DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 16 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been previously cancelled
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 9-11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, the examiner does not rely on Nayak, FU nor Kerpez to disclose the amended limitations “wherein the wireless station load comprises airtime consumed over a given channel for each multi-link wireless device associated with a particular access point, and wherein the schedule comprises time slices for a given access point on each channel of a plurality of channels” and “wherein the coordination is developed based on the determined wireless station load and schedule such that target wake times on the first access point radio and the second access point radio are coordinated to ensure at least one access point radio is available to the one or more multi-link wireless devices at any given time”.
Instead, the examiner has introduced Kneckt to disclose the amended limitations, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant states the same arguments as that of claim 1 for independent claims 16 and 20, as well as, all corresponding dependent claims (see applicant’s remarks; pages 11 and 12). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1, applies equally as well to claims 16 and 20, and all corresponding dependent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or” and “one of either”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerpez et al. (U.S. 2019/0159068 A1) in view of Nayak et al. (U.S. 2023/0073868 A1) and FU et al. (U.S. 2024/0215092 A1), and further in view of Kneckt et al. (U.S. 2024/0015649 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20, Kerpez discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a process, wireless station load and schedule of two or more access point radios (see Kerpez; paragraphs 0073, 0083, 0084, and 0094-0096; Kerpez discloses a station, e.g. STA, i.e. “wireless station”, may be provided with multiple access points, e.g. APs. The STA switches and connects to multiple APs in a radio connection, i.e. “two or more access point radios” to implement within timeslots fulfillment of a determined scheduling and load balancing strategy, i.e. “determining…wireless station load and schedule…”);
developing, by the process, a coordination between the two or more access point radios to limit downtime for one or more multi-link wireless devices capable of multi- link operation on two or more channels (see Kerpez; paragraphs 0047, 0074, 0094, 0096 and 0101; Kerpez discloses a traffic coordinator managing the flow of packets by apportioning time-slots for the respective STAs, which includes multihop radio connections among STAs that allow the APs to form a multihop network, i.e. “developing…a coordination between the two or more access point radios”, so that bottlenecks can be routed, i.e. “limit downtime” by routing from bottlenecks. Further, link capacities for each STA, i.e. “multi-link wireless devices”, are determined and link settings are controlled which includes channel selection in order to use channels with the least interference, i.e. “capable of multi- link operation on two or more channels”).
While Kerpez discloses “developing, by the process, a coordination between the two or more access point radios to limit downtime for one or more multi-link wireless devices capable of multi- link operation on two or more channels”, as discussed above, Kerpez does not explicitly disclose wherein developing the coordination comprises coordinating the two or more access point radios to dynamically signal availability and unavailability during operation such that when a first access point radio becomes unavailable on a first channel, the first access point radio signals unavailability to the one or more multi-link wireless devices while a second access point radio concurrently signals availability to the one or more multi-link wireless devices.
In analogous art, Nayak discloses wherein developing the coordination comprises coordinating the two or more access point radios to dynamically signal availability and unavailability during operation such that when a first access point radio becomes unavailable on a first channel, the first access point radio signals unavailability to the one or more multi-link wireless devices while a second access point radio concurrently signals availability to the one or more multi-link wireless devices (see Nayak; paragraphs 0064 and 0141; Nayak discloses negotiating coordination of data transmission between AP1 and AP2. AP1 may be muted, i.e. “first access point radio becomes unavailable”, on a first link while AP2 is unmuted, i.e. “while a second access point radio concurrently signals availability”. Information elements are generated and sent indicating unavailability of a first AP on a first link and availability of a second AP on a second link to a first and second STA, i.e. “dynamically signal availability…while a second access point radio concurrently signals availability to the one or more multi-link wireless devices”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kerpez and Nayak because they both disclose features for determining load for a STA and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Nayak’s coordinating association between links into the system of Kerpez in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the determination of capacity for each link and load of each STA (see Kerpez; paragraph 0100) to further include switching links to enhance the achieved throughput (see Nayak; paragraph 0061).
While Kerpez discloses a multihop environment and “multi-link wireless devices”, as discussed above, Kerpez and Nayak does not explicitly disclose causing, by the process, the one or more multi-link wireless devices to move between access point radios based on the wireless station load and schedule and according to the coordination.
In analogous art, FU discloses causing, by the process, the one or more multi-link wireless devices to move between access point radios based on the wireless station load and schedule and according to the coordination (see FU; paragraphs 0043, 0048, and 0066-0068; FU discloses a multi-link device, e.g. MLD, may switch among a plurality of links between VAPs, e.g. virtual access points, on a radio band, i.e. “access point radios”, based on load-balancing and a schedule process, i.e. “load and schedule”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kerpez, Nayak and FU because they all disclose features for determining load for a STA and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate FU’s multi-link operation into the combined system of Kerpez and Nayak in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the determination of capacity for each link and load of each STA (see Kerpez; paragraph 0100) to further include switching links based on load-balancing (see FU; paragraphs 0043 and 0048).
While Kerpez discloses “determining…wireless station load and schedule”, and Nayak discloses “…coordinating the two or more access point radios…”, as discussed above, the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless station load comprises airtime consumed over a given channel for each multi-link wireless device associated with a particular access point and wherein the schedule comprises time slices for a given access point on each channel of a plurality of channels; and wherein the coordination is developed based on the determined wireless station load and schedule such that target wake times on the first access point radio and the second access point radio are coordinated to ensure at least one access point radio is available to the one or more multi-link wireless devices at any given time.
In analogous art, Kneckt discloses wherein the wireless station load comprises airtime consumed over a given channel for each multi-link wireless device associated with a particular access point (see Kneckt; paragraphs 0053, 0169-0171; Kneckt discloses links can include different wireless channels and determining a duration of time for transmission between an AP, i.e. “access point”, and STA, i.e. “multi-link wireless device”, over a link/channel corresponding to air time being wasted, i.e. “airtime consumed over a given channel…”), and wherein the schedule comprises time slices for a given access point on each channel of a plurality of channels (see Kneckt; paragraphs 0040, 0041 and 0053; Kneckt discloses a TWT scheme for the AP to negotiate and/or define a specific time or a set of times for a station to access the channel. The TWT scheme includes time windows for scheduled service periods, i.e. “time slices for a given access point on each channel…”); and
wherein the coordination is developed based on the determined wireless station load and schedule such that target wake times on the first access point radio and the second access point radio are coordinated to ensure at least one access point radio is available to the one or more multi-link wireless devices at any given time (see Kneckt; paragraphs 0040, 0041, 0091, 0095, 0171, and 0194; Kneckt discloses during the TWT, i.e. “target wake times”, scheme, which includes the schedule time periods based on duration of transmission and air time being used, i.e. “based on the determined wireless station load”, indicating availability for a first AP and a second AP, i.e. “coordinated to ensure at least one access point radio is available to the one or more multi-link wireless devices”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kerpez, Nayak, FU and Kneckt because they all disclose features communication between an AP and wireless device, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kneckt’s target wake time scheme into the combined system of Kerpez, Nayak and FU in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the determination of capacity for each link and load of each STA (see Kerpez; paragraph 0100) to better utilize channel resources and to save power (see Kneckt; paragraph 0038), as well as, stop waste of air time on a link (see Kneckt; paragraph 0171).
Further, Kerpez discloses the additional limitations of claim 16, a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions (see Kerpez; paragraph 0149; Kerpez discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage which stores instructions)
Further, Kerpez discloses the additional limitations of claim 20, one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network (see Kerpez; paragraph 0019; Kerpez discloses wireless communication interfaces); a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (see Kerpez; paragraph 0019; Kerpez discloses a processor coupled with the wireless communication interfaces); and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor (see Kerpez; paragraph 0019; Kerpez discloses a memory to store instructions for the processor).
Regarding claim 5, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the two or more access point radios comprise two or more radios on a single access point (see FU; paragraphs 0017 and 0018; FU discloses multiple radios on a single VAP, i.e. “access point”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the two or more access point radios comprise a single access point radio on each of two or more access points (see FU; paragraphs 0017 and 0018; FU discloses a radio for each VAP, i.e. “on each of two or more access points” ).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein causing the one or more multi-link wireless devices to move between access point radios comprises: setting a target wake time for at least one access point (see FU; paragraphs 0031, 0034, 0042, 0043 and 0068; FU discloses a one-bit field contained in a request to establish two or more links on the same radio band so the MLD, i.e. “multi-link wireless device”, can switch, i.e. “move between access point…” based on a first and second time period, i.e. “setting a target wake time” for the VAP).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses determining that a particular multi-link wireless device of the one or more multi- link wireless devices is a candidate to move based on a load balancing operation (see FU; paragraphs 0031, 0034, 0043 and 0048; FU discloses a one-bit, i.e. “sleep bit”, field contained in a request to establish two or more links on the same radio band so the MLD, i.e. “multi-link wireless device”, can switch, i.e. “move between access point…” based on load-balancing).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the wireless station load comprises airtime consumed over a given channel for each multi-link wireless device associated with a particular access point (see FU; paragraph 0060; FU discloses considering the transmission duration of the packet being transmitted on the inference link, the traffic flow between the MLDs may be distributed to the multiple links on the different radio bands accurately, thereby improving airtime fairness, i.e. “airtime consumed over a given channel”, and utility of the multiple links of the MLDs).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the schedule comprises time slices for a given access point on each channel of a plurality of channels in response to that given access point hops between channels (see Kerpez; paragraphs 0078, 0079 and 0083; Kerpez discloses relaying optimized vectors to each STA and AP, then assigning each transmission a path and timeslots, i.e. “time slices”, such that the total traffic matches the optimal schedules).
Regarding claim 12, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the process is performed by one of: an access point (see Kerpez; paragraph 0043; Kerpez discloses network access points), a virtual access point (see FU; paragraph 0012; FU discloses corresponding virtual access points), or a wireless local area network controller (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “access point” and “virtual access point” alternatives).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses determining the wireless station load and schedule of the two or more access point radios based on an exchange between the two or more access point radios (see Kerpez; paragraphs 0083, 0084, 0086 and 0087; Kerpez discloses the STA switches and connects to multiple APs in a radio connection, i.e. “two or more access point radios” to implement within timeslots fulfillment of a determined scheduling and load balancing strategy on an assessment of historic traffic data, i.e. “based on an exchange between two or more access point radios”).
Regarding claim 14, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses determining the wireless station load and schedule of two or more access point radios based on an exchange from the two or more access point radios to a wireless local area network controller (see Kerpez; paragraphs 0083, 0084, and 0086-0088; Kerpez discloses the STA switches and connects to multiple APs in a radio connection, i.e. “two or more access point radios” to implement within timeslots fulfillment of a determined scheduling and load balancing strategy on an assessment of historic traffic data, i.e. “based on an exchange between two or more access point radios” to a network connection, i.e. “wireless local area network”).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the access point radios are deployed with an access point that is configured as a virtual access point (see FU; paragraph 0012; FU discloses corresponding virtual access points).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses wherein the two or more access point radios comprise one of either: two or more radios on a single access point (see FU; paragraphs 0017 and 0018; FU discloses multiple radios on a single VAP, i.e. “access point”), or a single access point radio on each of two or more access points (see FU; paragraphs 0017 and 0018; FU discloses a radio for each VAP, i.e. “…on each of two or more access points” ) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “access point” and “virtual access point” alternatives).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, Kerpez, Nayak and FU disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak and FU clearly discloses determining that a particular channel of the two or more channels meets a data traffic criterion (see Nayak; paragraph 0061; Nayak discloses determining a link out of two links is heavily loaded, i.e. “a particular channel of the two or more channels meets a data traffic criterion”); and
in response to determining that the particular channel meets the data traffic criterion, instructing at least one multi-link wireless device of the one or more multi-link wireless devices to increase usage of a different channel of the two or more channels assigned to the at least one multi-link wireless device (see Nayak; paragraphs 0061 and 0064; Nayak discloses based on a link-1 being heavily loaded, i.e. “determining that the particular channel meets the data traffic criterion”, switching to link-2. In particular, link-1 is muted while link-2 is not muted, i.e. “increase usage of a different channel”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 1.
Claims 2-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerpez et al. (U.S. 2019/0159068 A1) in view of Nayak et al. (U.S. 2023/0073868 A1), FU et al. (U.S. 2024/0215092 A1) and Kneckt et al. (U.S. 2024/0015649 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KO et al. (U.S. 2025/0142638 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Kerpez, Nayak, FU and Kneckt disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, as discussed above. While the combination of Kerpez, Nayak, FU and Kneckt disclose a “multi-link wireless device”, as discussed above, the combination of Kerpez, Nayak, FU and Kneckt does not explicitly disclose wherein a particular multi-link wireless device of the one or more multi-link wireless devices is associated to a first radio with a first BSSID and a second radio with a second BSSID, the method further comprising: communicating, by a first access point, a first BSSID on a third radio channel to the particular multi-link wireless device; communicating, by a second access point, a command to instruct the particular multi-link wireless device to look for a second BSSID on the third radio channel; and scanning, by the particular multi-link wireless device and while in communication with the first access point, to locate the second BSSID on the third radio channel and connect thereto.
In analogous art, KO discloses wherein a particular multi-link wireless device of the one or more multi-link wireless devices is associated to a first radio with a first BSSID and a second radio with a second BSSID (see KO; paragraph 0569; KO discloses a MLD, multi-link device is associated with BSSIDs of a AP and another AP. In other words, one AP, i.e. “first radio”, has one BSSID, i.e. “first BSSID”, and another AP, i.e. “second radio”, has another BSSID, i.e. “second BSSID” , the method further comprising:
communicating, by a first access point, a first BSSID on a third radio channel to the particular multi-link wireless device (see KO; paragraphs 0135, 0138, and 0384; KO discloses the use of a plurality of channels, i.e. “third radio channel”. A multi-link device may operate on multiple channels. And an AP transmits multiple BSSIDs, i.e. “a first BSSID”);
communicating, by a second access point, a command to instruct the particular multi-link wireless device to look for a second BSSID on the third radio channel (see KO; paragraphs 0384 and 0386; KO discloses multiple APs and a second AP, i.e. “second access point”, transmits a BSSID in a multi-BSSID set, i.e. “a second BSSID”); and
scanning, by the particular multi-link wireless device and while in communication with the first access point, to locate the second BSSID on the third radio channel and connect thereto (see KO; paragraph 0094, 0095, 0138, 0384 and 0386; KO discloses performing scanning by the MLD in communication with an AP, i.e. “first access point”, on a channel out of multiple channels, i.e. “third radio channel” to find a BSSID, i.e. “second BSSID”, from the multi-BSSID set).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kerpez, Nayak, FU, Kneckt and KO because they all disclose features link management in wireless communication and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate KO’s multi-link operation into the combined system of Kerpez, Nayak, FU and Kneckt in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the determination of capacity for each link of each STA (see Kerpez; paragraph 0100) to further include reporting APs that belong to multiple BSSID (see KO; paragraph 0384).
Regarding claim 3, Kerpez, Nayak, FU, Kneckt and KO disclose all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak, FU, Kneckt and KO clearly discloses communicating, by the first access point, the first BSSID on the third radio channel to the particular multi-link wireless device using a neighbor report message (see KO; paragraphs 0352, 0383 and 0384; KO discloses transmitting, by a first AP, a reduced neighbor report to the MLD, i.e. “multi-link wireless device”, including the BSSID, i.e. “the first BSSID”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Kerpez, Nayak, FU, Kneckt and KO disclose all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and further the combination of Kerpez, Nayak, FU, Kneckt and KO clearly discloses communicating, by the second access point, the command to instruct the particular multi-link wireless device to look for the second BSSID on the third radio channel using a request to roam message (see KO; paragraphs 0383-0386; KO discloses an AP, i.e. “second access point”, instructs the MLD to get the BSSID from the multiple BSSID set).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ratman et al. (U.S. 2024/0365379 A1) discloses multi-AP coordination where there can be a defined periodic interval called a negotiation service period.
Vaidya et al. (U.S. 2024/0306196 A1) discloses a first wireless access point supports load balancing via channel quality assessment.
Huang et al. (U.S. 2024/0098560 A1) discloses a controller may identify a particular multi-link operation (MLO) band and a corresponding AP associated with the particular band based on the band having a highest level of traffic (e.g., used/scheduled airtime) among bands available to the APs in the mesh network.
Kim et al. (U.S. 2023/0115361 A1) discloses setting a target wake time schedule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 06/04/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights