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 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 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)(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.
(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) 9, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang
With respect to Claim 9, Yang teaches one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry (¶ 0150, “The one or more processors 1010 are coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1045 via a bus 1080. In certain aspects, the computer-readable medium/memory 1045 is configured to store instructions (e.g., computer-executable code) that when executed by the one or more processors 1010,”) to:
process a configured grant (CG) configuration that configures a plurality of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasions (¶ 0023, “For example, in some aspects, when certain CSI skipping conditions are met, a UE may skip transmitting CSI on allocated PUCCH resources.”)
determine a first PUSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”) and
prioritize, based on said determination that the first PUSCH transmission occasion is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission, a scheduling request (SR) transmission in an SR transmission occasion that overlaps with the first PUSCH transmission occasion (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”)
With respect to Claim 10, Yang teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 9, Yang teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
generate, based on said determination that the first PUSCH transmission occasion is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”),
an unused transmission occasion (UTO) uplink control information (UCI) for transmission in a second PUSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions (¶ 0094, “the at least one condition may be based on a pattern defining when CSI report transmission is to be skipped, based on a percentage defining when CSI report transmission is to be skipped, or based on a threshold of change in CSI over a defined duration, or a duration.”)
With respect to Claim 18, Yang teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein to determine the first PUSCH transmission occasion is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission is performed by a media access control (MAC) layer; and the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to: provide, by the MAC layer to a physical (PHY) layer, an indication that the first PUSCH transmission occasion is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision. Otherwise, PUCCH SR is de-prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision,” and ¶ 0049, “In some aspects, the DU 230 may host one or more of a radio link control (RLC) layer, a medium access control (MAC) layer, and one or more high physical (PHY) layers.”).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. 2024/0306154)
With respect to Claim 19, Wang teaches an apparatus (¶ 0346, “The node 1300 may be a UE or a BS that performs various functions disclosed with reference to FIGS. 1 through 12.) comprising:
processor (¶ 0345, “As illustrated in FIG. 13, a node 1300 may include a transceiver 1320, a processor 1328, a memory 1334, one or more presentation components 1338, and at least one antenna 1336. “) circuitry to:
whether a user equipment (UE) is to determine whether a configured grant (CG) physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource is to be used prior to deprioritizing an SR transmission of an SR physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource (¶ 0301, “When UCI of a PUCCH is multiplexed in a PUSCH overlapping the PUCCH, a first uplink grant associated with the PUSCH may be considered as a prioritized uplink grant, other overlapping uplink grants may be considered as de-prioritized uplink grants, and overlapping SR transmissions may be considered as de-prioritized SR transmissions”); and
generate a scheduling request (SR) configuration with an indication (¶ 0332, “In action 1202, the UE receives an RRC configuration including a first PUCCH resource configuration and a second PUCCH resource configuration,” and ¶ 0334, “In some implementations, the first UCI may include at least one of CSI, an SR with a low priority, and HARQ-ACK information associated with the first PUCCH resource configuration.”)
output the SR configuration for transmission to the UE (¶ 0332, “In action 1202, the UE receives an RRC configuration including a first PUCCH resource configuration and a second PUCCH resource configuration,” and ¶ 0334, “In some implementations, the first UCI may include at least one of CSI, an SR with a low priority, and HARQ-ACK information associated with the first PUCCH resource configuration.”); and
interface circuitry coupled with the processor circuitry to enable communication (¶ 0345, “As illustrated in FIG. 13, a node 1300 may include a transceiver 1320, a processor 1328, a memory 1334, one or more presentation components 1338, and at least one antenna 1336. “)
With respect to Claim 20, Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 19, Wang teaches wherein the processor circuitry is further to: generate a CG configuration to configure a plurality of CG PUSCH transmission occasions; and output the CG configuration for transmission to the UE (¶ 0332, “In action 1202, the UE receives an RRC configuration including a first PUCCH resource configuration and a second PUCCH resource configuration,” and ¶ 0334, “In some implementations, the first UCI may include at least one of CSI, an SR with a low priority, and HARQ-ACK information associated with the first PUCCH resource configuration.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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) 1-4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2026/0100904), hereinafter Lee, in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang
With respect to Claim 1, Lee teaches a method comprising:
processing a scheduling request – physical uplink control channel (SR-PUCCH) resource that overlaps with an uplink (UL)-shared channel (SCH) resource (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision. Otherwise, PUCCH SR is de-prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”);
Lee fails to explicitly teach determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant; and
determining, based on said determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant, whether the SR-PUCCH resource is available for a scheduling request (SR) transmission.
Yang teaches determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”), and
determining, based on said determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant, whether the SR-PUCCH resource is available for a scheduling request (SR) transmission (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Yang in order to “provide a properly-sized UL grant to efficiently complete transmission of the burst data” in the same way as Yang in ¶ 0091.
With respect to Claim 2, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 1, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein: determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant includes determining the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant;
and determining whether the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission includes determining the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission based on said determining the UL-SCH resource corresponds to the unused UL grant.
Yang teaches determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant includes determining the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”)
and determining whether the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission includes determining the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission based on said determining the UL-SCH resource corresponds to the unused UL grant (¶ 0091, “By allowing SR transmission using PUCCH resources allocated to skipped periodic CSI reporting, a UE may be able to provide enhanced scheduling information after arrival of a burst of data.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Yang in order to “provide a properly-sized UL grant to efficiently complete transmission of the burst data” in the same way as Yang in ¶ 0091.
With respect to Claim 3, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 2, Lee teaches further comprising: determining that a priority condition is met (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”);
prioritizing the SR transmission based on said determining that the priority condition is met (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”); and
determining the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission based further on said prioritizing the SR transmission (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”)
With respect to Claim 4, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 3, Lee teaches wherein data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises: the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority; or a data volume of the LCH or LCG being greater than a predetermined threshold volume (¶ 0889, “Alternatively, the relay UE may set a specific logical channel group for the corresponding U2N bearer or a specific destination to be included in the Uu BSR with a low priority. Alternatively, the buffer status for the destination of a specific remote UE may not be reported or may be set to be included in the BSR with a low priority.”)
With respect to Claim 6, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the priority condition is based on: a type of media access control (MAC) control element (CE) that triggers the SR transmission; a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) configuration associated with the SR transmission; or SR configuration parameters (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”)
With respect to Claim 7, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 1, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein: determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant includes determining the UL-SCH resource does not correspond to an unused UL grant; and
determining whether the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission includes determining the SR-PUCCH resource is not available for the SR transmission based on said determining the UL-SCH resource does not correspond to an unused UL grant.
Yang teaches wherein: determining whether the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant includes determining the UL-SCH resource does not correspond to an unused UL grant; and
determining whether the SR-PUCCH resource is available for the SR transmission includes determining the SR-PUCCH resource is not available for the SR transmission based on said determining the UL-SCH resource does not correspond to an unused UL grant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Yang in order to “provide a properly-sized UL grant to efficiently complete transmission of the burst data” in the same way as Yang in ¶ 0091.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2026/0100904), hereinafter Lee, in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang, in view of Fu et al. (U.S. 2024/0406784), hereinafter Fu.
With respect to Claim 5, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of Claim 3, Lee in view of Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises:
a remaining time until discarding of the data of the LCH or LCG is less than a predetermined time threshold; or quality of service flow mapped to a data radio bearer associated with the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority.
Fu teaches wherein data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises: a remaining time until discarding of the data of the LCH or LCG is less than a predetermined time threshold; or quality of service flow mapped to a data radio bearer associated with the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority (¶ 0608, “first CG resource is configured to transmit the media unit with the specific QoS requirement or importance or the data packet or the LCH corresponding to the media unit; or the UE deletes, based on the QoS requirement or the importance of the media unit.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Chen in order to better provide quality of service guarantees as it provides better performance in the system of Lee.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2026/0100904), hereinafter Lee, in view of Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang, in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. 2023/0319858), hereinafter Hassan
With respect to Claim 8, Lee in view of Yang teaches the method of claim 1, Lee in view of Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein the UL-SCH resource corresponds to a first PUSCH transmission occasion associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (PID) and the method further comprises:
determining a CG timer associated with the HARQ PID is running; and determining, based on said determining the CG timer is running, the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant.
Hassan teaches wherein the UL-SCH resource corresponds to a first PUSCH transmission occasion associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (PID) and the method further comprises (¶ 0197, “if one terminal device is active at a time, e.g. per SPS, the terminal device may send HARQ (hybrid automatic repeat request) feedback for the specific SPS ID. However, in some embodiments, e.g. if SPS is configured without HARQ feedback, more than one terminal device may simultaneously receive SPS.”):
determining a CG timer associated with the HARQ PID is running; and determining, based on said determining the CG timer is running, the UL-SCH resource corresponds to an unused UL grant (¶ 0230, “As an example, in some embodiments, a UE or group of UE may be allowed to skip a configured grant in general (not use it for a while, e.g. characterized by a timer).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hassan in order that when a timer has expired something has occurred in order to determine whether a grant is being used in the system of Lee as taught by Hassan.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2026/0100904), hereinafter Lee.
With respect to Claim 11, Yang teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
Yang fails to explicitly teach detect a priority condition associated with the SR transmission; and prioritize the SR transmission based further on said detection of the priority condition.
Lee teaches detect a priority condition associated with the SR transmission; and prioritize the SR transmission based further on said detection of the priority condition (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision. Otherwise, PUCCH SR is de-prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Yang with the invention of Lee in order to better optimize transmission of data in the system of Yang as taught by Lee.
With respect to Claim 12, Yang in view of Lee teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 11. Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises: the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority; or a data volume of the LCH or LCG being greater than a predetermined threshold volume.
Lee teaches wherein data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises: the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority; or a data volume of the LCH or LCG being greater than a predetermined threshold volume (¶ 0889, “Alternatively, the relay UE may set a specific logical channel group for the corresponding U2N bearer or a specific destination to be included in the Uu BSR with a low priority. Alternatively, the buffer status for the destination of a specific remote UE may not be reported or may be set to be included in the BSR with a low priority.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Yang with the invention of Lee in order to better optimize transmission of data in the system of Yang as taught by Lee.
With respect to Claim 14, Yang in view of Lee teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the priority condition is based on: a type of media access control (MAC) control element (CE) that triggers the SR transmission.
Lee teaches the priority condition is based on: a type of media access control (MAC) control element (CE) that triggers the SR transmission (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Yang with the invention of Lee in order to better optimize transmission of data in the system of Yang as taught by Lee.
With respect to Claim 15, Yang in view of Lee teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the priority condition is based on: a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) configuration associated with the SR transmission.
Lee teaches the priority condition is based on: a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) configuration associated with the SR transmission (¶ 0533, “PUCCH SR is prioritized over SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision, if the priority of the MAC CE is higher than the highest priority of MAC PDU on SL-SCH or UL-SCH in collision.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Yang with the invention of Lee in order to better optimize transmission of data in the system of Yang as taught by Lee.
With respect to Claim 16, Yang in view of Lee teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 11, Yang teaches wherein the priority condition is based on SR configuration parameters (¶ 0100, “the network may transmit RRC signaling or a MAC-CE (e.g., a CSI report skipping command) to enable/configure enhanced SR transmission on PUCCH for skipped CSI reporting.”)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang, in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2026/0100904), hereinafter Lee, in view of Fu et al. (U.S. 2024/0406784), hereinafter Fu.
With respect to Claim 13, Yang in view of Lee teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 11, Yang fails to explicitly teach wherein data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises: a remaining time until discarding of the data of the LCH or LCG is less than a predetermined time threshold; or quality of service flow mapped to a data radio bearer associated with the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority.
Fu teaches data of a logical channel (LCH) or logical channel group (LCG) triggers the SR transmission and the priority condition comprises: a remaining time until discarding of the data of the LCH or LCG is less than a predetermined time threshold; or quality of service flow mapped to a data radio bearer associated with the LCH or LCG being associated with a priority greater than a predetermined threshold priority (¶ 0608, “first CG resource is configured to transmit the media unit with the specific QoS requirement or importance or the data packet or the LCH corresponding to the media unit; or the UE deletes, based on the QoS requirement or the importance of the media unit.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Chen in order to better provide quality of service guarantees as it provides better performance in the system of Lee.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. 2025/0089037), hereinafter Yang, in view of in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. 2023/0319858), hereinafter Hassan
With respect to Claim 17, Yang teaches the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein the first PUSCH transmission occasion is associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (PID) and the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
determine a CG timer associated with the HARQ PID is running; and determine, based on said determination that the CG timer is running, the first PUSCH transmission occasion is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission.
Hassan teaches the first PUSCH transmission occasion is associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (PID) and the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
determine a CG timer associated with the HARQ PID is running (¶ 0197, “if one terminal device is active at a time, e.g. per SPS, the terminal device may send HARQ (hybrid automatic repeat request) feedback for the specific SPS ID. However, in some embodiments, e.g. if SPS is configured without HARQ feedback, more than one terminal device may simultaneously receive SPS.”); and determine, based on said determination that the CG timer is running, the first PUSCH transmission occasion is not to be used for a PUSCH transmission (¶ 0230, “As an example, in some embodiments, a UE or group of UE may be allowed to skip a configured grant in general (not use it for a while, e.g. characterized by a timer).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lee with the invention of Hassan in order that when a timer has expired something has occurred in order to determine whether a grant is being used in the system of Lee as taught by Hassan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. 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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights