DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 21 and 23-30 are presented for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 21 and 23-30 are amended.
Claim(s) 2, 12-20, 22 and 31-40 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) EP22382299.0 submitted on March 29th, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on August 30th, 2024 and October 17th, 2024 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification of the disclosure filed August 30th, 2024 is considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 21 and 23-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a wireless device, WD …” in line 2. Since the limitation(s) is/are introduced for a first time, it is suggested to put the acronym(s) in parenthesis “()” (i.e., a wireless device (WD), packet data unit, (PDU), policy control function (PCF), etc.).
Claim 1 further recites a machine claim, “A network node…”, and the list of devices (i.e., a processing circuitry) in the preamble. The body of the claim recites the action steps: “determine … transmit ... etc.” performed by the network node.
For clarity and placing the claim into a proper machine claim, it is suggested to replace “A network node …” with “A network node comprising:” so that the aforementioned list of devices, comprised by the network node, which are performing these actions/steps (see MPEP 2106.03, section I1 ; MPEP 2173.05(p), section II2).
Claims 11 and 21 recites a similar limitation.
Claim(s) 3-10 and 23-30 are also objected for reciting a similar limitation or for being dependent on an objected base claim as set forth above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 5 and 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the activated indirect communication …” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the limitation is referring to 1) “one or more other WDs … not been activated …” in claim 4, lines 5-6; or 2) “a second … indication that triggers the first WD to activate relay communication …” in claim 4, lines 7-8.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites a similar limitation.
For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 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 claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 21, 23 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (US 2023/0319682 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0225448 A1) hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11,
Wang discloses a core network node configured to communicate with a first wireless device, WD [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶218 lines 1-11, a downlink routing process within a communication system “100” in which a network device determines that a next-hop node of a fifth data packet is second relay UE (i.e., UE “2”)], the first WD being configurable to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and a network node at least via at least one other WD [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶219 lines 1-3, the first UE (i.e., UE “1”) sends a first data packet to the network device through the second relay UE (UE “2”)], the at least one other WD being configured to perform relay communication [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶218 lines 1-11, the network device sends the fifth data packet to first UE (i.e., UE “1”) through the second relay UE (UE “2”)], the core network node comprising processing circuitry configured to [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶218 lines 1-11; pg. 20, ¶257 lines 1-4, the network device including a processing unit “1202” implemented to]:
determine that a first coverage area meets a predefined criterion [see fig. 10: Step(s) “1002”/ “1003”, pg. 18, ¶226 lines 1-3, the network device determines, based on fifth information associated with the fifth data packet, that a next-hop node of the fifth data packet is UE “2”].
Although Wang discloses determining that a first coverage area meets a predefined criterion, Wang does not explicitly teach “cause transmission to the first WD of a first indication, the first indication being based on the first coverage area meeting the predefined criterion, for restricting any other WD associated with the first coverage area from being used by the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node”; and “determine that a second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion, the first indication being transmitted further based on the determination that the second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion, the first indication further enabling the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node via any other WD associated with the second coverage area”.
However Li discloses determining that a first coverage area meets a predefined criterion [see fig. 17: Step “1702”, pg. 20, ¶319 lines 1-7, AMF “172” and other NFs (e.g., PCF, UDM/UDR, NWDAF) decide possible ways to select a new relay UE “701b” based on multi-hop relay policy, subscription information of remaining UEs];
transmitting to the first WD a first indication [see fig. 17: Step “1703”, pg. 20, ¶320 lines 1-8, AMF “172” sends notification message to the remaining UEs via old relay UE “701a” with relay chain ID and optional application service information], the first indication being based on the first coverage area meeting the predefined criterion for restricting any other WD associated with the first coverage area from being used by the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node [see fig. 17: Step “1703”, pg. 20, ¶320 lines 1-8, if the old relay UE indicates the remaining time that it can serve as relay UE in step S1701, AMF “172” also includes this time value. Moreover, AMF “172” indicate that a new relay UE “701b” is expected. AMF “172” also includes a list of UE IDs among the remaining UEs that could act as the relay UE “701”]; and
determining that a second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, in case that network does not receive any new relay UE request from the remaining UEs, and after a pre-configured time period, network decides that a new relay UE should be selected from outside UEs. Therefore, network functions (e.g., AMF, PCF, UDM/UDR and NWDAF) coordinate with each other to come up a list of UEs that could be new relay UE “701b” candidate], the first indication being transmitted further based on the determination that the second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, then AMF “172” sends the message to the newly selected relay UE], the first indication further enabling the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node via any other WD associated with the second coverage area [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, AMF “172” includes the following information in the message: remaining UE IDs, target relay chain ID (in case that the new relay UE acts as the relay UE of another relay chain), target relay UE (i.e., new relay UE) ID, old relay chain ID, and old relay policy ID].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “cause transmission to the first WD of a first indication, the first indication being based on the first coverage area meeting the predefined criterion, for restricting any other WD associated with the first coverage area from being used by the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node”; and “determine that a second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion, the first indication being transmitted further based on the determination that the second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion, the first indication further enabling the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node via any other WD associated with the second coverage area” as taught by Li in the system of Wang to improve the energy efficiency and the coverage of the 5G system [see Li, pg. 1, ¶4 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 3,
Wang discloses the core network node of Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach “the first indication triggers the first WD to switch from a WD currently being used as a relay WD by the first WD in the first coverage area to another WD in the second coverage area to be used by the first WD as the relay WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node”.
However Li discloses the first indication triggers the first WD to switch from a WD currently being used as a relay WD by the first WD in the first coverage area to another WD in the second coverage area to be used by the first WD as the relay WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node [see pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-17, the new relay UE “701b” helps the remaining UE to switch from the old relay chain to a new relay chain. Effectively, the old relay chain is merged into the relay chain that the new relay UE serves].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the first indication triggers the first WD to switch from a WD currently being used as a relay WD by the first WD in the first coverage area to another WD in the second coverage area to be used by the first WD as the relay WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6,
Wang discloses the core network node of Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach “meeting the predefined criterion comprises reaching or exceeding a network congestion threshold”.
However Li discloses meeting the predefined criterion comprises reaching or exceeding a network congestion threshold [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, in case that network does not receive any new relay UE request from the remaining UEs, and after a pre-configured time period, network decides that a new relay UE should be selected from outside UEs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “meeting the predefined criterion comprises reaching or exceeding a network congestion threshold” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combined system of Wang and Li discloses the core network node of Claim 1.
Wang further discloses wherein the first indication further indicates at least the first coverage area as a restricted location for WDs to perform relay communication [see pg. 8, ¶107 lines 1-4, in a UE-to-network relay scenario, remote UE is at an edge of network coverage or is not within network coverage, and the remote UE communicates with a network device through relay UE].
Regarding Claim 8,
Wang discloses the core network node of Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach “the core network node is a policy control function, PCF, node, the network node is an access network node, the first WD is a remote WD, and the first WD and the at least one other WD are configured to communicate using Proximity-based Services, ProSe”.
However Li discloses the core network node is a policy control function, PCF, node, the network node is an access network node [see pg. 11, ¶130 lines 1-5, the architecture includes several types of control signaling that is transferred on top of NAS-MM protocol, such as UE policy between PCF and UE], the first WD is a remote WD [see pg. 11, ¶132 lines 1-6, a UE is considered to be a Remote UE], and the first WD and the at least one other WD are configured to communicate using Proximity-based Services, ProSe [see pg. 11, ¶132 lines 1-6, for a certain ProSe UE-to-Network relay if it has successfully established a PC5 link (e.g., LTE V2X, a one to many interface, etc.) to this ProSe UE-to-Network Relay].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the core network node is a policy control function, PCF, node, the network node is an access network node, the first WD is a remote WD, and the first WD and the at least one other WD are configured to communicate using Proximity-based Services, ProSe” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9,
Wang discloses the core network node of Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to: “cause transmission of a third indication different from the first indication to at least one other WD in the first coverage area to trigger the at least one other WD to stop performing relay communication”.
However Li discloses cause transmission of a third indication different from the first indication to at least one other WD in the first coverage area to trigger the at least one other WD to stop performing relay communication [see pg. 23, ¶372 lines 1-7, transmitting a registration request message to the wireless communication network, the registration request message requesting that the network enable the multi-hop relay service].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “cause transmission of a third indication different from the first indication to at least one other WD in the first coverage area to trigger the at least one other WD to stop performing relay communication” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10,
Wang discloses the core network node of Claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to: “receive network congestion analytics from a network data analytics function, NWDAF, node, the determination that the first coverage area meets the predefined criterion being based at least on the received network congestion analytics”.
However Li discloses receive network congestion analytics from a network data analytics function, NWDAF, node [see pgs. 17-18, ¶273 lines 1-6, the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) in the core network provides some analytics information], the determination that the first coverage area meets the predefined criterion being based at least on the received network congestion analytics [see pgs. 17-18, ¶273 lines 1-6, such as load information in the relay chain and project the future traffic and mobility patterns for the UEs in the relay chain].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “receive network congestion analytics from a network data analytics function, NWDAF, node, the determination that the first coverage area meets the predefined criterion being based at least on the received network congestion analytics” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21,
Wang discloses a first wireless device, WD [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶218 lines 1-11, a downlink routing process within a communication system “100” in which a network device determines that a next-hop node of a fifth data packet is second relay UE (i.e., UE “2”) for a first UE (i.e., UE “1”) to receive a fifth data packet], configurable to indirectly communicate with one or both of a core network node and a network node at least via at least one other WD [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶219 lines 1-3, the first UE (i.e., UE “1”) sends a first data packet to the network device through the second relay UE (UE “2”)], the at least one other WD being configured to perform relay communication [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶218 lines 1-11, the network device sends the fifth data packet to first UE (i.e., UE “1”) through the second relay UE (UE “2”)], the first WD comprising processing circuitry configured to [see fig(s). 1 and 10, pg. 18, ¶218 lines 1-11; pg. 20, ¶257 lines 1-4, the first UE (i.e., UE “1”) including a processing unit “1202” implemented to]:
receive a first indication [see fig. 10: Step “1006”, pg. 20, ¶248 lines 1-4, UE “1” receives the fifth data packet and the identifier of the network device].
Although Wang discloses receiving a first indication, Wang does not explicitly teach “the first indication being based on a first coverage area meeting a predefined criterion for restricting any other WD associated with the first coverage area from being used by the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node”; and “select another WD that is not in the first coverage area to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node based on the first indication, wherein the first indication is further based on a determination that a second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion, the first indication further enabling the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node via any other WD associated with the second coverage area”.
However Li discloses receive a first indication [see fig. 17: Step “1703”, pg. 20, ¶320 lines 1-8, AMF “172” sends notification message to the remaining UEs via old relay UE “701a” with relay chain ID and optional application service information], the first indication being based on a first coverage area meeting a predefined criterion for restricting any other WD associated with the first coverage area from being used by the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node [see fig. 17: Step “1703”, pg. 20, ¶320 lines 1-8, if the old relay UE indicates the remaining time that it can serve as relay UE in step S1701, AMF “172” also includes this time value. Moreover, AMF “172” indicate that a new relay UE “701b” is expected. AMF “172” also includes a list of UE IDs among the remaining UEs that could act as the relay UE “701”]; and
select another WD that is not in the first coverage area to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node based on the first indication [see fig. 17: Step “1708”, pg. 20, ¶325 lines 1-6, the new relay UE “701b” initiates PC5 link establishment procedure with those remaining UEs. If the new relay UE “701b” already acts as a relay UE “701” for another relay chain identified by the target relay chain ID, then the old relay chain is merged with the target relay chain effectively “S1709”], wherein the first indication is further based on a determination that a second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, in case that network does not receive any new relay UE request from the remaining UEs, and after a pre-configured time period, network decides that a new relay UE should be selected from outside UEs. Therefore, network functions (e.g., AMF, PCF, UDM/UDR and NWDAF) coordinate with each other to come up a list of UEs that could be new relay UE “701b” candidate], the first indication further enabling the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node via any other WD associated with the second coverage area [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, AMF “172” includes the following information in the message: remaining UE IDs, target relay chain ID (in case that the new relay UE acts as the relay UE of another relay chain), target relay UE (i.e., new relay UE) ID, old relay chain ID, and old relay policy ID].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the first indication being based on a first coverage area meeting a predefined criterion for restricting any other WD associated with the first coverage area from being used by the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node”; and “select another WD that is not in the first coverage area to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node based on the first indication, wherein the first indication is further based on a determination that a second coverage area does not meet the predefined criterion, the first indication further enabling the first WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node via any other WD associated with the second coverage area” as taught by Li in the system of Wang to improve the energy efficiency and the coverage of the 5G system [see Li, pg. 1, ¶4 lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 23,
Wang discloses the first WD of Claim 21.
Wang does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to: “switch, based on the first indication, from a WD currently being used as a relay WD by the first WD in the first coverage area to another WD in the second coverage area to be used by the first WD as the relay WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node”.
However Li discloses switch [see pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-17, the new relay UE “701b” helps the remaining UE to switch], based on the first indication [see pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-17, from the old relay chain to a new relay chain], from a WD currently being used as a relay WD by the first WD in the first coverage area to another WD in the second coverage area to be used by the first WD as the relay WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node [see pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-17, effectively, the old relay chain is merged into the relay chain that the new relay UE serves].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “switch, based on the first indication, from a WD currently being used as a relay WD by the first WD in the first coverage area to another WD in the second coverage area to be used by the first WD as the relay WD to indirectly communicate with one or both of the core network node and the network node” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding Claim 26,
Wang discloses the first WD of Claim 21.
Wang does not explicitly teach “meeting the predefined criterion comprises reaching or exceeding a network congestion threshold”.
However Li discloses meeting the predefined criterion comprises reaching or exceeding a network congestion threshold [see fig. 17: Step “1707”, pg. 20, ¶324 lines 1-8, in case that network does not receive any new relay UE request from the remaining UEs, and after a pre-configured time period, network decides that a new relay UE should be selected from outside UEs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “meeting the predefined criterion comprises reaching or exceeding a network congestion threshold” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding Claim 27,
The combined system of Wang and Li discloses the first WD of Claim 21.
Wang further discloses wherein the first indication further indicates at least the first coverage area as a restricted location for WDs to perform relay communication [see pg. 8, ¶107 lines 1-4, in a UE-to-network relay scenario, remote UE is at an edge of network coverage or is not within network coverage, and the remote UE communicates with a network device through relay UE].
Regarding Claim 28,
Wang discloses the first WD of Claim 21.
Wang does not explicitly teach “the core network node is a policy control function, PCF, node, the network node is an access network node, the first WD is a remote WD, and the first WD and the at least one other WD are configured to communicate using Proximity-based Services, ProSe”.
However Li discloses the core network node is a policy control function, PCF, node, the network node is an access network node [see pg. 11, ¶130 lines 1-5, the architecture includes several types of control signaling that is transferred on top of NAS-MM protocol, such as UE policy between PCF and UE], the first WD is a remote WD [see pg. 11, ¶132 lines 1-6, a UE is considered to be a Remote UE], and the first WD and the at least one other WD are configured to communicate using Proximity-based Services, ProSe [see pg. 11, ¶132 lines 1-6, for a certain ProSe UE-to-Network relay if it has successfully established a PC5 link (e.g., LTE V2X, a one to many interface, etc.) to this ProSe UE-to-Network Relay].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the core network node is a policy control function, PCF, node, the network node is an access network node, the first WD is a remote WD, and the first WD and the at least one other WD are configured to communicate using Proximity-based Services, ProSe” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding Claim 29,
Wang discloses the first WD of Claim 21.
Wang does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to: “receive a third indication different from the first indication to at least one other WD in the first coverage area to trigger the at least one other WD to stop performing relay communication”.
However Li discloses receive a third indication different from the first indication to at least one other WD in the first coverage area to trigger the at least one other WD to stop performing relay communication [see pg. 23, ¶372 lines 1-7, transmitting a registration request message to the wireless communication network, the registration request message requesting that the network enable the multi-hop relay service].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “receive a third indication different from the first indication to at least one other WD in the first coverage area to trigger the at least one other WD to stop performing relay communication” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding Claim 30,
Wang discloses the first WD of Claim 21.
Wang does not explicitly teach “the first coverage area meeting the predefined criterion is based on network congestion analytics determined by a network data analytics function, NWDAF, node”.
However Li discloses the first coverage area meeting the predefined criterion is based on network congestion analytics determined by a network data analytics function, NWDAF, node [see pgs. 17-18, ¶273 lines 1-6, the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) in the core network provides some analytics information such as load information in the relay chain and project the future traffic and mobility patterns for the UEs in the relay chain].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the first coverage area meeting the predefined criterion is based on network congestion analytics determined by a network data analytics function, NWDAF, node” as taught by Li in the system of Wang for the same motivation as set forth in claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 24 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication:
BERGGREN et al. (US 2021/0136655 A1); see fig. 4, pg. 5, ¶76-¶80.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
1 A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)).
2 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Prosecution Insights