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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4,6,8-11,13-18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 7,12 and 19 have been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-6,8-11,13-18 and 20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1,11 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1,11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIGER et al. (WO 2024/02304, hereinafter referred to as “Viger”) in view of Guignard et al. (GB 2620993 A, hereinafter referred to as “Guignard”).
Regarding Claims 1,11 and 15, Viger discloses an apparatus (i.e. Non-AP MLD) and the methods performed by STA (i.e. Non-AP) MLD (Viger Fig.7 Page:22 Lines:21-30 A Non-AP MLD A, Fig.11a) and AP MLD (Viger Fig.7 Page:22 Lines:21-30 A AP MLD, Fig.11a), to perform, as a first non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD), operations comprising: establishing, multiple links as multi-link direct links with a second non-AP MLD (Viger Fig.7 Page:22 Lines:21-30 A Non-AP MLD A establishes multiple TDLS direct links with non-AP MLD B, Fig.11a Page:33 Lines:10-34); maintaining, a multi-link association with an AP MLD (Viger Fig.11a Page:33 Lines:10-34 The AP MLD is associated with both the non-AP MLDs); and communicating, with the second non-AP MLD over one or more links of the multiple links in a multi-link direct link operation (Viger Fig.11a Page:33 Lines:10-34 Fig.11e Page:37,38 Lines:27-38,1-14 The data frames are exchanged between non-AP MLDs over the direct links), wherein the multi-link direct links comprise at least: a first link between a first non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and a first AP affiliated with the AP MLD (Viger Fig.1,11a A first link between first Non-MLD and AP): and a second link between a second non-AP STA associated with the second non-AP MLD and the first AP affiliated with the AP MLD (Viger Fig.1,11a A second link between second Non-MLD and AP).
Viger does not explicitly disclose wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links comprises establishing a multi-link off-channel direct link between the first non-AP STA affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and the second non-AP STA associated with the second non-AP MLD such that the first link and the second link enter a doze state responsive to the establishing of the multi-link off-channel direct link.
However, Guignard from the same field of invention discloses wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links comprises establishing a multi-link off-channel direct link between the first non-AP STA affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and the second non-AP STA associated with the second non-AP MLD such that the first link and the second link enter a doze state responsive to the establishing of the multi-link off-channel direct link (Guignard Page:2 Lines:20-34 When the TDLS devices (i.e. MLDs) switch to or setup off-channel, the TDLS devices stay in the power save mode (i.e. doze state)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links comprises establishing a multi-link off-channel direct link between the first non-AP STA affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and the second non-AP STA associated with the second non-AP MLD such that the first link and the second link enter a doze state responsive to the establishing of the multi-link off-channel direct link” as taught by Guignard. The motivation would have been for power saving involving off-channel usage improvement (Guignard Page:3).
Specifically for claim 15, Viger discloses the apparatus comprising: a transceiver (Viger Fig.12a Page:38 Lines:15-27 A transceiver)and a processor (Viger Fig.12a Page:38 Lines:15-25 A processor).
Claims 2-4,6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger, Guignard and further in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2021/0007168 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Asterjadhi”).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links comprises negotiating with the second non-AP MLD to utilize one of the multi-link direct links as a primary multi-link direct link, and wherein the primary multi-link direct link is in an active state and one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are in a doze state.
However, Asterjadhi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the establishing of the multi-link direct links as the multi-link direct links comprises negotiating with the second non-AP MLD to utilize one of the multi-link direct links as a primary multi-link direct link, and wherein the primary multi-link direct link is in an active state and one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are in a doze state (Asterjadhi Fig.4C,4D Para[0138,0140] The TWT coordination is used to negotiate TWT schedule for anchor (i.e. primary) and auxiliary links activation and deactivation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links comprises negotiating with the second non-AP MLD to utilize one of the multi-link direct links as a primary multi-link direct link, and wherein the primary multi-link direct link is in an active state and one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are in a doze state” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been for power saving involving activation or deactivation of auxiliary links (Asterjadhi Para[0107]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the communicating with the second non- AP MLD comprises enabling one or more other links of the multi-link direct links to enter the active state in addition to the primary multi-link direct link.
However, Asterjadhi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the communicating with the second non- AP MLD comprises enabling one or more other links of the multi-link direct links to enter the active state in addition to the primary multi-link direct link (Asterjadhi Fig.4C,4D Para[0138,0140] The activation of auxiliary link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the communicating with the second non- AP MLD comprises enabling one or more other links of the multi-link direct links to enter the active state in addition to the primary multi-link direct link” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been for power saving involving activation or deactivation of auxiliary links (Asterjadhi Para[0107]).
Regarding claim 4, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the enabling of the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links comprises: transmitting a request to the second non-AP MLD to request to enable the one or more other links; and receiving a confirmation from the second non-AP MLD.
However, Asterjadhi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the enabling of the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links comprises: transmitting a request to the second non-AP MLD to request to enable the one or more other links; and receiving a confirmation from the second non-AP MLD (Asterjadhi Fig.4A,4C,4D Para[0135,0138,0140] The activation of auxiliary link involves a frame and ACK is received from the non-AP STA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the enabling of the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links comprises: transmitting a request to the second non-AP MLD to request to enable the one or more other links; and receiving a confirmation from the second non-AP MLD” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been for power saving involving activation or deactivation of auxiliary links (Asterjadhi Para[0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are enabled during one or more Target Wake Time (TWT) service periods (SPs).
However, Asterjadhi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are enabled during one or more Target Wake Time (TWT) service periods (SPs) (Asterjadhi Fig.4A,4C,4D Para[0135,0138,0140] The activation of auxiliary link during TWT service period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are enabled during one or more Target Wake Time (TWT) service periods (SPs)” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been for power saving involving activation or deactivation of auxiliary links (Asterjadhi Para[0107]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard, Asterjadhi and further in view of Ryu et al. (US 2024/0422674 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ryu”).
Regarding claim 5, Viger in view of Guignard and Asterjadhi discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard and Asterjadhi does not explicitly disclose wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame.
However, Ryu from the same field of invention discloses wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame (Ryu Para[0064] A TWT setup request and TWT response exchanged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger, Guignard and Asterjadhi to have the feature of “wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame” as taught by Ryu. The motivation would have been for reducing power usage (Ryu Para[0052]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard and further in view of Shafin et al. (US 2021/0007168 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Shafin”).
Regarding claim 8, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links further comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state.
However, Shafin from the same field of invention discloses wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links further comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state (Shafin Para[0064] The MLO link is disabled between STA and AP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the establishing of the multiple links as the multi-link direct links further comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state” as taught by Shafin. The motivation would have been for facilitating the avoidance of potential NSTR constraint violation or overlap caused by TDLS channel switching and link enablement in MLO (Shafin Para[0007]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard and further in view of Viger et al. (GB2620200A, hereinafter referred to as “Viger-2620”).
Regarding claim 9, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the communicating with the second non- AP MLD comprises: enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD signaling to the AP MLD regarding the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links.
However, Viger-2620 from the same field of invention discloses wherein the communicating with the second non- AP MLD comprises: enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD signaling to the AP MLD regarding the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links (Viger-2620 Page:14 Lines:19-29 The EML OM notification is sent by the non-AP MLD to the AP MLD for EMLSR mode on a link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the communicating with the second non- AP MLD comprises: enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD signaling to the AP MLD regarding the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links” as taught by Viger-2620. The motivation would have been for better reception of beacon frames for enhanced link-specific procedure (Viger-2620 Para[0107]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard, Viger-2620 and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0334482 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 10, Viger in view of Guignard and Viger-2620 discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard and Viger-2620 does not explicitly disclose wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state (Kim Para[0111] The links other than the EMLSR link move to the sleep state when EMLSR is activated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger, Guignard and Viger-2620 to have the feature of “wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been for supporting low latency communication (Kim Para[0002]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard and Viger-2620.
Regarding claim 13, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose receiving a signaling from the first non-AP MLD regarding enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD.
However, Viger-2620 from the same field of invention discloses receiving a signaling from the first non-AP MLD regarding enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD (Viger-2620 Page:14 Lines:19-29 The EML OM notification is sent by the non-AP MLD to the AP MLD for EMLSR mode on a link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “receiving a signaling from the first non-AP MLD regarding enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD” as taught by Viger-2620. The motivation would have been for better reception of beacon frames for enhanced link-specific procedure (Viger-2620 Para[0107]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard, Viger-2620 and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 14, Viger in view of Guignard and Viger-2620 discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard and Viger-2620 does not explicitly disclose wherein a link among the multi-link direct links between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD enters a doze state responsive to the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link between the first non-AP MLD and the second non-AP MLD.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses wherein a link among the multi-link direct links between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD enters a doze state responsive to the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link between the first non-AP MLD and the second non-AP MLD (Kim Para[0111] The links other than the EMLSR link move to the sleep state when EMLSR is activated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger, Guignard and Viger-2620 to have the feature of “wherein a link among the multi-link direct links between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD enters a doze state responsive to the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link between the first non-AP MLD and the second non-AP MLD” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been for supporting low latency communication (Kim Para[0002]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard and Asterjadhi and Ryu.
Regarding claim 18, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the enabling of the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links comprises: transmitting a request to the second non-AP MLD to request to enable the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links; and receiving a confirmation from the second non-AP MLD, wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame, and wherein the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are enabled during one or more Target Wake Time (TWT) service periods (SPs).
However, Asterjadhi from the same field of invention discloses wherein the enabling of the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links comprises: transmitting a request to the second non-AP MLD to request to enable the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links; and receiving a confirmation from the second non-AP MLD, and wherein the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are enabled during one or more Target Wake Time (TWT) service periods (SPs) (Asterjadhi Fig.4A,4C,4D Para[0135,0138,0140] The activation of auxiliary link involves a frame and ACK is received from the non-AP STA. The activation of auxiliary link during TWT service period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “wherein the enabling of the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links comprises: transmitting a request to the second non-AP MLD to request to enable the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links ; and receiving a confirmation from the second non-AP MLD, and wherein the one or more other links of the multi-link direct links are enabled during one or more Target Wake Time (TWT) service periods (SPs)” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been for power saving involving activation or deactivation of auxiliary links (Asterjadhi Para[0107]).
Viger in view of Guignard and Asterjadhi does not explicitly disclose wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame.
However, Ryu from the same field of invention discloses wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame (Ryu Para[0064] A TWT setup request and TWT response exchanged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger, Guignard and Asterjadhi to have the feature of “wherein the request comprises a Target Wake Time (TWT) Setup Request frame, and wherein the confirmation comprises a TWT Setup Response frame” as taught by Ryu. The motivation would have been for reducing power usage (Ryu Para[0052]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger in view of Guignard, Viger-2620 and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 20, Viger in view of Guignard discloses the apparatus and the methods as explained above for Claim 1,11 and 15. Viger in view of Guignard does not explicitly disclose wherein the communicating with the second non-AP MLD comprises: enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD; and signaling to the AP MLD regarding the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links, wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state.
However, Viger-2620 from the same field of invention discloses enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD; and signaling to the AP MLD regarding the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links (Viger-2620 Page:14 Lines:19-29 The EML OM notification is sent by the non-AP MLD to the AP MLD for EMLSR mode on a link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger and Guignard to have the feature of “enabling an Enhanced Multi-Link Single-Radio (EMLSR) mode on at least one link of the multi-link direct links established between a non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the first non-AP MLD and an associated non-AP STA affiliated with the second non-AP MLD; and signaling to the AP MLD regarding the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link of the multi-link direct links ” as taught by Viger-2620. The motivation would have been for better reception of beacon frames for enhanced link-specific procedure (Viger-2620 Para[0107]).
Viger in view of Guignard and Viger-2620 does not explicitly disclose wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state (Kim Para[0111] The links other than the EMLSR link move to the sleep state when EMLSR is activated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Viger, Guignard and Viger-2620 to have the feature of “wherein the enabling of the EMLSR mode on the at least one link comprises causing a link between the non-AP STA and an associated AP affiliated with the AP MLD to enter a doze state” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been for supporting low latency communication (Kim Para[0002]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415