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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments/remarks (see 1st – last ¶s of page 3) stating that cited Stjernholm fails to disclose “receiving in a single message …feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality policies” because Stjernholm does not describe “receiving in a single message..”, the examiner respectfully disagree. Stjernholm in ¶ 0081 describes that “The near-RT RIC uses the A1 policy to steer the RAN based on the RAN UE ID and can provide policy feedback [i.e. feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies] related to the enforcement status of a created policy based on the Policy Id”. Examiner would like to note the examiner interpret the claim feature “in a single message” as “in a single communication” because “message” can be reasonably interpreted as its dictionary term “communication”, and Stjernholm describes providing policy feedback [i.e. feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies] in a single communication session [i.e. a single message]. Therefore, Stjernholm discloses: receiving, in a single message, from a second RIC located between the first RIC and one or more RAN nodes, feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies (the method/system may receive, in a feedback [i.e. a single message], from near-RT RIC [i.e. a second RIC] located between non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC] and E2 nodes [i.e. one or more RAN nodes], policy feedback [i.e. feedback] related to the enforcement status of policies created by non-RT RIC) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0081).
In response to applicant’s arguments/remarks, see 1st ¶ of page 4, stating that Stjernholm only ever discusses feedback related to a singular policy, the examiner respectfully disagree. Stjernholm in ¶ 0081 describes “Policies [i.e. one or more policy statements] may include the following examples. In one example, based on RAN intents, e.g. goals related to connectivity service performance in a certain area, time period and set of UE's, observability and enrichment information, the non-RT RIC can formulate A1 policies to optimize the experience and realization of the delivery thereof”… can provide policy feedback related to the enforcement status of a created policy based on the Policy Id [i.e. each policy is associated with a corresponding policy ID]. Therefore, Stjernholm discloses: receiving, in a single message, from a second RIC located between the first RIC and one or more RAN nodes, feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies (the method/system may receive, in a feedback [i.e. a single message], from near-RT RIC [i.e. a second RIC] located between non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC] and E2 nodes [i.e. one or more RAN nodes], policy feedback [i.e. feedback] related to the enforcement status of policies created by non-RT RIC) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0081)
each including one or more policy statements (i.e. policies may include goals related to connectivity service performance in a certain area, time period and set of UE's, observability and enrichment information [i.e. one or more policy statements]) (¶ 0081)
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 19, 35, 86, 92, 93, 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stjernholm et al. (US PG PUB 20230337170), hereinafter "Stjernholm".
Regarding Claim 17, Stjernholm discloses:
A method performed by a first Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC) (i.e. method performed by non-RT RIC [i.e. a first Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC)]) (Fig. 1, ¶ 0008 and ¶ 0081),
the method comprising:
receiving, in a single message, from a second RIC located between the first RIC and one or more RAN nodes, feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies (the method/system may receive, in a feedback [i.e. a single message], from near-RT RIC [i.e. a second RIC] located between non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC] and E2 nodes [i.e. one or more RAN nodes], policy feedback [i.e. feedback] related to the enforcement status of policies created by non-RT RIC) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0081)
each including one or more policy statements (i.e. policies may include goals related to connectivity service performance in a certain area, time period and set of UE's, observability and enrichment information [i.e. one or more policy statements]) (¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 19, Stjernholm discloses:
A second Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC) to be deployed between a first RIC and one or more RAN nodes (i.e. near-RT RIC [i.e. A second Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC)] deployed between non-RT RIC [i.e. a first RIC] and E2 nodes [i.e. one or more RAN nodes]) (Fig. 1, ¶ 0008 and ¶ 0081),
the second RIC (i.e. the near-RT RIC) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0081) comprising:
at least one memory (i.e. memory) (Fig. 7 and ¶ 0117); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (i.e. processor coupled to memory) (Fig. 7 and ¶ 0116 – 0117)and
configured to:
send, in a single message to the first RIC, feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies (the near-RT RIC [i.e. the second RIC] may provide/send feedback [i.e. a single message] to the non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC], wherein the feedback includes policy feedback [i.e. feedback] related to an enforcement status of a plurality policies) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0081),
each including one or more policy statements (i.e. policies may include goals related to connectivity service performance in a certain area, time period and set of UE's, observability and enrichment information [i.e. one or more policy statements]) (¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 35, Stjernholm discloses:
A method performed by a second Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC) to be deployed between a first RIC and one or more RAN nodes (i.e. a method performed by near-RT RIC [i.e. A second Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC)] deployed between non-RT RIC [i.e. a first RIC] and E2 nodes [i.e. one or more RAN nodes]) (Fig. 1, ¶ 0008 and ¶ 0081),
the method comprising:
sending, in a single message to the first RIC, feedback regarding an enforcement status of a plurality of policies (the near-RT RIC [i.e. the second RIC] may provide/send feedback [i.e. a single message] to the non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC], wherein the feedback includes policy feedback [i.e. feedback] related to an enforcement status of a plurality policies) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0081),
each including one or more policy statements (i.e. policies may include goals related to connectivity service performance in a certain area, time period and set of UE's, observability and enrichment information [i.e. one or more policy statements]) (¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 86, Stjernholm discloses:
wherein the plurality of policies each have a same scope identifier (i.e. A1 policies [i.e. the plurality of policies] are created based on the RAN UE ID [i.e. a same scope identifier] related to the RAN Mgmt UE ID for the UE to be optimized) (¶ 0081),
wherein the scope identifier represents a target to which one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied (i.e. The near-RT RIC uses the A1 policy to steer the RAN based on the RAN UE ID [i.e. the scope identifier represents a target], wherein the RAN UE ID [i.e. a target] and can provide policy feedback related to the enforcement status of a created policy based on the Policy Id [i.e. one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied]) (¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 92, Stjernholm discloses:
wherein the plurality of policies each have a same scope identifier (i.e. A1 policies [i.e. the plurality of policies] are created based on the RAN UE ID [i.e. a same scope identifier] related to the RAN Mgmt UE ID for the UE to be optimized) (¶ 0081),
wherein the scope identifier represents a target to which one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied (i.e. The near-RT RIC uses the A1 policy to steer the RAN based on the RAN UE ID [i.e. the scope identifier represents a target], wherein the RAN UE ID [i.e. a target] and can provide policy feedback related to the enforcement status of a created policy based on the Policy Id [i.e. one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied]) (¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 93, Stjernholm discloses:
wherein a scope identifier in each of the plurality of policies includes at least one common identifier (i.e. A1 policies [i.e. the plurality of policies] are created based on the RAN UE ID [i.e. a same scope identifier] related to the RAN Mgmt UE ID [i.e. at least one common identifier] for the UE to be optimized) (¶ 0081),
wherein the scope identifier represents a target to which one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied (i.e. The near-RT RIC uses the A1 policy to steer the RAN based on the RAN UE ID [i.e. the scope identifier represents a target], wherein the RAN UE ID [i.e. a target] and can provide policy feedback related to the enforcement status of a created policy based on the Policy Id [i.e. one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied]) (¶ 0081).
Regarding Claim 96, Stjernholm discloses:
wherein the plurality of policies are policies that have been indicated by the first RIC to be associated with each other during policy creation (i.e. Policies [i.e. the plurality of policies] may include the following examples. In one example, based on RAN intents, e.g. goals related to connectivity service performance in a certain area, time period and set of UE's, observability and enrichment information, the non-RT RIC can formulate [i.e. policy creation] A1 policies [i.e. are policies that have been indicated by the first RIC to be associated with each other] to optimize the experience and realisation of the delivery thereof, for one or more UE internally identified by a RAN Mgmt UE ID) (¶ 0081).
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, 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(s) 85, 87, 88, 91, 97, 98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stjernholm as applied to claims 17 and 35 above, and further in view of Parikh (US PG PUB 20230336422) / US provisional application 63331296, hereinafter "Parikh".
Regarding Claims 85 and 91, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 17 and 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of policies is any plurality of policies that the first RIC has requested the second RIC to create or set up.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Parikh teaches:
wherein the plurality of policies is any plurality of policies that the first RIC has requested the second RIC to create or set up (i.e. non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC] may send put commands [i.e. requested] to the near-RT RIC [i.e. the second RIC] in order to create policies [i.e. the plurality of policies is any plurality of policies that the first RIC has requested]) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for wherein the plurality of policies is any plurality of policies that the first RIC has requested the second RIC to create or set up as taught by Parikh so that policies may be created using http commands (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Regarding Claims 87, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 17 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
creating or setting up the plurality of policies in a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction with the second RIC.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Parikh teaches:
creating or setting up the plurality of policies in a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction with the second RIC (i.e. non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC] may send put commands [i.e. a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction] to the near-RT RIC [i.e. the second RIC] in order to create policies [i.e. the plurality of policies]) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for creating or setting up the plurality of policies in a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction with the second RIC as taught by Parikh so that policies may be created using http commands (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Regarding Claims 88, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 17 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
indicating a same policy group identifier to the second RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions to create the plurality of policies.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Parikh teaches:
indicating a same policy group identifier to the second RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions to create the plurality of policies (i.e. non-RT RCI may include/indicate particular policy type [i.e. a same policy group identifier] comprised of multiple policy Ids in multi put commands [i.e. a plurality of HTTP transactions] sent to near-RT RIC [i.e. the second RIC] in order to create a plurality of policy objects [i.e. the plurality of policies]) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and ¶ 0027 - 0028 of PG PUB & ¶ 0014 – 0016 and ¶ 0020 - 0022 of provisional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for indicating a same policy group identifier to the second RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions to create the plurality of policies as taught by Parikh so that policies may be created based on policy types (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Regarding Claim 97, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a request to create or set up the plurality of policies in a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction with the first RIC.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Parikh teaches:
receiving a request to create or set up the plurality of policies in a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction with the first RIC (i.e. near-RT RIC may receive http put command [i.e. a request] to create the plurality of policies, wherein the http put command [i.e. a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction] is sent by non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC]) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for receiving a request to create or set up the plurality of policies in a single Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) transaction with the first RIC as taught by Parikh so that policies may be created based on http put command (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Regarding Claim 98, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a same policy group identifier from the first RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions to create the plurality of policies.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Parikh teaches:
receiving a same policy group identifier from the first RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions to create the plurality of policies (i.e. the http put commands [i.e. HTTP transactions] received from non-RT RIC [i.e. the first RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions] to create the plurality policies include policy type Id [i.e. a same policy group identifier]) (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for receiving a same policy group identifier from the first RIC in a plurality of HTTP transactions to create the plurality of policies as taught by Parikh so that policies may be created based on http put command (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0027 of PG PUB and ¶ 0014 – 0016 of provisional).
Claim(s) 89, 94, 95, 99 and 100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stjernholm as applied to claims 17 and 35 above, and further in view of Ying et al. (US PG PUB 20240214272), hereinafter "Ying".
Regarding Claims 89 and 100, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claims 17 and 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the single message is configured to provide details regarding a cause of non-enforcement of at least one policy in the plurality of policies, wherein the details regarding the cause of non-enforcement of the at least one policy indicate (a) a changed new value of at least one identifier included in a scope identifier associated with the at least one policy, (b) a reason why one or more policy statements of the at least one policy are inapplicable, or a combination thereof.
On the other hand, in the same filed of endeavor, Ying teaches:
wherein the single message is configured to provide details regarding a cause of non-enforcement of at least one policy in the plurality of policies (i.e. near-RT RIC may send A1 policy feedback [i.e. the single message] which indicates change of A1 policies [i.e. details regarding a cause of non-enforcement]; Note: by modifying policies, e.g. modifying policies with contradicting policy statements, previously subscribed policies will not be enforced [i.e. changes in policy is a cause of non-enforcement of at least one policy]) (5 – Fig. 13, ¶ 0052 – 0054 and ¶ 0186 - 0191),
wherein the details regarding the cause of non-enforcement of the at least one policy indicate (a) a changed new value of at least one identifier included in a scope identifier associated with the at least one policy, (b) a reason why one or more policy statements of the at least one policy are inapplicable, or a combination thereof (i.e. change of A1 policies [i.e. (a) a changed new value of at least one identifier included in a scope identifier associated with the at least one policy] that resolve contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifiers [i.e. a scope identifier associated with the at least one policy]) (¶ 0052 – 0054 and ¶ 0186 - 0191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for wherein the single message is configured to provide details regarding a cause of non-enforcement of at least one policy in the plurality of policies, wherein the details regarding the cause of non-enforcement of the at least one policy indicate (a) a changed new value of at least one identifier included in a scope identifier associated with the at least one policy, (b) a reason why one or more policy statements of the at least one policy are inapplicable, or a combination thereof as taught by Ying so that contradicting policy statements may be resolved by modifying one or more A1 policies (¶ 0052 – 0054 and ¶ 0186 - 0191).
Regarding Claim 94, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of policies each contain a same set of one or more policy statements.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ying teaches:
wherein the plurality of policies each contain a same set of one or more policy statements (i.e. the policy statement information may include common or overlapping [i.e. a same] policy scope identifiers [i.e. a same set of one or more policy statements]) (¶ 0182).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for wherein the plurality of policies each contain a same set of one or more policy statements as taught by Ying so that policy information may be identified based on policy scope identifiers (¶ 0182).
Regarding Claim 95, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a set of policy statements in each of the plurality of policies includes at least one common policy statement.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ying teaches:
wherein a set of policy statements in each of the plurality of policies includes at least one common policy statement (i.e. the policy statement information may include common policy scope identifiers [i.e. at least one common policy statement]) (¶ 0182).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for wherein a set of policy statements in each of the plurality of policies includes at least one common policy statement as taught by Ying so that policy information may be identified based on policy scope identifiers (¶ 0182).
Regarding Claim 99, Stjernholm discloses all the features with respect to Claim 35 as described above.
However, Stjernholm does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the single message includes a plurality of scope identifiers, each of which is included in a corresponding one of the plurality of policies, wherein the scope identifier represents a target to which one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ying teaches:
wherein the single message includes a plurality of scope identifiers (i.e. If A1 policies created by policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifiers, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying one or more A1 policies. A1 policy function notifies the change of A1 policies to their generation rApp. It tracks the enforcement status of all A1 policies created in the Non-RT RIC and provide policy feedback [i.e. the single message] including enforcement status changes for policy scope identifiers [i.e. the single message includes a plurality of scope identifiers]) (5 – Fig. 13 and ¶ 0186),
each of which is included in a corresponding one of the plurality of policies (i.e. policy statements of A1 policies [i.e. a corresponding one of the plurality of policies] are set based on policy scope identifiers) (5 – Fig. 13 and ¶ 0186),
wherein the scope identifier represents a target to which one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied (i.e. policy scope identifiers represents rApps [i.e. a target] to which policy statements information are applied) (Abstract and ¶ 0186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm to include the features for wherein the single message includes a plurality of scope identifiers, each of which is included in a corresponding one of the plurality of policies, wherein the scope identifier represents a target to which one or more policy statements of the corresponding policy are applied as taught by Ying so that policy information may be identified based on policy scope identifiers (¶ 0182).
Claim(s) 90 and 101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stjernholm in views of Ying as applied to claims 89 and 100 above, and further in view of Ying et al. (WO 2022155511), hereinafter "Ying2".
Regarding Claims 90 and 101, Stjernholm and Ying disclose all the features with respect to Claim 89 and 100 above.
In addition, Ying further teaches:
wherein the single message is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) POST request message (i.e. notification [i.e. the single message] may be via POST method [i.e. a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) POST request message]) (¶ 0205).
However, Stjernholm and Ying does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the HTTP POST request message includes an enforceStatus attribute indicating NOT_ENFORCED and an enforceReason attribute indicating SCOPENOTAPPLICABLE, STATEMENTNOTAPPLICABLE, or OTHERREASON, and further includes a new attribute indicating the details regarding the cause of non- enforcement of the at least one policy.
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ying2 teaches:
wherein the HTTP POST request message includes an enforceStatus attribute indicating NOT_ENFORCED (i.e. HTTP POST request may include PolicyStatusObject which contains “NOT ENFORCED” policyStatus attribute) (Table 9, ¶ 0101 and ¶ 0106) and
an enforceReason attribute indicating SCOPENOTAPPLICABLE, STATEMENTNOTAPPLICABLE, or OTHERREASON, (i.e. PolicyStatusObject may include” policyStatus attribute indicating “NOT ENFORCED”, “INVALID” [i.e. STATEMENTNOTAPPLICABLE], or “UNDEFINED”) (Table 9, ¶ 0101 and ¶ 0106) and
further includes a new attribute indicating the details regarding the cause of non- enforcement of the at least one policy (i.e. PolicyStatusObject may include” xxxInactiveReason attribute [i.e. a new attribute indicating the details regarding the cause of non- enforcement of the at least one policy]) (Table 9, ¶ 0101 and ¶ 0106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Stjernholm and Ying to include the features for wherein the HTTP POST request message includes an enforceStatus attribute indicating NOT_ENFORCED and an enforceReason attribute indicating SCOPENOTAPPLICABLE, STATEMENTNOTAPPLICABLE, or OTHERREASON, and further includes a new attribute indicating the details regarding the cause of non- enforcement of the at least one policy as taught by Ying2 so that enforcement status may be identified using data policy status object in the message (Table 9, ¶ 0101 and ¶ 0106).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOE MIN HLAING whose telephone number is (303)297-4282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/Soe Hlaing/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights