DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication unit” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular, examiner is interpreting “communication unit” in light of Specification [0219] which teaches that a communication unit may be a transceiver and/or antenna.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 13-18 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 3 recites the limitation "the Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure" in line 2. The parent Claim 2 teaches “a Feature Combination” as an optional step and it is valid under BRI to interpret the invention such that there is no Feature Combination indicated in RA information. If this valid interpretation is relied upon, there is insufficient antecedent basis for Feature Combination in child Claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the alternative, it could be said that Claim 3 is indefinite because it requires an optional step. Claims 4-6 and 13-15 each require the same optional step and lack antecedent basis / are rendered indefinite for at least the same reason(s). Appropriate correction is required, for example amending to affirmatively require RA information to comprise “a Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure” rather than it being an optional step.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “each network slice group identity” which is an optional step of parent Claim 12. If examiner relies on the valid interpretation of RA information not comprising network slice group identity, Claim 16 is rendered indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required, for example amending to affirmatively require RA information to comprise “a network slice group identity” rather than it being an optional step.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “”the at least one backoff value” and “each ramping step” which are each optional steps of parent Claim 12. If examiner relies on the valid interpretation of RA information not comprising a backoff value nor a ramping step, Claim 16 is rendered indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required, for example amending to affirmatively require RA information to comprise “at least one backoff value” and “at least one ramping step” rather than being optional steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 11-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alfarhan (US 2024/0381429 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Alfarhan teaches the below limitation(s):
A wireless communication method for use in a wireless terminal (Alfarhan [0051] WTRU is a wireless terminal), the method comprising:
reporting, to a wireless network node, random access, RA, information of at least one RA procedure, wherein the RA information comprises information associated with utilizing RA channel, RACH, resources associated with one or more features that are applicable for the RA procedure ([0004] WTRU may receive configuration information (i.e. RA information) that indicates random access channel occasions (ROs), wherein ROs are interpreted as the claimed RA information associated with utilizing RACH).
Regarding Claim 2, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the RA information of each RA procedure comprises at least one of:
a feature type, indicating one or more features of a Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure (Alfarhan Fig 3A wherein RO2 may comprise feature combos 1-4; Fig 3, 4A, 4B preambles SSB1-SSB3 indicate feature combination),
a first preamble associated with the Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure (Fig 3 SSB1 which represents RA preamble(s) to indicate feature combination),
a number of consecutive preambles associated with the Feature Combination per Synchronization Signal/Physical broadcast channel block, SSB (Fig 3 SSB1, SSB2 and SSB3 which each present a number of consecutive preambles to indicate feature combination per SSB),
a number of consecutive preambles per SSB which are associated with a preamble group for the Feature Combination ([0119] WTRU may be configured via RRC with a number of preambles per feature combination in the reserved area of preambles in a RO),
feature priorities, indicating priorities for the one or more features of the Feature Combination ([0112] WTRU may receive priority indication(s) from the NW that the RedCap capability (i.e. feature) has higher priorities than other capabilities (i.e. features)),
an indication on whether a message 3, Msg3, repetition is enabled per RA procedure, per beam or per RA attempt ([0134] WTRU may indicate the use case of a feature in the payload of Msg3/A; [0151] teaches that RA may be used for CovEnh (e.g. Msg3 or Msg1 repetition); see also [0082]),
a number of Msg3 repetitions per RA attempt or per beam,
a modulation and coding scheme for the Msg3 repetition ([0090] scheduling information may include a modulation and coding scheme),
a number of repetitions for a physical uplink shared channel transmission scheduled by an RA radio network temporary identifier uplink grant and downlink control information format 0_0,
network slice related information associated with the RA procedure ([0082] PRACH partitioning may be used on one or more of the following features: … slicing (e.g. to indicate high priority slice(s) to the NW and/or to achieve a slice isolation for RACH)),
at least one network slice group identity associated with the RA procedure, at least one backoff value associated with the RA procedure,
at least one scaling factor associated with the at least one backoff value,
an indication on whether backoff index is received for the RA procedure ([0086] MsgB may include downlink response to MsgA (i.e. Msg3), which may be a success RAR, a fallback RAR, or a backoff indication),
at least one power ramping step used in the RA procedure,
at least one purpose associated with the at least one power ramping step,
an access identity associated with the RA procedure, or
an indication on whether the RA procedure is successful or not ([0145] state of the RA procedure (e.g. if the WTRU has received RAR) may be indicated on the Msg3 PUSCH resource).
Regarding Claim 3, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the one or more features of the Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure comprises at least one of:
a reduced capability, a Msg3 repetition, a small data transmission, or a network slicing (Alfarhan [0082] PRACH partitioning may be used on one or more of the following features: RedCap (i.e. to indicate reduced capability device type to the NW), CovEnh (e.g. to indicate the need for coverage enhancement for Msg3 repetition), slicing (e.g. to indicate high priority slice(s) to the NW and/or to achieve a slice isolation for RACH)).
Regarding Claim 5, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the number of consecutive preambles associated with the Feature Combination per SSB is indicated by an integer with a value range from 1 to 64 (Alfarhan [0100] teaches that an RO has up to 64 available preambles).
Regarding Claim 9, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
receiving, from the wireless network node, an RA configuration determined based on the RA information (Alfarhan [0004] WTRU may receive configuration information (i.e. RA information) that indicates random access channel occasions (ROs)).
Regarding Claim 11, Alfarhan teaches the below limitation(s):
A wireless communication method for use in a wireless network node (Alfarhan Fig 1A and [0021] base station(s) 114A and 114B), the method comprising:
receiving, from a wireless terminal, random access, RA, information of at least one RA procedure (Fig 3 SSB1 which represents RA preamble(s) to indicate feature combination, i.e. "RA information", which are transmitted from WTRU (i.e. a wireless terminal per [0051])), and
determining a RA configuration associated with the RA procedure of the wireless terminal; and wherein the RA information comprises information associated with utilizing RA channel, RACH, resources associated with one or more features that are applicable for the RA procedure ([0004] WTRU may receive configuration information (i.e. RA information) that indicates random access channel occasions (ROs), wherein ROs are interpreted as the claimed RA information associated with utilizing RACH).
Regarding Claim 12, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the RA information of each RA procedure comprises at least one of:
a feature type, indicating one or more features of a Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure (Alfarhan Fig 3A wherein RO2 may comprise feature combos 1-4; Fig 3, 4A, 4B preambles SSB1-SSB3 indicate feature combination),
a first preamble associated with the Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure (Fig 3 SSB1 which represents RA preamble(s) to indicate feature combination),
a number of consecutive preambles associated with the Feature Combination per Synchronization Signal/Physical broadcast channel block, SSB (Fig 3 SSB1, SSB2 and SSB3 which each present a number of consecutive preambles to indicate feature combination per SSB),
a number of consecutive preambles per SSB which are associated with a preamble group for the Feature Combination ([0119] WTRU may be configured via RRC with a number of preambles per feature combination in the reserved area of preambles in a RO),
feature priorities, indicating priorities for the one or more features of the Feature Combination ([0112] WTRU may receive priority indication(s) from the NW that the RedCap capability (i.e. feature) has higher priorities than other capabilities (i.e. features)),
an indication on whether a message 3, Msg3, repetition is enabled per RA procedure, per beam or per RA attempt ([0134] WTRU may indicate the use case of a feature in the payload of Msg3/A; [0151] teaches that RA may be used for CovEnh (e.g. Msg3 or Msg1 repetition); see also [0082]),
a number of Msg3 repetitions per RA attempt or per beam,
a modulation and coding scheme for the Msg3 repetition ([0090] scheduling information may include a modulation and coding scheme),
a number of repetitions for a physical uplink shared channel transmission scheduled by an RA radio network temporary identifier uplink grant and downlink control information format 0_0,
network slice related information associated with the RA procedure ([0082] PRACH partitioning may be used on one or more of the following features: … slicing (e.g. to indicate high priority slice(s) to the NW and/or to achieve a slice isolation for RACH)),
at least one network slice group identity associated with the RA procedure, at least one backoff value associated with the RA procedure,
at least one scaling factor associated with the at least one backoff value,
an indication on whether backoff index is received for the RA procedure ([0086] MsgB may include downlink response to MsgA (i.e. Msg3), which may be a success RAR, a fallback RAR, or a backoff indication),
at least one power ramping step used in the RA procedure,
at least one purpose associated with the at least one power ramping step,
an access identity associated with the RA procedure, or
an indication on whether the RA procedure is successful or not ([0145] state of the RA procedure (e.g. if the WTRU has received RAR) may be indicated on the Msg3 PUSCH resource).
Regarding Claim 13, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the one or more features of the Feature Combination associated with the RA procedure comprises at least one of:
a reduced capability, a Msg3 repetition, a small data transmission, or a network slicing (Alfarhan [0082] PRACH partitioning may be used on one or more of the following features: RedCap (i.e. to indicate reduced capability device type to the NW), CovEnh (e.g. to indicate the need for coverage enhancement for Msg3 repetition), slicing (e.g. to indicate high priority slice(s) to the NW and/or to achieve a slice isolation for RACH)).
Regarding Claim 15, Alfarhan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim #.
Alfarhan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the number of consecutive preambles associated with the Feature Combination per SSB is indicated by an integer with a value range from 1 to 64 (Alfarhan [0100] teaches that an RO has up to 64 available preambles).
Regarding Claim 20, Alfarhan teaches the below limitation(s):
An apparatus, comprising:
a communication unit and at least one processor (Alfarhan [0051] WTRU is a wireless terminal; Fig 1 terminal 102 comprising processor 118 and transceiver 120 (i.e. "communication unit")); wherein the communication unit is configured to report, to a wireless network node, random access, RA, information of at least one RA procedure; and wherein the RA information comprises information associated with utilizing RA channel, RACH, resources associated with one or more features that are applicable for the RA procedure ([0004] WTRU may receive configuration information (i.e. RA information) that indicates random access channel occasions (ROs), wherein ROs are interpreted as the claimed RA information associated with utilizing RACH).
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.
The factual inquiries 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) 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarhan (US 2024/0381429 A1) in view of Liu (US 2021/0368544 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Alfarhan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Alfarhan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the RA information comprises information associated with the RA procedure in a shared spectrum.
In the same field of endeavor of random access in NR-U, Liu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the RA information comprises information associated with the RA procedure in a shared spectrum (Liu [0008] in NR-U (i.e. "shared spectrum"), random access channel (RACH) procedures may involve four-step random access (RA) and two-step RA ... the UE selects a preamble (i.e. "RA information") which is transmitted to gNB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned wireless communication method to include performing a random access procedure in a shared spectrum (i.e. unlicensed spectrum i.e. NR-U) as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable a UE to perform random access in NR-U to reduce congestion on licensed portions of the spectrum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alfarhan and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Alfarhan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Alfarhan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the RA information comprises at least one of:
a configuration for detecting consistent uplink listen-before-talk, LBT, failures in a shared spectrum channel access,
…
In the same field of endeavor of random access in NR-U, Liu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the RA information comprises at least one of:
a configuration for detecting consistent uplink listen-before-talk, LBT, failures in a shared spectrum channel access (Liu Abstract and [0047] invention is directed to reducing the negative impact due to LBT failure in unlicensed spectrum for NR-U random access; see [0081] for an exemplary configuration of LBT failure detection and reduction),
… (alternative limitations not considered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned wireless communication method to include performing a random access procedure in a shared spectrum (i.e. unlicensed spectrum i.e. NR-U) and further to detect LBT failure due to the requirement of LBT on unlicensed spectrum as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable a UE to perform random access in NR-U to reduce congestion on licensed portions of the spectrum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alfarhan and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Alfarhan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Alfarhan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the RA information comprises at least one of:
a configuration for detecting consistent uplink listen-before-talk, LBT, failures in a shared spectrum channel access,
…
In the same field of endeavor of random access in NR-U, Liu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the RA information comprises at least one of:
a configuration for detecting consistent uplink listen-before-talk, LBT, failures in a shared spectrum channel access (Liu Abstract and [0047] invention is directed to reducing the negative impact due to LBT failure in unlicensed spectrum for NR-U random access; see [0081] for an exemplary configuration of LBT failure detection and reduction; [0008] in NR-U (i.e. "shared spectrum"), random access channel (RACH) procedures may involve four-step random access (RA) and two-step RA ... the UE selects a preamble (i.e. "RA information") which is transmitted to gNB),
… (alternative limitations not considered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned wireless communication method to include performing a random access procedure in a shared spectrum (i.e. unlicensed spectrum i.e. NR-U) and further to detect LBT failure due to the requirement of LBT on unlicensed spectrum as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable a UE to perform random access in NR-U to reduce congestion on licensed portions of the spectrum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alfarhan and Liu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarhan in view of Chen (US 2020/0100294 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Alfarhan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Alfarhan further discloses the below limitation(s): transmitting, to the wireless network node, the capability indication associated with reporting the RA information relevant to RA procedure utilizing RA resources associated with a Feature Combination of the RA procedure (Alfarhan [0095] and [0112] each teach a WTRU transmitting capability indication associated with feature combination(s), for example RedCap capability or slice capability).
Alfarhan does not disclose the below limitation(s): receiving, from the wireless network node, a request for a capability indication;
In the same field of endeavor of random access in NR-U, Chen does disclose the below limitation(s): receiving, from the wireless network node, a request for a capability indication (Chen [0055] UE capable of operating on an unlicensed spectrum may indicate such a capability to the network upon receiving a request from the network);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned wireless communication method to include the network requesting UE capability as part of an unlicensed spectrum RA procedure as taught by Chen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine that the UE is capable of operating on NR-U prior to performing an NR-U RA procedure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alfarhan and Chen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Alfarhan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Alfarhan further discloses the below limitation(s): transmitting, to the wireless network node, the capability indication associated with reporting the RA information relevant to RA procedure utilizing RA resources associated with a Feature Combination of the RA procedure (Alfarhan [0095] and [0112] each teach a WTRU transmitting capability indication associated with feature combination(s), for example RedCap capability or slice capability).
Alfarhan does not disclose the below limitation(s): receiving, from the wireless network node, a request for a capability indication;
In the same field of endeavor of random access in NR-U, Chen does disclose the below limitation(s): receiving, from the wireless network node, a request for a capability indication (Chen [0055] UE capable of operating on an unlicensed spectrum may indicate such a capability to the network upon receiving a request from the network);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned wireless communication method to include the network requesting UE capability as part of an unlicensed spectrum RA procedure as taught by Chen. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to determine that the UE is capable of operating on NR-U prior to performing an NR-U RA procedure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Alfarhan and Chen to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights