DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 12, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 17; they are not persuasive.
First argument,
The Office Action equates transmitting the full-duplex trigger frame as disclosed in Oteri to sending a first control message as recited in the claims. See Office Action, pages 2-3. However, in contrast to the claims, Oteri does not state that the full-duplex trigger frame is sent in response to the AP determining the channel is idle. Instead, Oteri describes that the AP performs a channel access procedure that includes "Once the AP 1114 receives a CTS 1109 from STA C 1102 c, the AP may recognize that: (1) STA C 1102 c can receive data from the AP 1114; and (2) STA C is FD compatible. [...] The AP 1114 may then send an FD trigger frame 1120 to STA A 1102 a and STA C 1102 c to enable the synchronized start for UL data transmission 1130 (i.e. STAA 1102 a to AP 1114) and the DL data transmission 1125 (i.e. AP 1114 to STA C 1102 c)." Oteri, paras. 0139-140, see also paras. 0143-0144 "Once the AP 1214 receives a CTS 1209 from STA A [...] then send an FD trigger frame 1220". Thus, Oteri discloses that the AP sends an FD trigger frame "once" (i.e., in response to) receiving a clear-to-send (CTS) frame that indicates the station can receive data from the AP and is full-duplex (FD) compatible, and not in response to determining that the target channel is idle as recited in the claims. Further, as noted in the Office Action, Oteri discloses that the AP or the STA may perform a clear channel assessment (CCA) of the medium using a standard half-duplex transmission prior to initiating full-duplex operation. See Office Action, pages 3-4, and Oteri, para. 0180. However, as stated above, Oteri simply states that a CCA of the medium may be performed prior to initiating full-duplex operation, which means that 1) CCA of the medium is not a required to be performed, and 2) if performed, it is simply performed prior to initiating full-duplex operation. Oteri does not state that a CCA of the medium is what triggers the sending of an FD trigger frame. Instead, as described above, in Oteri, the AP sends an FD trigger frame in response to receiving a CTS frame that indicates the station can receive data from the AP and is FD compatible. Thus, at least based on the above distinction, Oteri fails to teach each and every element of independent claims 1 and 13, and consequently does not anticipate claims 1-6 and 13-16.
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Oteri teaches that the transmissions occur on a channel and in order for the AP to transmit, it has to perform CCA prior to initiating FD transmission (Oteri [0069] and [0180]). Once the AP determines the channel is clear, it may proceed to initiate FD transmission using the FD trigger frame (Oteri [0138] and [0180]). Furthermore, determining whether or not a channel is clear prior to transmission is a procedure well known to a person having ordinary level of skill in the art. Examiner maintains that Oteri anticipates the claim.
Second argument,
Regarding claims 7-12 and 17-20, the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City noted that an obviousness determination begins with a finding that "the prior art as a whole in one form or another contains all" of the elements of the claimed invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 22 (U.S. 1966). Amended independent claim 7 recites:
7. A method implemented by a first device, the method comprising:
receiving, using a target channel, a first control message from an access point (AP) device, wherein the first control message comprises information indicating that the AP device uses a full-duplex mode for data frame transmission and indicating a time period in which the AP device occupies the target channel;
determining, based on the time period, a time for sending a first data frame, wherein the time is in the time period; and sending, using the target channel, the first data frame to the AP device at the time, wherein determining the time for sending the first data frame comprises:
determining, based on the time period, a receiving time at which the AP device completes receiving of the first data frame;
determining a transmission rate of the first data frame on the target channel;
determining a transmission duration of the first data frame on the target channel based on the transmission rate and a data volume of the first data frame;
and obtaining the time by subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time.
(Emphasis added). As shown above, amended claim 7 includes wherein determining the time for sending the first data frame comprises: determining, based on the time period, a receiving time at which the AP device completes receiving of the first data frame; determining a transmission rate of the first data frame on the target channel; determining a transmission duration of the first data frame on the target channel based on the transmission rate and a data volume of the first data frame; and obtaining the time by subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time. Amended independent claim 17 includes similar limitations.
The above recited limitations of independent claims 7 and 17 were previously recited in dependent claims 12 and 20. In rejecting claims 12 and 20, the Office Action asserts that Oteri discloses "determining, based on the time period, a receiving time at which the AP device completes receiving of the first data frame." See Office Action, page 7. In particular, the Office Action cites to the timing information within the trigger frame data transmission end time. Id.
However, the timing information indicates when to start and end overall transmission and does not indicate when the AP device completes receiving the first data frame as recited in the limitation.
For instance, Oteri states "the time information may indicate STAA 1102 a when to initiate the UL data transmission 1130 to the AP 1114 and when to end the UL data transmission 1130. The time information may also indicate STA C 1102 c when to initiate the DL data transmission 1125 from the AP 1114 and when to end the DL data transmission 1125." Oteri, para. 0140, (emphasis added). Disclosing when UL/DL transmission begins and ends does not disclose when the AP device completes receiving the first data frame as recited in the limitation. Thus, Oteri fails to disclose the above limitation.
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The FD trigger frame of Oteri indicates to STA A when to end UL data ends (Oteri [0140]-[0144]). The FD trigger frame may also indicate the data packet size which may be for a single frame (Oteri [0144]). In other words, if single frame transmission occurs, the FD trigger frame would indicate the start time, the duration, and the end time for UL/DL data frames.
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Third argument,
Additionally, the Office Action admits that Oteri and Gu fails to disclose "obtaining the time by subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time" as recited in the claims, but alleges that "equation 1" in Seok cures this defect. See Office Action, page 8. Equation 1 of Seok is shown below:
Duration / ID value = (T data is the actual data transmission time, Tcts is the CTS transmission time, T (block) ack is (block) ack transmission time) Seok, Equation 1. As stated in Seok, "the transmitting end applying the calculating method based on Equation (1) calculates the data size information." Seok, page 3. Equation 1 of Seok does not show subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time to obtain the time for sending the first data frame (e.g., no subtraction is being performed in equation 1).
Thus, Seok 15 does not cure the above deficiency in Oteri and Gu. Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, Oteri in view of Gu and Seok fails to disclose all the limitations of independent claims 7 and 17, and consquently does not render obvious claims 7-12 and 17-20.
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The subtraction element of claims 7 and 17 and is obvious / well-known in the art for one having ordinary level of skill in the art to obtain the frame transmission time by subtracting transmission total frame duration (data transmission duration/packet size in Oteri) from the frame reception time (corresponding to the data transmission end time in Oteri).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Equation 1 in SEOK implies the subtraction for obtaining the sending time.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Oteri et al. (US-20210176033) hereinafter Oteri.
Regarding claim 1,
Oteri teaches a method implemented by an access point (AP) device, the method comprising: determining that a target channel is idle (performing clear channel assessment, CCA, prior to staring full-duplex transmission [0180]); sending a first control message to a first device using the target channel in response to the target channel being idle (full-duplex trigger frame [0120] and [0139]-[0145]; element 910 of Fig. 9; element 1120 of Fig. 11; element 1220 of Fig. 12), wherein the first control message comprises information indicating that the AP device uses a full-duplex mode for data frame transmission (full-duplex trigger frame indicating full-duplex transmission [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0143]-[0145]) and indicating a time period in which the AP device occupies the target channel, and wherein the time period indicates a time for the first device to send a data frame using the target channel (full-duplex trigger including timing information indicating to STA A when to start data transmission and the transmission duration [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0140]-[0145]); and receiving, from the first device after the time, a first data frame using the target channel (STAs transmitting data to AP at a time indicated by the FD trigger frame [0120] and [0145]; element 930 of Fig. 9; element 1130 of Fig. 11; element 1230 of Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 2,
Oteri teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches sending a first acknowledgement (ACK) frame to the first device using the target channel, wherein the first ACK frame acknowledges receipt of the first data frame by the AP (DL ACK frame [0120]-[0121], [0142], and [0146]; element 950 of Fig. 9; element 1045 of Fig. 10; element 1140 of Fig. 11; element 1240 of Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 5,
Oteri teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches sending a second control message to the first device using the target channel in response to the target channel being idle (FD trigger frame switching duplex mode after performing CCA [0173]-[0174] and [0180]), wherein the second control message comprises second information indicating that the AP device uses the full-duplex mode for data frame transmission (full-duplex trigger frame indicating full-duplex transmission [0120], [0139]-[0141], [0143]-[0145], and [0169]-[0174]), indicating the time period (full-duplex trigger including timing information [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0140]-[0145]), and instructing the first device to use a half-duplex mode for data frame transmission with the AP device (FD trigger frame switching to half-duplex mode [0173]-[0174]).
Regarding claim 6,
Oteri teaches all the features of claim 5, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches sending a first acknowledgement (ACK) frame to the first device using a first group of resource units in response to receiving the first data frame (sending DL ACK frame through RUs [0120]-[0121], [0142], and [0146], [0169], and [0174] ;element 950 of Fig. 9; element 1045 of Fig. 10; element 1140 of Fig. 11; element 1240 of Fig. 12), wherein the first group of resource units occupies a part of a bandwidth of the target channel (RUs within channel [0169] and [0174]).
Regarding claim 13 and 16 “AP device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1 and 5 “AP device method”.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri in view of Chu et al. (US 20190104513) hereinafter Chu.
Regarding claim 3,
Oteri teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches wherein the information in the first control message further instructs the first device to use the full-duplex mode for data frame transmission with the AP device (FD trigger indicating the full-duplex transmission [0120]-[0121]), wherein after sending the first control message, the method further comprises: sending a second data frame in the time period using the target channel (transmitting DL data to STA at the time indicated [0120]-[0121] and [0145]; element 920 of Fig. 9; element 1125 of Fig. 11; element 1225 of Fig 12); and receiving a second ACK frame in the time period using the target channel, wherein the second ACK frame acknowledges receipt of the second data frame by the first device (UL ACK [0120]-[0121] and [0140]-[0146]; element 960 of Fig. 9; element 1145 of Fig. 11; element 1245 of Fig 12).
Oteri does not explicitly teach sending to and receiving from the first device a data frame.
Chu teaches sending to and receiving from the first device a data frame (simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission [0006] and [0027]-[0037]; Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chu to the teachings of Oteri. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve throughput (Chu [0003]).
Regarding claim 4,
Oteri and Chu teach all the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Oteri does not explicitly teach receiving the first data frame and the second ACK frame using a first group of resource units; and sending the first ACK frame and the second data frame using a second group of resource units, wherein the first group of resource units and the second group of resource units form the target channel.
Chu teaches receiving the first data frame and the second ACK frame using a first group of resource units (uplink RUs for a station [0031]-[0037]); and sending the first ACK frame and the second data frame using a second group of resource units (downlink RUs for a station [0031]-[0037]), wherein the first group of resource units and the second group of resource units form the target channel (RUs are contained located within channel [0031]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chu to the teachings of Oteri. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve throughput (Chu [0003]).
Claims 14-15 “AP device”, are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 3-4 “AP device method”.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri in view of Gu et al. (US 20050052995 A1) hereinafter Gu in further view of OH SEUNG SEOK et al. (KR 10-1661219 B1) hereinafter SEOK, the English translation of which is attached.
Regarding claim 7,
Oteri teaches a method implemented by a first device, the method comprising: receiving, using a target channel, a first control message from an access point (AP) device (receiving full-duplex trigger frame from AP [0120] and [0139]-[0145]; element 910 of Fig. 9; element 1120 of Fig. 11; element 1220 of Fig. 12), wherein the first control message comprises information indicating that the AP device uses a full- duplex mode for data frame transmission and indicating a time period in which the AP device occupies the target channel (full-duplex trigger frame indicating full-duplex transmission [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0143]-[0145]) and indicating a time period in which the AP device occupies the target channel, and wherein the time period indicates a time for the first device to send a data frame using the target channel (full-duplex trigger including timing information indicating to STA A when to start data transmission and the transmission duration [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0140]-[0145]); determining, based on the time period, a time for sending a first data frame, wherein the time is in the time period (STAs transmitting data to AP based on a time indicated by the FD trigger frame [0120] and [0145]; element 930 of Fig. 9; element 1130 of Fig. 11; element 1230 of Fig. 12), sending, using the target channel, the first data frame to the AP device at the time (STAs transmitting data to AP at a time indicated by the FD trigger frame [0120] and [0145]; element 930 of Fig. 9; element 1130 of Fig. 11; element 1230 of Fig. 12), wherein determining the time for sending the first data frame comprises: determining, based on the time period, a receiving time at which the AP device completes receiving of the first data frame (STA determining based on the timing information within the trigger frame data transmission end time [0120], [0139]-[0141], and [0140]-[0145]); determining, a transmission rate of the first data frame on the target channel (MCS within the trigger frame indicating the transmission rate for data transmission over channel [0140]); determining a transmission duration of the first data frame on the target channel (trigger frame including data transmission start time, data transmission end time, and packet size on specific channel [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0140]-[0145]);
Oteri does not explicitly teach determining a transmission duration based on the transmission rate and a data volume of the first data frame, and obtaining the time by subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time.
Gu teaches determining a transmission duration based on the transmission rate and a data volume of the first data frame (calculating the amount of time necessary to send a packet based on packet size and data rate [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Gu to the teachings of Oteri. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve traffic control (Gu [0015]-[0016]).
Oteri and Gu do not explicitly teach obtaining the time by subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time.
SEOK teaches obtaining the time by subtracting the transmission duration from the receiving time (equation 1, page 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of SEOK to the teachings of Oteri and Gu. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance transmission duration estimation (SEOK page 3, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 8,
Oteri and Gu and SEOK teach all the features of claim 7, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches sending a first acknowledgement (ACK) frame to the first device using the target channel, wherein the first ACK frame acknowledges receipt of the first data frame by the AP (DL ACK frame [0120]-[0121], [0142], and [0146]; element 950 of Fig. 9; element 1045 of Fig. 10; element 1140 of Fig. 11; element 1240 of Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 11,
Oteri and Gu and SEOK teaches all the features of claim 7, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches sending a second control message to the first device using the target channel in response to the target channel being idle (FD trigger frame switching duplex mode after performing CCA [0173]-[0174] and [0180]), wherein the second control message comprises second information indicating that the AP device uses the full-duplex mode for data frame transmission (full-duplex trigger frame indicating full-duplex transmission [0120], [0139]-[0141], [0143]-[0145], and [0169]-[0174]), indicating the time period (full-duplex trigger including timing information [0120], [0139]-[0141] and [0140]-[0145]), and instructing the first device to use a half-duplex mode for data frame transmission with the AP device (FD trigger frame switching to half-duplex mode [0173]-[0174]).
Regarding claims 17 and 19 “first device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 7 and 11 “first device method”, where Oteri teaches the first device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor coupled with the memory executing the instructions (Oteri [0048]-[0057]; Fig. 1B).
Claims 9, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oteri and Gu and SEOK in further view of Chu.
Regarding claim 9,
Oteri and Gu and SEOK teach all the features of claim 8, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches wherein the information in the first control message further instructs the first device to use the full-duplex mode for data frame transmission with the AP device (FD trigger indicating the full-duplex transmission [0120]-[0121]), wherein after sending the first control message, the method further comprises: sending a second data frame in the time period using the target channel (transmitting DL data to STA at the time indicated [0120]-[0121] and [0145]; element 920 of Fig. 9; element 1125 of Fig. 11; element 1225 of Fig 12); and receiving a second ACK frame in the time period using the target channel, wherein the second ACK frame acknowledges receipt of the second data frame by the first device (UL ACK [0120]-[0121] and [0140]-[0146]; element 960 of Fig. 9; element 1145 of Fig. 11; element 1245 of Fig 12).
Oteri and Gu and SEOK do not explicitly teach sending to and receiving from the first device a data frame.
Chu teaches sending to and receiving from the first device a data frame (simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission [0006] and [0027]-[0037]; Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chu to the teachings of Oteri and Gu and SEOK. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve throughput (Chu [0003]).
Regarding claim 10,
Oteri and Gu and SEOK and Chu teaches all the features of claim 9, as outlined above.
Oteri and Gu and SEOK do not explicitly teach receiving the first data frame and the second ACK frame using a first group of resource units; and sending the first ACK frame and the second data frame using a second group of resource units, wherein the first group of resource units and the second group of resource units form the target channel.
Chu teaches receiving the first data frame and the second ACK frame using a first group of resource units (uplink RUs for a station [0031]-[0037]); and sending the first ACK frame and the second data frame using a second group of resource units (downlink RUs for a station [0031]-[0037]), wherein the first group of resource units and the second group of resource units form the target channel (RUs are contained located within channel [0031]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chu to the teachings of Oteri and Gu and SEOK. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve throughput (Chu [0003]).
Regarding claim 12,
Oteri and Gu and SEOK teaches all the features of claim 7, as outlined above.
Oteri further teaches the target channel is a frequency band corresponding to a frequency in the AP device (TXOP having multiple time-frequency Resource Units RUs [0166]-[0173]), wherein the frequency band is divided into a plurality of resource units (RUs) (TXOP having multiple time-frequency Resource Units RUs [0166]-[0173]).
Oteri and Gu and SEOK do not explicitly teach the plurality of RUs is classified into a first group of RUs and a second group of Rus, and wherein sending, using the target channel, the first data frame to the AP device comprises sending the first data frame using the first group of RUs.
Chu teaches the plurality of RUs is classified into a first group of RUs and a second group of Rus (the RUs are divided into uplink and downlink RUs [0031]-[0037]), and wherein sending, using the target channel, the first data frame to the AP device comprises sending the first data frame using the first group of RUs (station using uplink RUs for data transmission [0031]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Chu to the teachings of Oteri and Gu and SEOK. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve throughput (Chu [0003]).
Regarding claims 18 and 20 “first device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 9 and 12 “first device method”, where Oteri teaches the first device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor coupled with the memory executing the instructions (Oteri [0048]-[0057]; Fig. 1B).
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 ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465