DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on December 4, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on December 4, 2025 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monajemi et al. (US 2020/0229086) in view of Chitrakar et al. (US 2024/0098712) and Cariou et al. (EP 3820225 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Monajemi teaches a first wireless access point (AP) device in a multi-AP (MAP) coordinating set of APs (“The first BSS 302a includes a first AP 304a that services a plurality of stations (or client devices) 306a-306n, while the second BSS 302b includes a second AP 304b” – See [0046]; See also Fig. 4A; AP 304a (first AP) is in a coordinating set with AP 304b), the first AP comprising:
a transceiver configured to:
transmit traffic to a first station (STA) during a transmission opportunity (TXOP) in a first target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) based on parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and the first STA (“With high data traffic, TWT scheduling allows the AP to manage contention for time resources in a single BSS by splitting the time resources among the clients that would otherwise attempt to access the medium all at the same time (which would lead to reduced media access control (MAC) efficiency)” – See [0039]; “In a normal operation mode, an AP can negotiate the TWT schedules with its IoT clients, and at the beginning of each TWT window, either send downlink communication to the client” – See [0040]; The AP transmits data to the client/STA during a transmission opportunity based on a TWT schedule between the first AP and the STA), and
receive, from the first STA, an interference notification message that includes an indication that the first STA has detected interference with the traffic transmission caused by transmissions between a second STA and a second AP in the MAP coordinating set of APs (“In particular, the first AP 304a can determine that the devices of the second BSS 302b generate strong interference in the first BSS 302a. The second AP 304b of the second BSS 302b can also determine that devices of the first BSS 302a generate strong interference in the second BSS 302a. In FIG. 4A, one process for determining whether (and which) clients of an OBSS are nearby and generate strong interference on BSS signals within a BSS is shown. In particular, and as shown, the second station 308a of the second BSS 302b may generate a signal 402 that causes interference in communications of the first BSS 302a. To identify the signal 402, the second AP 304b may receive a beacon report 404 from the second station 308a that indicates that second station 308a hears (or is within proximity to) the first AP 304a” – See [0048]; See also Fig. 4A; The first AP 304a receives, from the first STA 306a, an interference report indicating that the first STA 306a has detected interference caused by transmissions between second STA 308a and second AP 304b);
a backhaul interface configured to: transmit, to the second AP, a MAP coordination announcement that includes (ii) the parameters of the first TWT operation (“the first AP 304a can share with the second AP 304b data 408 indicative of a TWT schedule of the first AP 304a. The sharing of schedule may be performed over wired backhaul or over the air” – See [0050]; The first AP includes a backhaul interface with the second AP, wherein the first AP transmits, via the backhaul interface, a coordination announcement that includes parameters for the TWT schedule/operation).
Monajemi does not explicitly teach that the MAP coordination announcement includes an indication that the first AP has obtained the TXOP, and receiving, from the second AP, a MAP coordination response that indicates capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination, wherein the MAP coordination response includes parameters of a second TWT operation between the second STA and the second AP and wherein information on the first SP is included in the parameters of the first TWT operation and information on a second SP is included in the parameters of the second TWT operation; and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver and the backhaul interface, the processor configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination response: whether to perform MAP coordination with the second AP during the TXOP, or whether to modify the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the interference notification message.
However, Chitrakar teaches that the MAP coordination announcement includes an indication that the first AP has obtained the TXOP, (“In an embodiment, individual Target Wake Time (TWT) agreement may be negotiated as Coordinated SPs between APs. A Requesting AP may act as a TWT Requester STA, and a Responding AP may act as a TWT Responder STA. Referring to FIG. 9, STA1-1 and STA1-2 are associated with AP1, STA2-1 and STA2-2 are associated with AP2, and STA3-1 is associated with AP3. Individual TWT agreements may be negotiated as Coordinated SPs 902 between the APs” – See [0077]; “For example, based on the report, AP3's buffered traffic is much less than that of AP2, so AP1 decides to share the TXOP with AP2, and thus transmits a MAP TF 1108 to AP2 to indicate AP1's intention to share the TXOP with AP2 and the related transmission parameters such as the RU assigned to AP2” – See [0080]; See also Fig. 2; The MAP coordination announcement transmitted from AP1 (first AP) to AP2 (second AP) includes an indication of the AP1’s intention to share a TXOP that it has obtained),
wherein the first AP receives, from the second AP, a MAP coordination response that indicates capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination wherein the MAP coordination response includes parameters of a second TWT operation between the second STA and the second AP and wherein information on the first SP is included in the parameters of the first TWT operation and information on a second SP is included in the parameters of the second TWT operation (“Coordinated SP Response frame 1800 may include a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; “receive a response frame from the second AP, the response frame indicating acceptance of the request to setup one or more Coordinated SPs; wherein the transmitter 3502 may be further configured to transmit frames to one or more associated STAs to setup Scheduled SPs that overlap with the Coordinated SPs” – See [0136]; “a TWT Setup frame 1000 for TWT Request/Response that are used to setup coordinated SPs” – See [0078]; “TWT Setup frames may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs. Referring to an example TWT Setup frame 1900 of FIG. 19 that may be utilized for TWT Request and Response to setup Multi-AP Coordinated TWT SPs, TWT Setup frame 1900 may include one or more TWT Element fields 1902 which include a Coordinated SP Type field 1904 for specifying the Multi-AP Coordination scheme and/or allowed traffic type” – See [0088]; See also Fig. 15; Parameters of a first TWT SP operation 1502 are included in TWT setup request/response frames for TWT SP1 negotiation and parameters of a second TWT SP operation 1504 are included in TWT setup request/response frames for TWT SP2 negotiation); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver and the backhaul interface, the processor configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination response: whether to perform MAP coordination with the second AP during the TXOP, or whether to modify the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the interference notification message (“Coordinated SP Response frame 1800 may include a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; “receive a response frame from the second AP, the response frame indicating acceptance of the request to setup one or more Coordinated SPs; wherein the transmitter 3502 may be further configured to transmit frames to one or more associated STAs to setup Scheduled SPs that overlap with the Coordinated SPs” – See [0136]; When the response indicates that AP2 has accepted the coordination request, AP1 performs MAP coordination by scheduling communications with the STAs in accordance with the negotiated schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Monajemi such that the MAP coordination announcement includes an indication that the first AP has obtained the TXOP, and receiving, from the second AP, a MAP coordination response that indicates capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination, wherein the MAP coordination response includes parameters of a second TWT operation between the second STA and the second AP and wherein information on the first SP is included in the parameters of the first TWT operation and information on a second SP is included in the parameters of the second TWT operation; and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver and the backhaul interface, the processor configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination response: whether to perform MAP coordination with the second AP during the TXOP, or whether to modify the parameters of the first TWT operation based on the interference notification message. Motivation for doing so would be to enable TXOPs to be shared among multiple APs (See Chitrakar, [0080]).
Monajemi does not explicitly teach that the parameters of the second TWT operation have been modified based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation.
However, Cariou teaches that the parameters of the second TWT operation have been modified based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation (“For that reason, if 2 TWT SPs from 2 neighbor APs have to be scheduled at the same time, the following may be done: Negotiate a way for the APs to share the resources of a TxOP: TDMA or FDMA/OFDMA during the TxOP within that SP; Negotiation would start by recognizing that there are 2 overlapping TWT SPs, and coordinate only during these TWT SPs” – See [0019]; “a multi-AP coordination negotiation for an overlapping TWT SP between 2 APs could looks as follows: Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP request frame; and Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP response frame. In some embodiments, an AP1 with TWT SP1 that overlap (partially or completely) with TWT SP2 of AP2. The AP1 can send a Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP request frame to the other AP2. The request frame may include: A TWT element defining the TWT SP1 that is overlapping with TWT SP2, possibly also a TWT element defining the TWT SP2; possibly instead a TWT SP that has the soonest start time and the latest end time among the start times and end times of both TWT SP1 and SP2” – See [0022]; “decode a multi-AP coordination within TWT SP response frame from the AP2 indicating whether the AP2 will agree to share the resources of the TxOP during the overlapping TWT SP, whether the AP2 has agreed to the proposed terms or whether the AP2 is proposing different terms for sharing resources under the negotiated agreement” – See [0009]; “the response can include a TWT element with different parameters or same parameters, can include another proposed mode of operation or the same, and includes a field to indicate if the agreement is agreed, rejected, amended” – See [0024]; A Multi-AP coordination response frame includes parameters of a second TWT operation corresponding to a second AP, wherein the parameters include different/amended (i.e., modified) parameters that the second AP is proposing during the coordination/negotiation, wherein the modification of the parameters is based on a partial or complete overlap between the first SP and the second SP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Monajemi such that the parameters of the second TWT operation have been modified based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the second AP to propose alternative terms for sharing resources when an overlap between the first and second SPs is identified (See Cariou, [0009] and [0024]).
Regarding Claim 2, Monajemi in view of Chitrakar and Cariou teaches the first AP of Claim 1. Chitrakar further teaches that the MAP coordination response includes an indication that the second AP declines to participate in MAP coordination, and the processor is further configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination response, not to perform MAP coordination with the second AP (“a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; The response may indicate that the request was rejected and on the second AP will not perform coordination).
Regarding Claim 6, Monajemi in view of Chitrakar and Cariou teaches the first AP of Claim 1. Chitrakar further teaches that the first TWT operation corresponds to a restricted TWT schedule (“Enhanced TWP SPs may also be known as Restricted TWT SPs since transmission of traffic types of Traffic IDs (TID) other than the ones allowed by the TWT SPs are restricted during the TWT SPs” – See [0055]),
the transceiver is further configured to exchange latency-sensitive traffic with the first STA during restricted TWT operation in a restricted TWT SP based on the restricted TWT schedule (“AP 102 may transmit a Beacon frame 109 to advertise existence of Enhanced TWT SPs 121, 129, where only low latency traffic is allowed in the Enhanced TWT SPs 121, 129. Any STAs, which need to access channel during the Enhanced TWT SPs 121, 129, such as STA1 104, may then negotiate membership for the Enhanced TWT SPs 121, 129 with AP 102” – See [0051]), and
the backhaul interface is further configured to:
transmit, to the second AP, the parameters corresponding to the restricted TWT schedule and a request for the second AP to establish a quiet interval in the second AP’s basic service set (BSS) for the second STA during restricted TWT SPs corresponding to the restricted TWT schedule (“AP2 may request Enhanced TWT information of AP1 and AP3 by transmitting a SP Info Request 2402 to AP1 and a SP Info Request 2404 to AP3 respectively” – See [0100]; The AP transmits parameters corresponding to the restricted TWT to the second AP in the form of a request to establish a quiet interval where each AP’s restricted TWTs do not overlap); and
receive, from the second AP, a response indicating whether or not the second AP will establish the quiet interval during the restricted SPs, during which transmissions will not be allowed for the second STA (“AP1 and AP3 gathers information of AP2's enhanced TWT SPs for low latency either by passively listening to AP2's Beacon frames or through exchange of SP Info Request/Response frames” – See [0107]; The first AP receives a response indicating restricted TWTs to coordinate quiet intervals).
Regarding Claim 7, Monajemi in view of Chitrakar and Cariou teaches the first AP of Claim 6. Chitrakar further teaches that the response from the second AP indicates that the second AP will establish a deprioritized quiet interval in the second AP’s BSS during the restricted TWT SPs, during which transmissions in the second AP’s BSS will not be allowed for the second STA upon fulfillment of some predetermined conditions by the second STA (“the first APs requesting to join the TWT SP are the TWT Requesting STAs (or TWT Scheduled STA) while the second AP accepting the request is the TWT Responding STA (or TWT Scheduling STA)” – See [0108]; “Enhanced TWP SPs may also be known as Restricted TWT SPs since transmission of traffic types of Traffic IDs (TID) other than the ones allowed by the TWT SPs are restricted during the TWT SPs. In order to further restrict legacy STAs from transmitting during the Enhanced TWT SPs, the AP may further transmit Quiet element/Quiet Channel element to schedule quiet intervals that overlap with the Enhanced TWT SPs” – See [0055]; The response indicates that the second AP accepts the request to establish the quiet interval where low-priority traffic is not allowed).
Claim 15 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2024/0098712) in view of Cariou et al. (EP 3820225 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chitrakar teaches a second wireless access point (AP) device in a multi-AP (MAP) coordinating set of APs (“STA2-1 and STA2-2 are associated with AP2 (BSS2), while STA1-1 and STA1-2 are associated with AP1 (BSS1)” – See [0068]; AP2 (second AP) is in is coordinating set with AP1), the second AP comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit traffic to a second station (STA) in a second target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) based on parameters of a second TWT operation between the second AP and the second STA (“Once the Coordinated TWT SPs have been negotiated … AP2 transmits to STA1-1 and STA2-1” – See [0077]; AP2 transmits traffic to STA2-1 (second STA) in a TWT operation);
a backhaul interface configured to:
receive, from a first AP, a MAP coordination announcement that includes (i) an indication that the first AP has obtained a TXOP and (ii) parameters of a first TWT operation between the first AP and a first STA, and transmit, to the first AP, a MAP coordination response that indicates capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination (“In an embodiment, individual Target Wake Time (TWT) agreement may be negotiated as Coordinated SPs between APs. A Requesting AP may act as a TWT Requester STA, and a Responding AP may act as a TWT Responder STA. Referring to FIG. 9, STA1-1 and STA1-2 are associated with AP1, STA2-1 and STA2-2 are associated with AP2, and STA3-1 is associated with AP3. Individual TWT agreements may be negotiated as Coordinated SPs 902 between the APs” – See [0077]; “For example, based on the report, AP3's buffered traffic is much less than that of AP2, so AP1 decides to share the TXOP with AP2, and thus transmits a MAP TF 1108 to AP2 to indicate AP1's intention to share the TXOP with AP2 and the related transmission parameters such as the RU assigned to AP2” – See [0080]; See also Fig. 2; The MAP coordination announcement received by AP2 (second AP) from AP1 (first AP) includes parameters of a first TWT operation and an indication of the AP1’s intention to share a TXOP that it has obtained),
wherein information on a first SP is included in the parameters of the first TWT operation and information on a second SP is included in the parameters of the second TWT operation (“a TWT Setup frame 1000 for TWT Request/Response that are used to setup coordinated SPs” – See [0078]; “TWT Setup frames may be used to negotiate the Coordinated SPs. Referring to an example TWT Setup frame 1900 of FIG. 19 that may be utilized for TWT Request and Response to setup Multi-AP Coordinated TWT SPs, TWT Setup frame 1900 may include one or more TWT Element fields 1902 which include a Coordinated SP Type field 1904 for specifying the Multi-AP Coordination scheme and/or allowed traffic type” – See [0088]; See also Fig. 15; Parameters of a first TWT SP operation 1502 are included in TWT setup request/response frames for TWT SP1 negotiation and parameters of a second TWT SP operation 1504 are included in TWT setup request/response frames for TWT SP2 negotiation); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver and the backhaul interface, the processor configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination (“Coordinated SP Response frame 1800 may include a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; “receive a response frame from the second AP, the response frame indicating acceptance of the request to setup one or more Coordinated SPs; wherein the transmitter 3502 may be further configured to transmit frames to one or more associated STAs to setup Scheduled SPs that overlap with the Coordinated SPs” – See [0136]; AP2 determines to accept the request (i.e., capabilities of the second AP pertaining to its participation in the MAP coordination) and sends a response indicating acceptance and that it is capable of participation in the coordination).
Chitrakar does not explicitly teach modifying, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the parameters of the second TWT operation based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation.
However, Cariou teaches modifying, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the parameters of the second TWT operation based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation (“For that reason, if 2 TWT SPs from 2 neighbor APs have to be scheduled at the same time, the following may be done: Negotiate a way for the APs to share the resources of a TxOP: TDMA or FDMA/OFDMA during the TxOP within that SP; Negotiation would start by recognizing that there are 2 overlapping TWT SPs, and coordinate only during these TWT SPs” – See [0019]; “a multi-AP coordination negotiation for an overlapping TWT SP between 2 APs could looks as follows: Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP request frame; and Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP response frame. In some embodiments, an AP1 with TWT SP1 that overlap (partially or completely) with TWT SP2 of AP2. The AP1 can send a Multi-AP coordination within TWT SP request frame to the other AP2. The request frame may include: A TWT element defining the TWT SP1 that is overlapping with TWT SP2, possibly also a TWT element defining the TWT SP2; possibly instead a TWT SP that has the soonest start time and the latest end time among the start times and end times of both TWT SP1 and SP2” – See [0022]; “decode a multi-AP coordination within TWT SP response frame from the AP2 indicating whether the AP2 will agree to share the resources of the TxOP during the overlapping TWT SP, whether the AP2 has agreed to the proposed terms or whether the AP2 is proposing different terms for sharing resources under the negotiated agreement” – See [0009]; “the response can include a TWT element with different parameters or same parameters, can include another proposed mode of operation or the same, and includes a field to indicate if the agreement is agreed, rejected, amended” – See [0024]; The second AP modifies the parameters of the second TWT operation to include different/amended parameters that the second AP is proposing during the coordination/negotiation, wherein the modification of the parameters is based on a partial or complete overlap between the first SP and the second SP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar to include modifying, based on the MAP coordination announcement, the parameters of the second TWT operation based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation. Motivation for doing so would be to enable the second AP to propose alternative terms for sharing resources when an overlap between the first and second SPs is identified (See Cariou, [0009] and [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9, Chitrakar in view of Cariou teaches the second AP of Claim 8. Chitrakar further teaches that the processor is further configured to determine, based on the MAP coordination announcement, that the second AP is not capable of performing MAP coordination with the first AP, and the MAP coordination response includes an indication that the second AP declines to participate in MAP coordination (“a Status field 1802 that may indicate whether the request was accepted or rejected” – See [0086]; When the second AP is not capable of performing the coordination, the response may indicate that the request was rejected and on the second AP will not perform coordination).
Regarding Claim 13, Chitrakar in view of Cariou teaches the second AP of Claim 8. Chitrakar further teaches that the first TWT operation corresponds to a restricted TWT schedule (“Enhanced TWP SPs may also be known as Restricted TWT SPs since transmission of traffic types of Traffic IDs (TID) other than the ones allowed by the TWT SPs are restricted during the TWT SPs” – See [0055]),
the backhaul interface is further configured to:
receive, from the first AP, the parameters corresponding to the restricted TWT schedule and a request for the second AP to establish a quiet interval in the second AP's basic service set (BSS) for the second STA in restricted TWT SPs corresponding to the restricted TWT schedule (“AP2 may request Enhanced TWT information of AP1 and AP3 by transmitting a SP Info Request 2402 to AP1 and a SP Info Request 2404 to AP3 respectively” – See [0100]; The second AP receives parameters corresponding to the restricted TWT in the form of a request to establish a quiet interval where each AP’s restricted TWTs do not overlap); and
transmit, to the first AP, a response indicating whether or not the second AP will establish the quiet interval during the restricted SPs, during which transmissions will not be allowed for the second STA (“AP1 and AP3 gathers information of AP2's enhanced TWT SPs for low latency either by passively listening to AP2's Beacon frames or through exchange of SP Info Request/Response frames” – See [0107]; The second AP transmits a response indicating restricted TWTs to coordinate quiet intervals).
Regarding Claim 14, Chitrakar in view of Cariou teaches the second AP of Claim 13. Chitrakar further teaches that the response from the second AP indicates that the second AP will establish a deprioritized quiet interval in the second AP's BSS during the restricted TWT SPs, during which transmissions in the second AP's BSS will not be allowed for the second STA upon fulfillment of some predetermined conditions by the second STA (“the first APs requesting to join the TWT SP are the TWT Requesting STAs (or TWT Scheduled STA) while the second AP accepting the request is the TWT Responding STA (or TWT Scheduling STA)” – See [0108]; “Enhanced TWP SPs may also be known as Restricted TWT SPs since transmission of traffic types of Traffic IDs (TID) other than the ones allowed by the TWT SPs are restricted during the TWT SPs. In order to further restrict legacy STAs from transmitting during the Enhanced TWT SPs, the AP may further transmit Quiet element/Quiet Channel element to schedule quiet intervals that overlap with the Enhanced TWT SPs” – See [0055]; The response indicates that the second AP accepts the request to establish the quiet interval where low-priority traffic is not allowed).
Response to Arguments
On pages 17-20 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Chitrakar and Monajemi do not teach “the parameters of the second TWT operation have been modified based on the parameters of the first TWT operation based on an extent of overlap between the second SP of the second TWT operation and the first SP of the first TWT operation,” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection. In response to the amended limitations, the Examiner relies upon the newly-cited Cariou reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478