FINAL REJECTION
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed June 22, 2026 (“Amendment”).
The instant 19/030,002 application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat. 11,923,945 B2 to Koskela et al. (“the ‘945 Patent”), which issued March 5, 2024 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 17/272,979, filed March 2, 2021 as a 371 Application of PCT/FI2019/050626 filed September 4, 2019. Due to a dependence on U.S. Pat. Provisional App. Ser. No. 62/728,177, the ‘945 Patent has an earliest possible U.S. effective filing date of September 7, 2018.
Claims 1-20 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application as well as the instant Amendment, claims 1-20 are canceled and new claims 21-30 are presented, of which claims 21 and 26 are independent. Thus claims 21-30 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘945 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘945 Patent.
Patent Owner is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,923,945 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘945 Patent is deemed not to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Reissue Declaration
The declaration filed July 30, 2025 is objected to because of the following:
The Declaration fails to identify an error upon which the instant reissue is filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.175. The Examiner further notes that the statement as to how broadened claim 21 is presented without matter from issued claim 1 is improper as such removal is deemed by the Examiner below to be impermissible recapture of surrendered subject matter which is not an error upon which reissue may be based.
Claim Rejections - § 251
Claims 21-30 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02 II.):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
Step 1: MPEP 1412.02 II. A. In the instant case and by way of the recent amendment, Applicant seeks to present broadened independent claims 21 and 26 which are broader than the original independent claims, at least by deleting/omitting the patent claim language requiring that when the DL beam signal is received, a positive determination is made of a measurable property of the beam, as well as the indicating message transmitted to the BS as to a beam failure is a CFRA preamble signal comprising an indication as well as corresponding to at least one link with downlink only that is indicated as an active transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and an indication of a new uplink candidate that corresponds a reference signal with a spatial quasi co-location type D (QCL-Type D) parameter of the TCI state activated for the PDCCH reception, wherein the new uplink candidate is selected based on a signal quality of the downlink, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-To-Interference-And-Noise Ratio (SINR), and hypothetical PDCCH block error rate associated with the CFRA signal, as well as the requirement that the message be contention-free.
Thus claims 21 and 26 are broadened claims.
Step 2: MPEP 1412.02 II. B. The record of the prior 17/272,797 application prosecution indicates that in an Amendment filed December 12, 2023 in an attempt to overcome rejections, Patent Owner added this matter to independent claims 1 and 8. Note the changes to application claim 23 shown below, which is issued as issued claim 1, and is representative:
23. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
determining whether a downlink beam signal is being received from a base station;
when the downlink beam signal is being received from the base station, determining that a measurable property of the downlink beam signal does not meet a preselected threshold;
based on the determining, transmitting a contention-free random access (CFRA) preamble signal to the base station, the CFRA signal comprising:
an indication the CFRA preamble signal corresponding to at least one link with downlink only that is indicated as an active transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH);
and an indication of a new uplink candidate that corresponds a reference signal with a spatial quasi co-location type D (QCL-Type D) parameter of the TCI state activated for the PDCCH reception, wherein the new uplink candidate is selected based on a signal quality of the downlink, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-To-Interference-And-Noise Ratio (SINR), and hypothetical PDCCH block error rate associated with the CFRA signal; and providing an indication that the new uplink candidate is the new uplink.
17/272,797 December 12, 2023 Amendment at 2
If an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. The reliance by applicant can also be created by presentation of new/amended claims or arguments/statements to obviate rejections based on other grounds. See In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1348, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Step 3: MPEP 1412.02 II. C. It is noted that the previous requirement of a positive determination being made of a measurable property of the beam as well as the indicating message transmitted to the BS being a CFRA preamble signal comprising an indication as well as corresponding to at least one link with downlink only that is indicated as an active transmission configuration indication (TCI) state for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and an indication of a new uplink candidate that corresponds a reference signal with a spatial quasi co-location type D (QCL-Type D) parameter of the TCI state activated for the PDCCH reception, wherein the new uplink candidate is selected based on a signal quality of the downlink, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-To-Interference-And-Noise Ratio (SINR), and hypothetical PDCCH block error rate associated with the CFRA signal, as well as the requirement that the message be contention-free, have been entirely eliminated from the claims. Thus there is recapture.
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.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2020/0374960A1 to Deenoo et al. (“Deenoo”) in view of U.S. Pat. 11,444,676 B2 to Takeda et al. (“Takeda”) as well as U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2020/0145079A1 to Marinier et al. (“Marinier”).
As to claim 21, Deenoo discloses:
A method comprising:
[…]
transmitting, in a random access procedure for uplink beam failure recovery, a message to the base station,
wherein the message indicates that at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam has failed based on the downlink beam signal […] and indicates a new uplink beam candidate, wherein the new uplink beam candidate is indicated by a configured association between the message and one or more candidate downlink reference signals associated with respective candidate uplink beams, and wherein the new uplink beam candidate is selected based on […] the one or more candidate downlink reference signals.
Deenoo discloses a method and system for re-selecting a communication beam in a UE wherein a downlink beam signal is monitored for failure. Deenoo at ¶¶98-100 (“[a] WTRU may perform one or more PDCCH monitoring functions on the beams of the PDCCH monitoring set and/or beam link monitoring beam. With respect to the PDCCH serving beam, the WTRU may be configured to perform primary PDCCH monitoring in CSS and/or USS according to the serving beam PDCCH resource and monitoring configuration.”)
Deenoo discloses, when the measurement shows beam failure, transmitting a message to the BS over a random access channel indicating failure of the beam as well as a new uplink beam candidate. Deenoo at ¶87 (“[i]n the event of a beam failure 205, the WTRU 201 may perform candidate beam identification and selection 206. The WTRU 201 may perform beam recovery resource selection 208 for the selected candidate beam. The WTRU 201 may send a beam recovery request message 210 to the gNB 202, and may indicate the selected candidate beam”); id. at ¶¶123-124 (“[t]he WTRU may be configured with a UL signal for which the characteristics/properties/contents may indicate one or more of the following information…explicit/implicit identity of candidate beams”), ¶126, and at FIGS 2 and 3. The failure of the DL beam may indicate failure of the UL beam. Id. at ¶162.
Lastly, Deenoo discloses that the new uplink beam candidate is indicated by a configured association between the message and one or more candidate downlink reference signals associated with respective candidate uplink beams, and that wherein the new uplink beam candidate is selected based on and the one or more candidate downlink reference signals. Deenoo at ¶¶81, 88, and 160, noting the indicated candidate corresponds to the TCI state, that is, reference signal with a spatial QCL parameter of the TCI state activated for PDCCH reception. and selected by a TCI state, which associates with one or more downlink reference signals.
Deenoo fails to specify that the failure is determined by whether a downlink beam signal is being received, and does not disclose wherein an uplink power reduction is taken into account when determining the candidate for the new uplink beam.
Takeda discloses an analogous invention, namely determining a DL beam failure in a UE and transmitting a RACH notification to an eNB as to beam recovery. Takeda at 2:65-3:38 and 4:65-5:7. Takeda specifies that beam loss can be detected if RS resources are measured less than a certain threshold, or that the beam is not detected at all. Id. at 4:28-35 (“[h]ere, the beam failure may indicate that, for example, at a UE and/or a base station, detection of one or a plurality of control channels have not been detected or none of the control channels has been detected, for a certain period, or a measurement result for the reception quality of a reference signal associated with the control channel does not satisfy certain quality”).
As to taking UPR into account, Marinier discloses an analogous system and method for measuring transmission beams in a wireless device and determining if a beam re-selection should occur. Marinier at ¶¶257-262. Specifically, Marinier discloses that beam re-selection may be based on maximum uplink power reduction. Id. at ¶8 “for beam re-selection due to MPR” and ¶257 “The UE 602 may re-select the uplink beam of the active beam processed as a result of the MPR cause by SAR.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Deenoo to include detecting a beam and using power reduction to determine a candidate beam. As to detecting a beam, Takeda discloses that detecting and measuring were known at the time and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a modification to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, as to using uplink power reduction, Deenoo discloses that “power reduction may be applied to uplink transmissions to comply with requirements for spectral emission into adjacent bands” and that the beam may be configured according to power control aspects like power offset and power coefficient adjustments. Deenoo at ¶¶75 and 139. This motivation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the MPR of Marinier to Deenoo in order to comply with spectral emissions requirements, and also would have been seen as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR.
Further as to claim 22:
The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein a measurable property of a downlink beam signal is one of reference signal received power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR), and hypothetical Block Error Rate (BLER) evaluated for physical uplink control channel or physical downlink control channel.
Deenoo discloses measuring RSRP of the PDCCH. Deenoo at ¶101 “[t]he beam failure detection criteria may include a measurement result of the serving PDCCH below a threshold (e.g., if the reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of a RS associated with the serving PDCCH is below a predefined threshold).” Deenoo also speaks of measuring BLER in ¶91.
Further as to claim 23:
The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the message to the base station is a contention-free random access (CFRA) preamble signal.
Deenoo discloses that the indication may be a contentionless random access message. Deenoo at ¶126 “The WTRU may transmit the beam recovery request in a time and frequency resource configured for PRACH” and at ¶215 “if the lower layer indicates as an error beam failure (e.g. upon first indication or upon receiving N consecutive indications from lower layer) and the RS from the second set of resources is associated with a dedicated preamble, the WTRU may trigger a random access procedure using the dedicated resource associated with the RS from second set of resources”. Further, Takeda discloses the same process. Takeda at 9:28-39.
Further as to claim 24:
The method as claimed in claim 23, wherein the CFRA preamble signal corresponds to an active transmission configuration indication state for one of a physical downlink control channel or a physical downlink shared channel.
Deenoo discloses that the candidate beam indication corresponds to an active SPS configuration state. Deenoo at ¶¶176-177 “A WTRU may re-use/keep an existing SPS configuration when switching from one beam to another (beam management) or when performing beam recovery.”
Further as to claim 25:
The method as claimed in claim 22, wherein the measurable property further comprises calculating a maximum power reduction (MPR), or Power Head Room (PHR) for the at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam.
Marinier discloses measuring MPR for a pair of beams. Marinier at ¶130 and 251.
As to claim 26, Deenoo discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform the following operations:
Deenoo discloses a UE comprising a processor and memory for storing instructions to perform the operations below. Deenoo at FIG 1B and ¶¶31-32.
[…]
transmitting, in a random access procedure for uplink beam failure recovery, a message to the base station, wherein the message indicates that at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam has failed based on the downlink beam signal [… ]and indicates a new uplink beam candidate, wherein the new uplink beam candidate is indicated by a configured association between the message and one or more candidate downlink reference signals associated with respective candidate uplink beams, and wherein the new uplink beam candidate is selected based on […] the one or more candidate downlink reference signals.
Deenoo discloses r re-selecting a communication beam in the UE wherein a downlink beam signal is monitored for failure. Deenoo at ¶¶98-100 (“[a] WTRU may perform one or more PDCCH monitoring functions on the beams of the PDCCH monitoring set and/or beam link monitoring beam. With respect to the PDCCH serving beam, the WTRU may be configured to perform primary PDCCH monitoring in CSS and/or USS according to the serving beam PDCCH resource and monitoring configuration.”)
Deenoo discloses, when the measurement shows beam failure, transmitting a message to the BS over a random access channel indicating failure of the beam as well as a new uplink beam candidate. Deenoo at ¶87 (“[i]n the event of a beam failure 205, the WTRU 201 may perform candidate beam identification and selection 206. The WTRU 201 may perform beam recovery resource selection 208 for the selected candidate beam. The WTRU 201 may send a beam recovery request message 210 to the gNB 202, and may indicate the selected candidate beam”); id. at ¶¶123-124 (“[t]he WTRU may be configured with a UL signal for which the characteristics/properties/contents may indicate one or more of the following information…explicit/implicit identity of candidate beams”), ¶126, and at FIGS 2 and 3. The failure of the DL beam may indicate failure of the UL beam. Id. at ¶162.
Lastly, Deenoo discloses that the new uplink beam candidate is indicated by a configured association between the message and one or more candidate downlink reference signals associated with respective candidate uplink beams, and that wherein the new uplink beam candidate is selected based on and the one or more candidate downlink reference signals. Deenoo at ¶¶81, 88, and 160, noting the indicated candidate corresponds to the TCI state, that is, reference signal with a spatial QCL parameter of the TCI state activated for PDCCH reception. and selected by a TCI state, which associates with one or more downlink reference signals.
Deenoo fails to specify that the failure is determined by whether a downlink beam signal is being received, and does not disclose wherein an uplink power reduction is taken into account when determining the candidate for the new uplink beam.
Takeda discloses an analogous invention, namely determining a DL beam failure in a UE and transmitting a RACH notification to an eNB as to beam recovery. Takeda at 2:65-3:38 and 4:65-5:7. Takeda specifies that beam loss can be detected if RS resources are measured less than a certain threshold, or that the beam is not detected at all. Id. at 4:28-35 (“[h]ere, the beam failure may indicate that, for example, at a UE and/or a base station, detection of one or a plurality of control channels have not been detected or none of the control channels has been detected, for a certain period, or a measurement result for the reception quality of a reference signal associated with the control channel does not satisfy certain quality”).
As to taking UPR into account, Marinier discloses an analogous system and method for measuring transmission beams in a wireless device and determining if a beam re-selection should occur. Marinier at ¶¶257-262. Specifically, Marinier discloses that beam re-selection may be based on maximum uplink power reduction. Id. at ¶8 “for beam re-selection due to MPR” and ¶257 “The UE 602 may re-select the uplink beam of the active beam processed as a result of the MPR cause by SAR.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify Deenoo to include detecting a beam and using power reduction to determine a candidate beam. As to detecting a beam, Takeda discloses that detecting and measuring were known at the time and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a modification to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, as to using uplink power reduction, Deenoo discloses that “power reduction may be applied to uplink transmissions to comply with requirements for spectral emission into adjacent bands” and that the beam may be configured according to power control aspects like power offset and power coefficient adjustments. Deenoo at ¶¶75 and 139. This motivation would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the MPR of Marinier to Deenoo in order to comply with spectral emissions requirements, and also would have been seen as merely an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR.
Further as to claim 27:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein a measurable property of a downlink beam signal is one of reference signal received power (RSRP), signal-to-interference-and-noise (SINR), ratio, and hypothetical Block Error Rate (BLER), evaluated for physical uplink control channel or physical downlink control channel.
Deenoo discloses the UE measuring RSRP of the PDCCH. Deenoo at ¶101 “[t]he beam failure detection criteria may include a measurement result of the serving PDCCH below a threshold (e.g., if the reference signal received power (RSRP) or reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of a RS associated with the serving PDCCH is below a predefined threshold).” Deenoo also speaks of measuring BLER in ¶91. Further as to claim 28:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the message to the base station is a contention-free random access (CFRA), preamble signal.
Deenoo discloses that the indication may be a contentionless random access message. Deenoo at ¶126 “The WTRU may transmit the beam recovery request in a time and frequency resource configured for PRACH” and at ¶215 “if the lower layer indicates as an error beam failure (e.g. upon first indication or upon receiving N consecutive indications from lower layer) and the RS from the second set of resources is associated with a dedicated preamble, the WTRU may trigger a random access procedure using the dedicated resource associated with the RS from second set of resources”. Further, Takeda discloses the same process. Takeda at 9:28-39.
Further as to claim 29:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 28, wherein the contention-free random access (CFRA), preamble signal corresponds to an active transmission configuration indication state for one of a physical downlink control channel or a physical downlink shared channel.
Deenoo discloses that the candidate beam indication corresponds to an active SPS configuration state. Deenoo at ¶¶176-177 “A WTRU may re-use/keep an existing SPS configuration when switching from one beam to another (beam management) or when performing beam recovery.”
Further as to claim 30:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 27, wherein the measurable property further comprises calculating a maximum power reduction (MPR), or Power Head Room (PHR), for the at least one uplink beam corresponding to the downlink beam.
Marinier discloses measuring MPR for a pair of beams. Marinier at ¶130 and 251.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner provides arguments in pp. 5-13 of the Amendment (“Remarks”).
As to the previous rejection of claims under § 251 (defective reissue declaration), the Examiner notes that the declaration filed with the reissue application does not state an error. Merely checking the box stating that the patentee claimed more or less than they had the right to claim is not sufficient. MPEP § 1414 II. Further, the Examiner notes below that the claims are rejected under § 251 for impermissible recapture of surrendered subject matter, which is not an error upon which an application for reissue may be based.
As to the previous rejection of claims under § 251 (recapture), the Examiner notes the amendment to independent claims 21 and 26 has not eliminated the recapture issue.
Patent Owner argues that the current claims are towards a different operational branch than the issued claims. Remarks at 6. The Examiner notes that the original claims as filed included a message regarding a beam failure if the beam was not detected or it did not meet measurements. This claim was rejected, and the matter noted above was added to attain allowance. Thus narrowing a portion of the claim towards lack of detection of a beam is not material narrowing because it is not narrowing in the area of surrender at least because the claimed message was the same regardless – there is no separate embodiment disclosed in the specification that teaches a different uplink beam failure message if the beam failure is due to a lack of detection versus not meeting a threshold.
The Examiner further notes as to an overlooked aspect that since the original filed claim included determining beam failure from either a beam not being detected or having a low enough quality, the current reissue claims are not drawn to a separate invention or separate species or embodiment that was not covered by a claim (e.g., a generic claim) at any point during the prosecution of the original application.
Lastly the Examiner further notes as to material narrowing, the limitation left after the Amendment’s enlarging of the limitation at issue does not escape recapture as the rejection above under § 103 demonstrates that the limitation left is well-known. Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d at 1361, 98 USPQ2d at 1644.
As to the previous rejection of claims under § 103, note the new ground of rejection above regarding the amended claims.
Here, the Examiner notes that Deenoo teaches the claim here except the beam failure being based on a lack of detection of a beam and the use of MPR. Patent Owner argues that Deenoo is towards a multi-carrier environment, however the claims do not distinguish from this. Likewise, Patent Owner’s arguments that it would not make sense to modify Deenoo as to the lack of detection of a beam do not hold water, as Takeda applied above is also towards a multi-carrier environment. Marinier discloses the simple act of including MPR in the failure message, which Deenoo hints at when speaking of configuring the new bema in accordance with power control aspects as well as power reduction in accordance with regulatory requirements.
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 Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights