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 on 05/26/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection presented in this office action, which is necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. (12127145 B2) in view of Liu et al. (US 20210058884 A1).
The reference patent claims differ from the instant claims in that they do not explicitly
disclose that a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit.
However, Liu discloses “wherein a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit” (See [0085] the second threshold N2 is used to indicate a maximum timing adjustment amount or a minimum timing adjustment amount of the first node in a unit time, and the application timing advance is determined based on the transmission timing information. [0095] For example, the configuration granularity may be 64 T.sub.c, 2*64 T.sub.c, 4*64 T.sub.c, 8*64 T.sub.c, or 16*64 T.sub.c. In addition, the configuration granularity may be determined by an operating frequency band of the relay node. For example, in an FR1 frequency band, the configuration granularity may be 16*64 T.sub.c, and in an FR2 frequency band, the configuration granularity is 2*64 T.sub.c or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of U.S. Patent
No. 12127145 B2 with the teachings of Liu, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve timing precision and spectral efficiency (Liu [0016]).
Claims 12 and 14-20 are also rejected for the same reasons.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bergstrom et al. (US 20130201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210058884 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Bergstrom discloses “A method for wireless communication, comprising: receiving an
indication of a high-speed configuration” (See [0040] a method in a user equipment for adjusting a transmit timing of uplink transmissions to a network node in a telecommunications system. [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment
information from the network node. [0093] transmit timing adjustment may be based on
pre-defined rules or application rules. [0110] The at least one application rule may also be
provided by the network node, e.g. in the receiving of adjustment information from the
network node. [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For
example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold.
[0130] The network node may also indicate the condition under which the user equipment
should apply the pre-defined rules. For example, the network node may indicate that the
user equipment should apply the rules only if its speed is above a particular threshold. Note: Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that
are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration
information associated with high-speed operation, and thus correspond to a high-speed
configuration); “determining a time adjustment to an uplink timing for the device based at
least in part on the indication of the high-speed configuration” (See [0093] transmit timing adjustment, may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules, [0095] More specifically, the pre-defined rules governing the adjustments of the transmit timing of
uplink transmissions, i.e., the uplink timing adjustments, made by the user equipment), “and transmitting an uplink transmission by the device based at least in part on the determined time adjustment to the uplink timing” (See [0123] the network node determines adjustment information for an incremental adjustment of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions for the serving cells in the group of serving cells. [0142] the user equipment 121 transmits an uplink signal on a serving cell A and a serving cell B. Note: The UE transmits uplink transmission to the serving cells based on the adjustment).
Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are
applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration
information associated with high-speed scenario, and thus correspond to a high-speed
configuration, but does not explicitly disclose an indication that the UE is in a high-speed
scenario.
However, Li discloses “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device”
(See [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that
the UE is in the high-speed moving state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of
adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above
a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and
the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit
high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme,
thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios.
Bergstrom in view of Li does not explicitly disclose that a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit.
However, Liu discloses “wherein a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit based on the indication of the high-speed configuration” (See [0085] the second threshold N2 is used to indicate a maximum timing adjustment amount or a minimum timing adjustment amount of the first node in a unit time, and the application timing advance is determined based on the transmission timing information. [0095] For example, the configuration granularity may be 64 T.sub.c, 2*64 T.sub.c, 4*64 T.sub.c, 8*64 T.sub.c, or 16*64 T.sub.c. In addition, the configuration granularity may be determined by an operating frequency band of the relay node. For example, in an FR1 frequency band, the configuration granularity may be 16*64 T.sub.c, and in an FR2 frequency band, the configuration granularity is 2*64 T.sub.c or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of Liu, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve timing precision and spectral efficiency (Liu [0016]).
Regarding claim 2,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the high-speed configuration comprises determining that a device is
traveling above a predetermined velocity” (See Bergstrom [0101] The application rules
depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment
speed above a predetermined threshold. See Li [0030] estimating by the base station, a
moving speed of the UE before the sending, to the UE, notification information that the UE
is in the high-speed moving state; and performing, when the moving speed is greater than
a speed threshold, the step of sending, to the UE, notification information that the UE is in a
high-speed moving state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of
adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above
a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and
the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit
high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme,
thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios.
Regarding claim 4,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the indication of the high-speed configuration from an access node, AN” (See Bergstrom [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. See Li [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of
adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above
a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and
the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit
high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme,
thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios.
Regarding claim 7,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses “The method of claim 4, wherein the indication from the AN is transmitted to the device by radio resource control, RRC, signaling or medium access control, MAC, signaling” (See Li [0026] obtaining, by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state is obtaining, by the UE, an RRC connection reconfiguration message from the base station, where a first indicator bit in the RRC connection reconfiguration message is used to indicate that the UE is in the high- speed moving state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom
with the teachings of Li, to transmit the high-speed configuration vie RRC signaling, and the
motivation to do so would have been to reduce signaling overhead.
Regarding claim 12,
Bergstrom discloses “A device for wireless communication, comprising: one or more
processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more
processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” (See Fig. 13): “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration” (See [0040] a method in a user equipment for adjusting a transmit timing of uplink transmissions to a network node in a telecommunications system. [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. [0093] transmit timing adjustment may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules. [0110] The at least one application rule may also be provided by the network node, e.g. in the receiving of adjustment information from the network node. [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For
example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold.
[0130] The network node may also indicate the condition under which the user equipment
should apply the pre-defined rules. For example, the network node may indicate that the
user equipment should apply the rules only if its speed is above a particular threshold. Note:
Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are
applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration
information associated with high-speed operation, and thus correspond to a high-speed
configuration); “determining a time adjustment to an uplink timing for the device based at
least in part on the indication of the high-speed configuration” (See [0093] transmit timing adjustment, may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules, [0095] More specifically, the pre-defined rules governing the adjustments of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions, i.e., the uplink timing adjustments, made by the user equipment), “and transmitting an uplink transmission by the device based at least in part on the determined time adjustment to the uplink timing” (See [0123] the network node determines adjustment information for an incremental adjustment of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions for the serving cells in the group of serving cells. [0142] the user equipment 121 transmits an uplink signal on a serving cell A and a serving cell B. Note: The UE transmits uplink transmission to the serving cells based on the adjustment).
Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are
applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration
information associated with high-speed scenario, and thus correspond to a high-speed
configuration, but does not explicitly disclose an indication that the UE is in a high-speed
scenario.
However, Li discloses “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device”
(See [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that
the UE is in the high-speed moving state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of
adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above
a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and
the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit
high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme,
thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios.
Bergstrom in view of Li does not explicitly disclose that a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit.
However, Liu discloses “wherein a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit based on the indication of the high-speed configuration” (See [0085] the second threshold N2 is used to indicate a maximum timing adjustment amount or a minimum timing adjustment amount of the first node in a unit time, and the application timing advance is determined based on the transmission timing information. [0095] For example, the configuration granularity may be 64 T.sub.c, 2*64 T.sub.c, 4*64 T.sub.c, 8*64 T.sub.c, or 16*64 T.sub.c. In addition, the configuration granularity may be determined by an operating frequency band of the relay node. For example, in an FR1 frequency band, the configuration granularity may be 16*64 T.sub.c, and in an FR2 frequency band, the configuration granularity is 2*64 T.sub.c or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of Liu, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve timing precision and spectral efficiency (Liu [0016]).
Regarding claim 14,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses “The device of claim 12, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to perform operations comprising receiving the indication of the
high-speed configuration from an access node, AN” (See Bergstrom [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. See Li [0025]
obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in
the high-speed moving state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of
adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above
a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and
the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit
high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme,
thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios.
Regarding claim 18,
Bergstrom discloses “An access node, AN, comprising: one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the
one or more processors to perform operations comprising” (See Fig. 12): “transmitting, to
a device, an indication of a high-speed configuration, wherein the device is configured to determine a time adjustment to an uplink timing” (See [0040] a method in a user equipment for adjusting a transmit timing of uplink transmissions to a network node in a telecommunications system. [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. [0093] transmit timing adjustment may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules. [0110] The at least one application rule may also be provided by the network node, e.g. in the receiving of adjustment information from the network node. [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold.
[0130] The network node may also indicate the condition under which the user equipment
should apply the pre-defined rules. For example, the network node may indicate that the
user equipment should apply the rules only if its speed is above a particular threshold. Note:
Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are
applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration
information associated with high-speed operation, and thus correspond to a high-speed
configuration), “based at least in part on the indication of the high-speed configuration” (See [0093] transmit timing adjustment, may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules, [0095] More specifically, the pre- defined rules governing the adjustments of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions, i.e., the uplink timing adjustments, made by the user equipment), “and receiving an uplink transmission from the device, wherein the uplink transmission is transmitted based on the uplink timing” (See [0123] the network node determines adjustment information for an incremental adjustment of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions for the serving cells in the group of serving cells. [0142] the user equipment 121 transmits an uplink signal on a serving cell A and a serving cell B. Note: The UE transmits uplink transmission to the serving cells based on the adjustment).
Bergstrom in view of Li does not explicitly disclose that a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit.
However, Liu discloses “wherein a maximum value of the time adjustment for at least a portion of frequency range 2 is greater than 2.5 times 64 times a basic time unit based on the indication of the high-speed configuration” (See [0085] the second threshold N2 is used to indicate a maximum timing adjustment amount or a minimum timing adjustment amount of the first node in a unit time, and the application timing advance is determined based on the transmission timing information. [0095] For example, the configuration granularity may be 64 T.sub.c, 2*64 T.sub.c, 4*64 T.sub.c, 8*64 T.sub.c, or 16*64 T.sub.c. In addition, the configuration granularity may be determined by an operating frequency band of the relay node. For example, in an FR1 frequency band, the configuration granularity may be 16*64 T.sub.c, and in an FR2 frequency band, the configuration granularity is 2*64 T.sub.c or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of Liu, and the motivation to do so would have been to improve timing precision and spectral efficiency (Liu [0016]).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20130201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210058884 A1) and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0086219 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses “The method of claim 2” but does not explicitly disclose a sensor being coupled to the device.
However, Suzuki discloses “wherein the determination that the device is traveling above
the predetermined velocity is based on data from one or more sensors coupled to the
device” (See [0126] More and more UEs are equipped with geo- positioning capability
and/or inertia sensor or accelerometer. By utilizing such capability and sensors, the UE may
estimate speed or a range of speed and inform the eNB its speed through uplink signal
transmissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom, Li and Liu with the teachings of Suzuki by equipping the UE/device with a sensor or coupling the device with a sensor, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure improved
accuracy and precision in determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined
velocity.
Regarding claim 8,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses “The method of claim 4”, but does not explicitly disclose that the indication is based on uplink transmissions.
However, Suzuki discloses “wherein the indication from the AN is transmitted to the device
in response to determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity
based on one or more uplink transmissions from the device” (See [0126] the UE may estimate speed or a range of speed and inform the eNB its speed through uplink signal
transmissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom, Li and Liu with the teachings of Suzuki, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure improved accuracy and precision in determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et
al. (US 2013/0201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210058884 A1) and further in view of Siomina et al. (US 2021/0120513 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses claim 5 of “The method of claim 4”, and claim 15 of “The device of claim 14”, but does not explicitly disclose the indication comprising a
“highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag”.
However, Siomina discloses “wherein the high-speed configuration received from the
access node comprises a highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag” (See [0171] indicates that the
wireless device WD receives a high-speed indicator, e.g. highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been motivated to modify the
teachings of Bergstrom, Li and Liu with the teachings of Siomina where the indication from the AN comprises a high-speed enhanced measurement flag, and the motivation to do so would have been to make the wireless communication system adaptive and responsive to the diverse requirements of different scenarios and user behaviors as well as optimizing the
network performance.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20130201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210058884 A1) and further in view of Muruganathan et al. (US 20210321353 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23,
Bergstrom in view of Li and Liu discloses claim 21 of “The method of claim 1”, claim 22 of “The device of claim 12”, and claim 23 of “The AN of claim 18”, but does not explicitly disclose that at least a portion frequency range 2 comprises frequencies from 24250 MHz to 52600 MHz.
However, Muruganathan discloses “wherein the at least a portion frequency range 2 comprises frequencies from 24250 MHz to 52600 MHz” (See [0105] and frequency range 2 (FR2) is defined as the range of 24250 MHz-52600 MHz (See, 3GPP TS 38.104 V15.2.0 (2018-06)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom, Li and Liu, with the teachings of Muruganathan, and the motivation to do so would have been to operate using a well-known standardized frequency classification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 16-17 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.
/SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462 /YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights