terminal),
but Xu and Lu do not explicitly disclose what Guo discloses “wherein the second response message comprises the service identifier of the first service, a node identifier of the first relay node, and a node identifier of the second relay node (Guo, See Figs.7-8 and ¶.98, message 3 is a discovery response message; carries information on UE2, such as information on a service supported by UE2, the user identifier of UE2 at the application layer, and the link layer identifier (Layer 2 ID) of UE1. The frame structure of Message 3 transmitted by UE2 carries the link layer identifier (Layer 2 ID) of UE2; See ¶.99, after receiving Message 3, the Relay UE obtains the Layer 2 ID of UE1, and then transmits Message 4 to UE1 if Message 3 is a discovery response message. The content of Message 4 includes the link layer identifier of UE2 and the above information on UE2, and the frame structure of Message 4 transmitted by the Relay UE carries the link layer identifier of the Relay UE. Optionally, Message 4 may also include the link layer identifier of UE1).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the second response message comprises the service identifier of the first service, a node identifier of the first relay node, and a node identifier of the second relay node” as taught by Guo into the system of Xu and Lu, so that it provides a way of carrying information such as a service supported by UE2, which is considered as the first relay in this claim (Guo, See ¶.64).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lu and further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0320017, “Li”).
Regarding claim 23, Xu discloses “obtaining a policy parameter of the remote terminal from a network device (Xu, See S601 Fig.6, PCF sends first policy information to the remote terminal), wherein the policy parameter comprises at least one of the following: a service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal, whether the service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal is allowed to be accessed through a relay mode (See S604a-S605 Fig.6),
but Xu and Lu do not explicitly disclose what Li discloses “or a maximum number of hops for which the service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode (Li, See ¶.11, the first service discovery message further includes a maximum hop count, and the maximum hop count is used to indicate a maximum quantity of times the service discovery is allowed to be relayed; See ¶.219, where the multi-hop service matching indication information is used to indicate that the service matching response message is used to respond to a relayed service discovery message).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “or a maximum number of hops for which the service allowed to be accessed by the remote terminal is allowed to be accessed through the relay mode” as taught by Li into the system of Xu and Lu, so that it provides a way of indicating a maximum quantity of times the service discovery is allowed to be delayed (Li, See ¶.11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims.
At page 9, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that “First of all, Xu discloses that the remote terminal sends the first message, and the relay terminal can obtain the information about the first relay mode by using the received first message. The first message in Xu carries information about the first relay mode, whereas in the present application, the first message carries a service identifier of a first service. Furthermore, Xu does not disclose that the first message is used for an indication for the second relay node to assist in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service (distinguishing feature a) of the present application), let alone that the first message is used for an indication for the second relay node to assist the remote terminal in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service (distinguishing feature b) of the present application), or the first message is used for an indication for the second relay node to assist the first relay node capable of accessing the first service in being discovered(distinguishing feature c) of the present application).” [applicant’s emphasis added].
In reply, the limitations “the first message is used for an indication for the second relay node to assist in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service (distinguishing feature a)” explicitly read on:
[S1301 Fig.13] of Xu shows, wherein the source terminal sends “a discovery message A to relay terminal and the relay terminal sends “a discovery message B” by using the discovery message A, i.e. the discovery message A, as a first message, is used for the relay terminal, i.e. the second relay node, to assist in discovering the target terminal, i.e. the first relay node.
Fig.13 of Xu shows the almost same procedure of applicant’s discovering procedure shown in Figure 4 below, except the limitation “the service ID.”
[Fig.13] of Xu;
PNG
media_image5.png
274
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[Fig.4] of Applicant’s;
PNG
media_image6.png
414
631
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The limitations “the first message is used for an indication for the second relay node to assist the remote terminal in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service (distinguishing feature b)” explicitly read on:
[S1308 Fig.13] of Xu shows
PNG
media_image7.png
132
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
¶.[0029] of Xu discloses “According to the foregoing method, the remote terminal may determine, based on the received first response message, whether the relay terminal supports the first relay mode. Therefore, the remote terminal may determine, based on a relay terminal that supports the first relay mode, a relay terminal that provides a relay service for transmitting the data of the first application, and prepare for transmitting the data of the first application between the remote terminal and the relay terminal in the first relay mode.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0286] of Xu discloses “the relay terminal (or the remote terminal) sends a broadcast message, to search for UE that meets a condition (where for example, the broadcast message may indicate one or more services, and UE that can support the service is the UE that meets the condition).” [emphasis added].
¶.[0722]-¶.[0724] of Xu discloses “S1308: The source terminal transmits data to the target terminal via the relay terminal. [0723] For example, the source terminal may send data of the source terminal to the relay terminal, and the relay terminal forwards the data of the source terminal to the target terminal. Alternatively, the target terminal may send data of the target terminal to the relay terminal, and the relay terminal forwards the data of the target terminal to the source terminal. [0724] It should be noted that in S1304 to S1307, the relay terminal refers to the relay terminal selected by the target terminal in S1303.”
The limitations “the first message is used for an indication for the second relay node to assist the first relay node capable of accessing the first service in being discovered (distinguishing feature c)” explicitly read on:
[S1301-S1303] of Xu discloses,
PNG
media_image8.png
357
618
media_image8.png
Greyscale
At page 9, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that “Secondly, Xu at most disclose only one type of relay terminal. However, Xu does not involve a second relay node (configured to assist in discovering the first relay node capable of accessing the first service). Specifically, amended claim 1 of the present application is directed to the first relay node discovery through multiple hops based on the second relay node, involving a cooperative relationship between the first relay node and the second relay node. Xu does not mention cooperative discovery between relay nodes, but only addresses single-hop relay interaction between a remote terminal and a relay terminal. Furthermore, Xu does not disclose that the second relay node receives the first message broadcast by the remote terminal; or the second relay node receives the first message, broadcast by a further second relay node, from the remote terminal (distinguishing feature b) of the present application), Xu also does not disclose the second relay node receives the first message broadcast by the first relay node; or the second relay node receives the first message, broadcast by a further second relay node, from the first relay node (distinguishing feature c) of the present application). In addition, Xu does not disclose broadcasting of the first message by the second relay node (distinguishing feature a) of the present application).” [applicant’s emphasis added].
In reply, those arguments are similar to the first argument, except the limitation of “broadcast”. However, the limitations “broadcasting the first message” and/or “the broadcasting manner/mode” explicitly read on:
¶.[0025] of Xu discloses “the remote terminal may send the first message in a broadcast manner, a multicast manner, a unicast manner, or the like, so that the relay terminal can obtain the information about the first relay mode by using the received first message, and prepare for transmitting the data of the first application between the remote terminal and the relay terminal in the first relay mode.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0128] of Xu discloses “If the relay terminal determines that the relay terminal supports the seventh relay mode, the relay terminal may send the fifth message to the target terminal in a broadcast manner, where the fifth message includes the information about the seventh relay mode. [emphasis added].
¶.[0286] of Xu discloses “the relay terminal (or the remote terminal) sends a broadcast message, where the broadcast message may indicate information about the relay terminal (or the remote terminal). After receiving the broadcast message, other UE may return a message to the relay terminal (or the remote terminal). For example, the remote terminal (or the relay terminal) returns the message to the relay terminal (or the remote terminal), so that a discovery process between the relay terminal and the remote terminal is completed. Alternatively, the relay terminal (or the remote terminal) sends a broadcast message, to search for UE that meets a condition (where for example, the broadcast message may indicate one or more services, and UE that can support the service is the UE that meets the condition). After receiving the broadcast message, if other UE can meet the condition, the other UE may return a message to the relay terminal (or the remote terminal). For example, the remote terminal (or the relay terminal) returns the message to the relay terminal (or the remote terminal), so that a discovery process between the relay terminal and the remote terminal is completed.” [emphasis added].
At pages 10-14, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that any combination of Xu over Lu and Xu over Guo fail “cooperative discovery between relay nodes.”
However, Xu explicitly discloses the method of cooperating discovery between relay node” as show in Fig.13 and the paragraphs.[0704]-[0710].
¶.[0704] of Xu discloses “”S1302: The relay terminal sends a discovery message B based on the discovery message A. [0705] The discovery message B includes the identifier of the source terminal, the identifier of the target terminal, and an identifier (which may be represented as Relay UE info) of the relay terminal. [0706] Correspondingly, the target terminal may receive the discovery message B. [0707] S1303: The target terminal sends a discovery response message B to the relay terminal. [0708] S1304: The relay terminal sends a discovery response message A to the source terminal. [0709] The discovery response message B is sent to a relay terminal by the target terminal after the target terminal receives the discovery message B of the relay terminal. [0710] For example, the plurality of relay terminals send respective discovery messages B based on the discovery message A. Correspondingly, the target terminal may receive the discovery messages B from the plurality of relay terminals. The target terminal may select a relay terminal from the plurality of relay terminals. For example, the target terminal may select a relay terminal from the plurality of relay terminals based on signal strength between the target terminal and the relay terminals. The target terminal returns the discovery response message B to the selected relay terminal. The relay terminal (the relay terminal selected by the target terminal) that receives the discovery response message B sends the discovery response message A to the source terminal.”
In conclusion, a plurality of paragraphs explicitly meet the newly added claim limitations and therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights