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 .
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 4, 21, 26-27, and 32 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 9-20 were cancelled previously.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 4-8 and 21-35 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4-8 and 21-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4-8 and 21-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s other arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 4 and 32, Applicant argues that Viger and Cariou do not teach “the at least one response indicating that a station is attempting to establish, with the apparatus, a low latency multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation.” Applicant also appears to assert that such claim language as amended requires the “at least one response to be from a single station.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “claim 4 requires the at least one response to be from a single station” as is stated at least in the last paragraph on page 6 of Applicant’s arguments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim language instead recites “the at least one response indicating that a station is attempting to establish, with the apparatus, a low latency multilink session,” which does not limit “the at least one response to be from a single station.” With regard to the teachings of the prior art, as can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b of Viger and their corresponding descriptions, STAs may respond to transmitted polling frames (e.g., using NDP) (Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]). NDP is described as being short and as having low and stable latency (Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013]). The AP may thus be interpreted as receiving at least one response to the one or more polling frames, the at least one response indicating that a station is attempting to establish a low latency session with the apparatus. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions (Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]). However, although Viger teaches that the session comprises a multiple tone resource unit (RU) for data transmission (See at least the 26 tone RU in at least Fig. 2; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0265]), Viger does not specifically disclose the session is a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation. Cariou teaches that a station (STA) may establish a multi-band aggregation session (i.e., a multilink session comprising multiple links) with an access point (AP), and as can be seen in at least step 316 of Fig. 3, simultaneous transmission and reception operation is supported (Cariou; Figs. 3-5; [0078]-[0080]). The multi-band aggregation session may thus be interpreted as a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation. Viger and Cariou may thus be interpreted as teaching “the at least one response indicating that a station is attempting to establish, with the apparatus, a low latency multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation.” Viger and Cariou may thus also be interpreted as teaching the substantially similar limitations recited in claim 32.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 and 21-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger et al. (US 2022/0322426, Viger hereinafter) in view of Cariou et al. (US 2018/0184428, Cariou hereinafter). Regarding claim 4, Viger teaches an apparatus comprising a processor (An access point (AP) may be comprised of a processor; Viger; Fig. 4; [0293]) configured to: configure a transceiver to broadcast a configuration that identifies a link of a plurality of links as a control link (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an null-data-packet (NDP) feedback report poll (NRFP) trigger frame comprising configuration information to a plurality of STAs on a primary channel. The AP may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as broadcasting a configuration that identifies a link of a plurality of links as a control link. Additionally, at least an NRFP random access parameter set is described as being defined at the AP for management of the network and transmitted to STAs via beacons (see at least Fig. 8 and its corresponding description). The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]), wherein the control link is used by the apparatus to transmit at least one of control frames, polling frames, data frames, or management frames (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit at least one of control frames, polling frames, data frames, or management frames on the control link (e.g., primary channel); Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]); configure the transceiver to poll one or more associated stations via the control link using one or more polling frames (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an NFRP trigger frame as well as a basic trigger frame for polling STAs on the primary channel. Each of such trigger frames may be interpreted as polling one or more associated stations via the control link using one or more polling frames. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]); and receive at least one response to the one or more polling frames, the at least one response indicating that a station is attempting to establish, with the apparatus, a low latency session (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, STAs may respond to transmitted polling frames (e.g., using NDP). NDP is described as being short and as having low and stable latency. The AP may thus be interpreted as receiving at least one response to the one or more polling frames, the at least one response indicating that a station is attempting to establish a low latency session with the apparatus. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]). However, although Viger teaches that the session comprises a multiple tone resource unit (RU) for data transmission (See at least the 26 tone RU in at least Fig. 2; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0265]), Viger does not specifically disclose the session is a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation. Cariou further teaches the session is a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation (A station (STA) may establish a multi-band aggregation session (i.e., a multilink session comprising multiple links) with an access point (AP), and as can be seen in at least step 316 of Fig. 3, simultaneous transmission and reception operation is supported. The multi-band aggregation session may thus be interpreted as a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation; Cariou; Figs. 3-5; [0078]-[0080]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cariou with the teachings as in Viger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by utilizing multi-band link aggregation, as well as by increasing STA throughput (Cariou; [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0078]-[0080]). Regarding claim 5, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the one or more polling frames are prioritized over other types of frames (Trigger frames (e.g., polling frames) are described as having priority (e.g., over STA transmissions); Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0146], [0153]-[0168]). Regarding claim 6, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the polling occurs periodically (Transmission of at least the NRFP random access parameter set (e.g., polling) is described as being performed periodically. Polling is also described as potentially being performed over multiple transmission opportunities (TXOPs) over time; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0382]-[0383], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 7, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 6. Viger further teaches the processor is further configured to: configure the transceiver to broadcast a polling period to inform the associated stations as to when the polling will occur (At least both trigger frames for polling transmitted during a TXOP (see at least Figs. 2-2b) and the NRFP random access parameter set (see at least Fig. 8) broadcasted periodically may be broadly reasonably interpreted as broadcasting a polling period to inform the associated stations as to when the polling will occur; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0382]-[0383], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 8, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the polling is scheduled by the apparatus (At least both trigger frames for polling transmitted during a TXOP (see at least Figs. 2-2b) and the NRFP random access parameter set (see at least Fig. 8) broadcasted periodically may be broadly reasonably interpreted as scheduling the polling; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0382]-[0383], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 21, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Cariou further teaches the processor is further configured to: select a new control link based on a hopping pattern on a subset of the plurality of links that are supported by the apparatus (Polling information transmitted to stations from an access point (AP) may include frequency hopping parameters. The AP may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as selecting a new control link based on a hopping pattern (e.g., based on the indicated frequency hopping parameters) on a subset of the plurality of links that are supported by the apparatus; Cariou; Fig. 3; [0079]-[0080]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cariou with the teachings as in Viger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by utilizing multi-band link aggregation, as well as by increasing STA throughput (Cariou; [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0078]-[0080]). Regarding claim 22, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the processor is further configured to: access the control link via an enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) mechanism (EDCA is described as potentially using for the polling; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0155]-[0156], [0211], [0220], [0556], [0705]-[0706]). Regarding claim 23, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 22. Viger further teaches a contention window to access the control link via the EDCA mechanism is smaller than contention windows advertised to the associated stations to access the control link (The AP is described as using contention-based EDCA to access the wireless medium (e.g., control link) wherein different devices have different sized contention windows based on priority of the device/traffic. A contention window to access the control link via the EDCA mechanism may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being smaller than contention windows advertised to the associated stations to access the control link; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0104]-[0106], [0155]-[0156], [0211], [0220], [0390]-[0393], [0401]-[0403], [0409]-[0414], [0556], [0705]-[0706]). Regarding claim 24, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the polling is based on a predetermined schedule (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an null-data-packet (NDP) feedback report poll (NRFP) trigger frame comprising configuration information to a plurality of STAs on a primary channel. Additionally, at least an NRFP random access parameter set is described as being defined at the AP for management of the network and transmitted to STAs via beacons (see at least Fig. 8 and its corresponding description). At least such examples of polling scheduling may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being based on a predetermined schedule. The Examiner would also like to note that polling scheduling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 25, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the polling comprises a High Efficiency (HE) null data packet (NDP) feedback poll (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an null-data-packet (NDP) feedback report poll (NRFP) trigger frame comprising configuration information to a plurality of STAs on a primary channel. NPDs are described as having a low and stable latency, and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as high efficiency. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 26, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 25. Viger further teaches the HE NDP feedback is associated with triggering the low latency session (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an null-data-packet (NDP) feedback report poll (NRFP) trigger frame comprising configuration information to a plurality of STAs on a primary channel. NPDs are described as having a low and stable latency, and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as high efficiency. HE NPD feedback may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being associated with triggering the low latency session. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]). Cariou further teaches the session is a multilink session (A station (STA) may establish a multi-band aggregation session (i.e., a multilink session comprising multiple links) with an access point (AP), and as can be seen in at least step 316 of Fig. 3, simultaneous transmission and reception operation is supported. The multi-band aggregation session may thus be interpreted as a multilink session; Cariou; Figs. 3-5; [0078]-[0080]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cariou with the teachings as in Viger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by utilizing multi-band link aggregation, as well as by increasing STA throughput (Cariou; [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0078]-[0080]). Regarding claim 27, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the processor is further configured to: configure the transceiver to transmit a trigger to initiate the low latency session (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an NFRP trigger frame as well as a basic trigger frame for polling STAs on the primary channel. NDP is described as being short and as having low and stable latency (and thus the session may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being low latency). Such trigger frames may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as initiating the low latency session. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]). Cariou further teaches transmitting the trigger on a link that is different from the control link (Polling information transmitted to stations from an access point (AP) may include frequency hopping parameters. The AP may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as performing polling (e.g., transmitting the trigger) on different links according to such frequency hopping parameters (e.g., a link that is different from the control link); Cariou; Fig. 3; [0079]-[0080]); and the session is a multilink session (A station (STA) may establish a multi-band aggregation session (i.e., a multilink session comprising multiple links) with an access point (AP), and as can be seen in at least step 316 of Fig. 3, simultaneous transmission and reception operation is supported. The multi-band aggregation session may thus be interpreted as a multilink session; Cariou; Figs. 3-5; [0078]-[0080]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cariou with the teachings as in Viger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by utilizing multi-band link aggregation, as well as by increasing STA throughput (Cariou; [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0078]-[0080]). Regarding claim 28, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 27. Viger further teaches the trigger is transmitted after the polling (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an NFRP trigger frame as well as a basic trigger frame for polling STAs on the primary channel. At least the basic trigger frame may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being transmitted after the polling (e.g., after the NFRP trigger frame); Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]). Regarding claim 29, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the at least one response further comprises a data frame (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, a response to a trigger frame may include a data frame; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 30, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches the apparatus comprises a multilink access point (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may communicate with a plurality of STAs simultaneously on different resources, and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as a multilink access point; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 31, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 4. Viger further teaches further comprising the transceiver (An access point (AP) may be comprised of a transceiver; Viger; Fig. 4; [0293]). Regarding claim 32, Viger teaches an apparatus comprising a processor (A station (STA) may be comprised of a processor; Viger; Fig. 4; [0293]) configured to: receive a broadcast comprising a configuration that identifies a link of a plurality of links as a control link for a multilink access point (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may transmit an null-data-packet (NDP) feedback report poll (NRFP) trigger frame comprising configuration information to a plurality of STAs on a primary channel. The AP may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as broadcasting a configuration that identifies a link of a plurality of links as a control link. As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the AP may communicate with a plurality of STAs simultaneously on different resources, and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as a multilink access point. Additionally, at least an NRFP random access parameter set is described as being defined at the AP for management of the network and transmitted to STAs via beacons (see at least Fig. 8 and its corresponding description). The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]); receive a poll comprising one or more polling frames from the multilink access point via the control link (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, the multilink AP may transmit an NFRP trigger frame as well as a basic trigger frame for polling STAs on the primary channel. Each of such trigger frames may be broadly reasonably interpreted as polling associated stations via the control link using one or more polling frames. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]); and configure a transceiver to transmit a response to the poll, wherein the response comprises an indication that the apparatus is attempting to establish a low latency session with the multilink access point (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, STAs may respond to transmitted polling frames (e.g., using NDP). NDP is described as being short and as having low and stable latency. The STA may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as transmitting a response to the poll, wherein the response comprises an indication that the is attempting to establish a low latency session with the multilink access point. The Examiner would also like to note that polling is also discussed extensively with regard to at least Figs. 6-14b and 16-17 and their corresponding descriptions; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230]). However, although Viger teaches that the session comprises a multiple tone resource unit (RU) for data transmission (See at least the 26 tone RU in at least Fig. 2; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0265]), Viger does not specifically disclose the session is a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation. Cariou further teaches the session is a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation (A station (STA) may establish a multi-band aggregation session (i.e., a multilink session comprising multiple links) with an access point (AP), and as can be seen in at least step 316 of Fig. 3, simultaneous transmission and reception operation is supported. The multi-band aggregation session may thus be interpreted as a multilink session comprising multiple links between the apparatus and the station that collectively support simultaneous transmission and reception operation; Cariou; Figs. 3-5; [0078]-[0080]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Cariou with the teachings as in Viger. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by utilizing multi-band link aggregation, as well as by increasing STA throughput (Cariou; [0002], [0021]-[0022], [0078]-[0080]). Regarding claim 33, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 32. Viger further teaches the response is transmitted when the apparatus is currently unassociated with any access point or when the apparatus only supports a single link (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, STAs may respond to transmitted polling frames (e.g., using NDP). Such feedback is described as being performed on a selected tone group 210a or 210b, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a single supported link for such feedback. As can also be seen in at least paragraph [0029], the AP may also receive feedback responses from not yet associated stations; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0029], [0221]-[0230], [0258]-[0260]). Regarding claim 34, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 32. Viger further teaches the response further comprises a data frame (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, a response to a trigger frame may include a data frame; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]). Regarding claim 35, Viger and Cariou teach the limitations of claim 32. Viger further teaches the apparatus comprises a multilink station (As can be seen in at least Figs. 2-3b and their corresponding descriptions, STAs may transmit over varying frequency bandwidths and may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as multilink stations; Viger; Figs. 2-3b, 6-14b, and 16-17; [0012]-[0013], [0017]-[0021], [0221]-[0230], [0393], [0407]).
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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474