DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on page 7 of Remarks, that “Guo, while providing for a network setup procedure for LTM mobility, fails to teach or suggest at least "receiving, from the CU and after sending the configuration, a third message comprising a list of one or more candidate cells for a subsequent conditional LTM of the wireless device," as recited in Applicant's claim 1. In Guo, a centralized unit (CU) control plane (CP) initiates UE mobility and selects candidates cells based on measurement reporting by a UE (Guo, [0185]-[0186]). The CU-CP sends a UE context modification request indicating a set of candidate cells to a distributed unit (DU) to initiate UE mobility setup (Id., [0188]). The DU then responds to the CU- CP with a UE context modification response including configuration information for accepted candidate cells (Id., [0188]). Subsequently, the CU-CP sends, to the UE via the DU, an RRC reconfiguration message indicating the configuration information for the accepted candidate cells, which enables UE handover to one of the accepted candidate cells (Id., [0188]-[0189]).”
On the contrary, as illustrated in Fig. 24 of Guo, in step 7, the DU receives, from the CU, a “DL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER (RRCreconfiguration with candidate cell configurations” which occurs after step 6, wherein a candidate cell configuration is sent from the DU to the CU. In step 2a the CU “Decides L1/L2” mobility, thereby indicating that the embodiment of Fig. 24 is for conditional LTM. Therefore, Guo clearly discloses the claim 1 limitation “receiving, from the CU and after sending the configuration, a third message comprising a list of one or more candidate cells for a subsequent conditional LTM of the wireless device;”.
Applicant asserts, on pages 7-8 of Remarks, that “Guo, however, neither teaches nor suggests that any of the set of candidate cells available for UE handover is used for a subsequent conditional LTM - that is, another conditional LTM that occurs after execution of a prior conditional LTM. Whether taken alone or in any permissible combination with Guo, Zhang fails to cure the defects of Guo with respect to Applicant's claim 1. As cited, Zhang shows a CU that initiates preparation of a candidate cell by sending a UE context setup request to a candidate DU (Zhang, I [0168]). The candidate DU responds with a UE context setup response indicating configuration information for the candidate cell, as well as a list of candidate cells that have been setup (Id., I [0169]). The CU then sends a UE context modification request to a source DU to update the source DU with the list of setup candidate cells (Id.). The source DU responds with a UE context modification response that includes execution conditions for triggering UE mobility (Id.). Subsequently, the CU sends, to the UE via the source DU, an RRC reconfiguration message with the execution conditions for triggering UE mobility (Id., I [0170]). The cited sections of both Guo and Zhang describe a preparation phase for immediately switching the UE to a candidate cell. Whether taken alone or in any permissible combination, neither reference teaches or suggests a subsequent conditional LTM procedure. That is, both Guo and Zhang describe conditions for triggering a current UE cell switch but are silent with regard to a subsequent UE mobility procedure.”
On the contrary, Zhang states, in paragraph [0168]: “In block 1102, the CU determines the suggested candidate cell (e.g. according to the RRM measurements). The CU sends a suggested candidate cell list to the candidate DU via F1 message (e.g. UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message or other message) to request candidate DU to set up or configure candidate cells. The message may also include an indication to indicate that the procedure is for L1/L2 mobility, and/or an indication to indicate that the procedure is for which type of L1/L2 mobility.” [emphasis added]. Zhang further states, in paragraph [0169]: “In block 1104, the target DU determines whether to set up or configure the candidate cells as suggested, and sends the generated candidate cell configuration (e.g. CellGroupConfig) to the CU (e.g. via UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message). If the target DU fails to set up some candidate cells, the DU may also include an accepted cell list (e.g. including a list of cell have been successfully set up) or a failed/rejected cell list (e.g. including a list of cell failed to set up) in the message. In block 1106, the CU may send the configured candidate cell list to the source DU via F1 message (e.g. UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message). This message may also include the CU generated triggering events/execution conditions (e.g. for DU triggered mobility). In block 1108, the source DU responds with an UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE message. This message may also include the DU generated triggering events/execution conditions (e.g. for UE triggered mobility or CU triggered mobility).” [emphasis added]. Clearly, Zhang discloses that the procedure is for L1/L2 mobility (which is synonymous with “LTM”), and that the DU receives a list of candidate cells for the L1/L2 mobility procedure that is to take place, and after receiving this information, said DU determines the execution conditions for the subsequent L1/L2 mobility procedure. Therefore, Zhang discloses the claim 1 limitation “after receiving the list of the one or more candidate cells for the subsequent conditional LTM, determining, by the DU, at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM from the candidate cell to a second candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells;”.
Applicant asserts, on pages 9-10 of Remarks, that “The Office Action acknowledges that Zhang fails to disclose "after executing the conditional LTM, based on a second execution condition of the one or more second execution conditions being satisfied, execute the subsequent conditional LTM from the first cell to a second cell," but relies on Paterson to show this recitation of Applicant's claim 1 (Office Action, p. 12). However, Paterson fails to cure this defect of Zhang. As cited, Paterson shows an inter-gNB-DU mobility procedure for a UE that is initiated by a secondary gNB (SgNB). In Paterson, a UE transmits a measurement report to a source en-gNB-DU, which then forwards the measurement report to an en-gNB-CU (Paterson, I [0096]). When the en- gNB-CU decides to move the UE context, the en-gNB-CU sends a UE Context Modification Request including a DU Configuration Query to the source en-gNB-DU, which responds with a UE Context Modification Response including a configuration of the UE (Id., III [0097]-[0098]). The en- gNB-CU then sends a UE Context Setup Request to a target en-gNB-DU based on the UE configuration, and the target en-gNB-DU responds with a UE Context Setup Response (Id., ILL [0099]-[0100]). Next, the en-gNB-CU sends a UE Context Modification Request to the source en-gNB-DU, and the UE is reconfigured to connect with the target en-gNB-DU (Id., III [0102]-[0104]). Thus, Paterson only shows a single cell switch in which the UE is handed over from a source en-gNB-DU to a target en-gNB-DU. The cited sections of Paterson are entirely silent with respect to any subsequent mobility procedure. Consequently, Paterson fails to teach or suggest at least "after executing the conditional LTM, based on a second execution condition of the one or more second execution conditions being satisfied, execute the subsequent conditional LTM from the first cell to a second cell," as recited in Applicant's claim 18.”
On the contrary, as illustrated in Fig. 6 of Paterson, a UE, at step S606, receives an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message from a source en-gNB-DU, and in response, in step S608, said UE performs a random access procedure with a target en-gNB-DU. These steps occur after step S605, which is the transmission of a second UE Context Modification Request, with the first UE Context Modification Request occurring earlier, at Step S623. Therefore, the mobility procedure wherein the UE switches from the source en-gNB-DU to the target en-gNB-DU, occurs subsequent to the signalling associated with the first UE Context Modification Request.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0388871 (hereinafter Guo), in view of Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0334263 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a method (disclosed is a method, according to [0185], Fig. 24) comprising:
receiving, by a distributed unit (DU) of a base station from a central unit (CU) of the base station, a first message (a DU receives, from a CU, a UE CTXT MOD REQ message, according to [0188], Fig. 24 [step 5]) comprising:
a parameter indicating a conditional layer 1 or layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) of a wireless device (the UE CTXT MOD REQ message comprises L1/L2 mobility initiation, according to [0188], Fig. 24 [step 5]); and an identifier of a candidate cell of the DU, for the conditional LTM (the UE CTXT MOD REQ message comprises new UL TNLs (uplink transport network layers) for each candidate cell, according to [0188], Fig. 24 [step 5]);
sending, by the DU to the CU, a second message comprising a configuration for LTM associated with the candidate cell (the DU sends, to the CU, a UE CTXT MOD RESP that comprises candidate cell configuration information, according to [0188], Fig. 24 [step 6]);
receiving, from the CU and after sending the configuration, a third message comprising a list of one or more candidate cells for a subsequent conditional LTM of the wireless device (after sending the candidate cell configuration information, the DU receives, from the CU, a DL RRC MESSAGE TRANSFER message that comprises a set of configurations associated with respective candidate cells, according to [0189], Fig. 24 [step 7]).
Guo does not expressly disclose that after receiving the list of the one or more candidate cells for the subsequent conditional LTM, determining, by the DU, at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM from the candidate cell to a second candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells; and sending, to the CU, a fourth message comprising the at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM.
Zhang discloses that after receiving the list of the one or more candidate cells for the subsequent conditional LTM, determining, by the DU, at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM from the candidate cell to a second candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (after receiving a candidate cell list for L1/L2 mobility, a DU determines execution conditions for triggered mobility, according to [0168]-[0169], Fig. 11 [steps 1106 and 1108]); and
sending, to the CU, a fourth message comprising the at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM (the DU sends to a CU a UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE message that comprises the execution conditions for CU triggered mobility, according to [0169], Fig. 11 [step 1108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo with Zhang such that after receiving the list of the one or more candidate cells for the subsequent conditional LTM, determining, by the DU, at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM from the candidate cell to a second candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells; and sending, to the CU, a fourth message comprising the at least one execution condition for the subsequent conditional LTM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Claim 12 recites the distributed unit of a base station, comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that are executed by the one or more processors (a DU comprises a processor and a memory that stores instructions that are executed by said processor, according to [0803]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Guo does not expressly disclose that the subsequent conditional LTM is a conditional LTM, from the cell to the second cell, executed following an execution of a conditional LTM from a serving cell of the base station to the cell.
Zhang discloses that the subsequent conditional LTM is a conditional LTM, from the cell to the second cell, executed following an execution of a conditional LTM from a serving cell of the base station to the cell (mobility of the UE from the source base station to the candidate base station occurs as the result of specified triggering events/execution conditions being fulfilled, according to [0169]-[0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang such that the subsequent conditional LTM is a conditional LTM, from the cell to the second cell, executed following an execution of a conditional LTM from a serving cell of the base station to the cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Guo does not expressly disclose that the execution condition is for triggering, by the wireless device, initiation or execution of the subsequent conditional LTM.
Zhang discloses that the execution condition is for triggering, by the wireless device, initiation or execution of the subsequent conditional LTM (the triggering events/execution conditions may be for UE triggered mobility, according to [0169]-[0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang such that the execution condition is for triggering, by the wireless device, initiation or execution of the subsequent conditional LTM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Guo does not expressly disclose that the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration.
Zhang discloses that the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration (the triggering event refers to an L1 measurement report configuration, according to [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang such that the execution condition indicates an identifier of a layer 1 measurement reporting configuration.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Guo does not expressly disclose that the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of the cell; or a second measurement result of the second cell.
Zhang discloses that the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of the cell; or a second measurement result of the second cell (the triggering event may be based on neighbor cell measurements, according to [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang such that the execution condition is based on at least one of: a first measurement result of the cell; or a second measurement result of the second cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Guo does not expressly disclose sending, by the CU to a serving DU of the base station, a fifth message comprising: the identifier of the cell; and a request for an execution condition for the conditional LTM.
Zhang discloses sending, by the CU to a serving DU of the base station, a fifth message comprising: the identifier of the cell; and a request for an execution condition for the conditional LTM (the CU sends, to the source base station DU, a UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION REQUEST message, that comprises a candidate cell list and that solicits DU generated triggering events/execution conditions, according to [0169], Fig. 11 [step 1106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang by sending, by the CU to a serving DU of the base station, a fifth message comprising: the identifier of the cell; and a request for an execution condition for the conditional LTM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Guo does not expressly disclose receiving, from the serving DU, a sixth message indicating the execution condition, for the cell, for the conditional LTM.
Zhang discloses receiving, from the serving DU, a sixth message indicating the execution condition, for the cell, for the conditional LTM (the DU sends to a CU a UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE message that comprises the execution conditions for CU triggered mobility, according to [0169], Fig. 11 [step 1108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang by receiving, from the serving DU, a sixth message indicating the execution condition, for the cell, for the conditional LTM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Guo does not expressly disclose that the receiving the sixth message is after/in response to sending the first message.
Zhang discloses that the receiving the sixth message is after/in response to sending the first message (the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE message is sent after a UE CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message is sent from the CU, according to Fig. 11 [steps 1102 and 1108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Zhang such that the receiving the sixth message is after/in response to sending the first message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate lower latency, lower overhead, and reduced interruption time (Zhang: [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Guo discloses that the list of one or more cells comprises a respective cell global identifier (CGI) of each cell of the list of one or more cells (cells are identified using CGIs, according to [0205]).
Claims 13-17 do not differ substantively from claims 2-5 and 11, respectively, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-5 and 11, respectively.
7. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Paterson, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0243656 (hereinafter Paterson).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses a wireless device (disclosed is a user equipment (UE), according to Abstract, [0023]) comprising:
one or more processors (the UE comprises a processor, according to [0023]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (the UE comprises memory that stores instructions that are executed by the processor, according to [0023]), cause the wireless device to:
receive, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising a layer1/ layer2 triggered mobility (LTM) configuration comprising: a first execution condition of a conditional LTM (the UE receives, from a base station, an RRC message that comprises a candidate cell configuration, along with the triggering events/conditions associated with the candidate cell(s), according to [0170], Fig. 11 [step 1112], whereby this takes place in the context of L1/L2 mobility, according to Abstract);
based on the first execution condition being satisfied, execute the conditional LTM (the UE responds to the base station with an RRCReconfigurationComplete message, according to [0170], Fig. 11 [step 1114]).
Zhang does not expressly disclose that the configuration comprises one or more second execution conditions, of one or more candidate cells, of a subsequent conditional LTM, wherein: a first user equipment (UE) context modification request message comprises a request for the first execution condition of the conditional LTM to a first cell; a first UE context modification response message comprises the first execution condition; a second UE context modification request message comprises a list of the one or more candidate cells, of the subsequent conditional LTM; and a second UE context modification response message comprises the one or more second execution conditions for the subsequent conditional LTM; and after executing the conditional LTM, based on a second execution condition of the one or more second execution conditions being satisfied, execute the subsequent conditional LTM from the first cell to a second cell.
Paterson discloses that the configuration comprises one or more second execution conditions, of one or more candidate cells, of a subsequent conditional LTM (two UE context modification request messages are sent, comprising respective configuration information for a mobility procedure, according to [0093], [0097], [0101], Fig. 6 [steps S605 and S623]), wherein:
a first user equipment (UE) context modification request message comprises a request for the first execution condition of the conditional LTM to a first cell (a first UE context modification request message is sent, which includes a DU Configuration Query IE, according to [0097], Fig. 6 [step S623]);
a first UE context modification response message comprises the first execution condition (a UE Context Modification Response message that includes the full configuration information for the UE is sent, according to [0098], Fig. 6 [step S624]);
a second UE context modification request message comprises a list of the one or more candidate cells, of the subsequent conditional LTM (a further UE Context Modification Response message is sent, according to [0101], Fig. 6 [step S605]); and
a second UE context modification response message comprises the one or more second execution conditions for the subsequent conditional LTM (a further UE Context Modification Response message is sent, according to [0103], Fig. 6 [step S607]); and after executing the conditional LTM, based on a second execution condition of the one or more second execution conditions being satisfied, execute the subsequent conditional LTM from the first cell to a second cell (the UE performs an RRC reconfiguration for a target base station, according to [0104], Fig. 6 [step S609]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with Paterson such that the configuration comprises one or more second execution conditions, of one or more candidate cells, of a subsequent conditional LTM, wherein: a first user equipment (UE) context modification request message comprises a request for the first execution condition of the conditional LTM to a first cell; a first UE context modification response message comprises the first execution condition; a second UE context modification request message comprises a list of the one or more candidate cells, of the subsequent conditional LTM; and a second UE context modification response message comprises the one or more second execution conditions for the subsequent conditional LTM; and after executing the conditional LTM, based on a second execution condition of the one or more second execution conditions being satisfied, execute the subsequent conditional LTM from the first cell to a second cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently provide an accurate and up-to-date indication of base station radio configurations (Paterson: [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zhang and Paterson discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the subsequent conditional LTM is a conditional LTM, from the cell to the second cell, executed following an execution of a conditional LTM from a serving cell of the base station to the cell (mobility of the UE from the source base station to the candidate base station occurs as the result of specified triggering events/execution conditions being fulfilled, according to [0169]-[0170]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zhang and Paterson discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zhang discloses that the list of one or more candidate cells comprises a respective cell global identifier (CGI) of each cell of the list of one or more candidate cells (cells are identified using CGIs, according to [0205]).
8. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Paterson.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Neither Guo nor Zhang expressly discloses that the subsequent conditional LTM to the second cell, is after the conditional LTM to the cell.
Paterson discloses that the subsequent conditional LTM to the second cell, is after the conditional LTM to the cell (the UE performs an RRC reconfiguration for a target base station, according to [0104], Fig. 6 [step S609]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Paterson such that the subsequent conditional LTM to the second cell, is after the conditional LTM to the cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently provide an accurate and up-to-date indication of base station radio configurations (Paterson: [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Guo and Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Guo nor Zhang expressly discloses that the configuration comprises a second configuration for the cell for the conditional LTM.
Paterson discloses that the configuration comprises a second configuration for the cell for the conditional LTM (the further UE Context Modification Request message comprises configuration information, according to [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo as modified by Zhang with Paterson such that the configuration comprises a second configuration for the cell for the conditional LTM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently provide an accurate and up-to-date indication of base station radio configurations (Paterson: [0008]).
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645