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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The provisional applications of 63486674 with a filling date of 24 February 2023 and provisional application 63485267 with a filling date of 16 February 2023 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil.
Claim 1
Smith teaches,
A method for performing cooperation group (CG) indication in a wireless communication system for multi-link operation (MLO) control,
(See Smith paragraph 0031, Client device 104 may be a MLD client. Client device 104 may associate with multi-AP MLD entity 140 using a MLD setup procedure (e.g., a multi-link setup signaling exchange) defined by IEEE 802.11be.)
Shows client device as a multi-link device associating and establishing a multi-link with multi-AP MLD entity 104 implying a multi-link operation or MLO
wherein a non-access-point (non-AP) device is wirelessly linking to a first access point (AP) and to a second AP, the method comprising: …
(See Smith paragraph 0031, …client device may logically associate with U-SAP 138 as well as establish multiple physical links, such as a first link 142 on first AP 124 and a second link on second AP 126. )
However, Smith fails to explicitly teach,
…comparing a first CG indicator from the first AP with a second CG indicator from the second AP; and
configuring a feature support capability of the non-AP device according to a comparison result of the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator.
Nevertheless, Thanayankizil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
…comparing a first CG indicator from the first AP with a second CG indicator from the second AP; and
(See Thanayankizil Column 11 lines 21-27, …a preferred wireless access point may be WAP 18 located at a home residence 14. The device 30 may detect the presence of the preferred wireless access point via comparing the service set identifiers (SSIDs) of all available or in range wireless access points to those SSIDs that are stored in memory 36…)
configuring a feature support capability of the non-AP device according to a comparison result of the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator.
(See Thanayankizil Column 13 lines 48-51, In step 270, the wireless communications device establishes a wireless connection with the preferred wireless access point if there is not already a connection established (see step 240).)
Shows the establishment of connection with the desired access point based on comparison of the SSIDs of the available access points with the SSIDs of the stored preferred access points
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of the a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with the comparing of a first and second group cooperation or GC indicator from a first and second access point or AP and configuring support based on the comparison as disclosed by Thanayankizil to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to reduce the time required to search for a desired AP in a communication system).
Claim 2
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 2. Nevertheless, Thanayankizil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator are represented by at least one group identifier (ID).
(See Thanayankizil Column 11 lines 21-27, …a preferred wireless access point may be WAP 18 located at a home residence 14. The device 30 may detect the presence of the preferred wireless access point via comparing the service set identifiers (SSIDs) of all available or in range wireless access points to those SSIDs that are stored in memory 36…)
The motivation to combine Smith and Thanayankizil in the dependent claim consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20210298102 A1) or Kwon.
Claim 4
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 4. Nevertheless, Kwon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein the first AP and the second AP are collocated geographically or collocated via a backhaul device.
(See Kwon paragraph 0057, FIG. 3 shows two co-located APs, implemented as AP1a 304-1a and AP1b 304-1b, which operate on a first link,...)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with the first and second AP being collocated as disclosed by Kwon to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to reduce the time required to transmit signals between the two APs).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in view of Walker (US 7107051 B1).
Claim 3
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 3. Nevertheless, Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the configuring the feature support capability of the non-AP device comprises enabling the feature support capability of the non-AP device when the comparison result is that the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator belong to a same CG.
(See Walker Claim 2, ...applying the second ticket and a group identity shared by the first and the second access points to establish a second secured session between the wireless station and the second access point, the group identity identifying that the first and second access points belong to the same group,...)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of the a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with the enabling a support feature if the first and second indicators from the first and second APs belong to the same group as disclosed by Walker to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to increase the pool of resources available for non-access point).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Gan et al. (US 20240089815 A1) or Gan in further view of Cariou et al. (US 20230128996 A1) or Cariou and Kenney.
Claim 5
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 5. Nevertheless, Gan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The method of claim 3, further comprising: parsing feature support capabilities in capabilities element fields from the first AP and the second AP respectively before configuring, wherein when the parsing indicates…
(See Gan paragraph 00169, The first STA of the non-AP MLD parses the received AID allocation information, to learn that the AID allocation information carries the AID allocated to the non-AP MLD. The AID allocation information may be carried in an association response frame. An AID space (or a set of to-be-allocated AIDs) used by the first AP MLD to allocate an AID to the non-AP MLD associated with the first AP MLD and an AID space (or a set of to-be-allocated AIDs) used by the second AP MLD to allocate an AID to the non-AP MLD associated with the second AP MLD are the same.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of the a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with parsing elements field from the first and second AP as disclosed by Gan to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to decrease the amount of time required to configure features.).
…the feature support capabilities for the same CG are supported, the feature support capability is enabled.
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0045, To deploy a non-collocated AP MLD 3, embodiments may define a new AP MLD that overlaps with the existing collocated AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2. In such embodiments, the non-AP MLDs that are capable of supporting non-collocated MLD operation and protocols may associate with the non-collocated AP MLD 3.
Shows non-AP MLDS of supporting non-collocated MLD operation if AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2 affiliate with a non-collocated MLD
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of the a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with enabling support capabilities for the same group as disclosed by Cariou and Kenney to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to decrease the time required for the non-AP to accumulate resources).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Horn et al. (WO 2011130294 A2) or Horn.
Claim 6
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 6. Nevertheless, Horn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the configuring the feature support capability of the non-AP device comprises disabling the feature support capability of the non-AP device when the comparison result is that the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator belong to different CGs.
(See Horn paragraph 0091, If the identifiers do not match, for example, context deactivating component 314 can deactivate the context, etc., as described. For example, the identifiers can relate to a global cell identifier of access point 304 and access point 310, a CSG identifier of access point 304 and access point 310, and/or the like. Thus, for example, where the identifier is a CSG identifier of access point 304 and 310, context deactivating component 314 deactivates the packet data context when the device 302 moves from one CSG to another.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of the a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with disabling support of different groups as disclosed by Horn to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to decrease the amount of energy required to configure support for a feature in a non-AP).
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Cariou et al. (US 20230128996 A1) or Cariou and Kenney.
Claim 7
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 7. Nevertheless, Cariou and Kenney, in the same field of endeavor, teach,
The method of claim 6, further comprising: parsing feature support capabilities in capabilities element fields from the first AP and the second AP respectively before configuring, wherein when the parsing indicates at least one of the feature support capabilities for different CGs is not supported, the feature support capability is disabled.
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0044, ...under the same IEEE 802.11be standard protocol, the non-AP MLDs may not understand if the two AP MLDs have the same AP MLD MAC address such as a MAC address for a non-collocated AP MLD affiliated with AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2.)
Shows non-AP MLDs attempting to parse two AP MLDs MAC addresses and failing understand the two AP MLDs possesses the same MAC address
Shows non-AP MLDs failing to understand the equating of two AP MLDs MAC addresses for non-collocated AP MLD affiliation
Shows the failure of supporting distinguishing between collocated AP MLDs and non-collocated AP MLD
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0045, To deploy a non-collocated AP MLD 3, embodiments may define a new AP MLD that overlaps with the existing collocated AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2. In such embodiments, the non-AP MLDs that are capable of supporting non-collocated MLD operation and protocols may associate with the non-collocated AP MLD 3. Furthermore, the non-AP MLDs that do not support non-collocated MLD operation, such as IEEE 802.11be MLDs, may associate separately with AP MLD 1 and/or AP MLD 2.)
Shows non-AP MLDs possesses the lack of the ability of support non-collocated MLD operation
The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claim 9
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 9. Nevertheless, Cariou and Kenney, in the same field of endeavor, teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing further comprises comparing multiple first CG indicators with at least one second CG indicator, and wherein the configuring step comprises configuring the feature support capability of the non-AP device when at least one of the multiple first CG indicators and the at least one second CG indicator belong to the same CG.
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0069, In the present embodiment, the AP MLD 1005 may comprise a collocated set of AP stations (STAs) and the AP MLD 1027 may comprise a collocated set of AP STAs.)
Shows AP MLD 1005 and AP MLD 1027 consists of multiple AP stations
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0069, the AP MLD 1005 and AP MLD 1027 may be affiliated with the same basic service set (BSS)...)
Shows AP MLD 1005 and AP MLD 1027 belong to the same basic service set or BSS
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0113, The association response frames may include link IDs created to represent links between the MLDs 1230, 1290, 1292, 1294, 1296, and 1298 and the AP MLD 1210 as well as link IDs to representative of links established between one or more AP STAs of other AP MLDs that are affiliated with the non-collocated AP MLD.)
Shows configuring the ability to support non-collocated MLD operation
The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claim 10
Smith teaches,
A non-access-point (non-AP) device, for performing cooperation group (CG) indication in a wireless communication system for multi-link operation (MLO) control, the non-AP device comprising:
(See Smith paragraph 0031, Client device 104 may be a MLD client. Client device 104 may associate with multi-AP MLD entity 140 using a MLD setup procedure (e.g., a multi-link setup signaling exchange) defined by IEEE 802.11be.)
Shows client device as a multi-link device associating and establishing a multi-link with multi-AP MLD entity 104 implying a multi-link operation or MLO
a processing circuit, arranged to control operations of the non-AP device; and…
(See Smith paragraph 0097, Computing device 900 may comprise any computer operating environment, such as hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable sender electronic devices, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like.)
wherein the at least one other device comprises a first AP and a second AP, and
the non-AP device is wirelessly linking to the first AP and to the second AP;…
(See Smith paragraph 0031, …client device may logically associate with U-SAP 138 as well as establish multiple physical links, such as a first link 142 on first AP 124 and a second link on second AP 126. )
However, Smith fails to explicitly teach,
…wherein: the non-AP device is arranged to compare a first CG indicator from the first AP with a second CG indicator from the second AP; and
the non-AP device is arranged to configure a feature support capability of the non-AP device according to a comparison result of the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator.
Nevertheless, Thanayankizil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
…wherein: the non-AP device is arranged to compare a first CG indicator from the first AP with a second CG indicator from the second AP; and
(See Thanayankizil Column 11 lines 21-27, …a preferred wireless access point may be WAP 18 located at a home residence 14. The device 30 may detect the presence of the preferred wireless access point via comparing the service set identifiers (SSIDs) of all available or in range wireless access points to those SSIDs that are stored in memory 36…)
the non-AP device is arranged to configure a feature support capability of the non-AP device according to a comparison result of the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator.
(See Thanayankizil Column 13 lines 48-51, In step 270, the wireless communications device establishes a wireless connection with the preferred wireless access point if there is not already a connection established (see step 240).)
Shows the establishment of connection with the desired access point based on comparison of the SSIDs of the available access points with the SSIDs of the stored preferred access points
The motivation to combine Smith and Thanayankizil in the dependent claim consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 1.
However, Smith fails to explicitly teach,
…at least one communication control circuit, coupled to the processing circuit, arranged to perform communication control,…
…wherein the at least one communication control circuit is arranged to perform wireless communication operations with at least one other device within the wireless communication system for the non-AP device,
Nevertheless, Cariou and Kenney, in the same field of endeavor, teach,
…at least one communication control circuit (See Cariou and Kenney FIG. 5 [502] [communications circuitry]), coupled to the processing circuit (See Cariou and Kenney FIG. 5 [506] [processing circuitry]), arranged to perform communication control,…
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0263, The communication station 500 may include communications circuitry 502 and a transceiver 510 for transmitting and receiving signals to and from other communication stations using one or more antennas 501.)
…wherein the at least one communication control circuit is arranged to perform wireless communication operations with at least one other device within the wireless communication system for the non-AP device,
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0263, The communication station 500 may include communications circuitry 502 and a transceiver 510 for transmitting and receiving signals to and from other communication stations using one or more antennas 501.)
The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claim 11
Smith teaches,
The non-AP device of claim 10, wherein the non-AP device is implemented as a non-AP multi-link device (MLD).
(See Smith paragraph 0031, Client device 104 may be a MLD client. Client device 104 may associate with multi-AP MLD entity 140 using a MLD setup procedure (e.g., a multi-link setup signaling exchange) defined by IEEE 802.11be.)
Shows client device as a multi-link device associating and establishing a multi-link with multi-AP MLD entity 104 implying a multi-link operation or MLO
The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claim 15
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 15. Nevertheless, Cariou and Kenney, in the same field of endeavor teach limitations of claim 15 as stated in claim 7. The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claim 16
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 16. Nevertheless, Cariou and Kenney, in the same field of endeavor teach limitations of claim 16 as stated in claim 9. The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Cariou et al. (WO 2024144784 A1) or Cariou.
Claim 8
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 8. Nevertheless, Cariou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the first CG indicator and the second CG indicator are represented by at least one AP multi-link device identifier (AP MLD ID) or one AP MLD medium access control (MAC) address.
(See Cariou paragraph 00173, controller 124 may be configured to control, trigger, cause, and/or instruct the AP implemented by device 102 to set in the MLD parameters field an MLD ID of a collocated AP MLD affiliated with the AP,...)
Shows the first CG indicator represented by an AP MLD ID
(See Cariou paragraph 00174, ...controller 124 may be configured to control, trigger, cause, and/or instruct the AP implemented by device 102 to set the noncollocated AP MLD flag to a predefined value, for example, to indicate that the noncollocated AP MLD is to be identified by the MLD ID of the collocated AP MLD,...)
Shows the second CG indicator represented by a collocated AP MLD ID of the first CG indicator
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the wirelessly linking of the a first and second access point in a communication system for multi-link operation as disclosed by Smith with the group indicators being AP multi-link device or MLD IDs as disclosed by Cariou to increase the efficiency of the system (i.e. to increase the number of simultaneous transmissions between the AP and non-AP).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Cariou et al. (US 20230128996 A1) or Cariou and Kenney in further view of Walker (US 7107051 B1).
Claim 12
Smith teaches,
The non-AP device of claim 10, wherein the non-AP device…
(See Smith paragraph 0031, Client device 104 may be a MLD client. Client device 104 may associate with multi-AP MLD entity 140 using a MLD setup procedure (e.g., a multi-link setup signaling exchange) defined by IEEE 802.11be.)
Shows client device as a multi-link device associating and establishing a multi-link with multi-AP MLD entity 104 implying a multi-link operation or MLO
However, Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 12. Nevertheless, Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches limitations of claim 12 as stated in claim 3. The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, Cariou and Kenney, and Walker in dependent claim consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Cariou et al. (US 20230128996 A1) or Cariou and Kenney in further view of Gan et al (US 2024/0089815 A1) or Gan.
Claim 13
Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 13. Nevertheless, Gan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches,
The non-AP device of claim 12, wherein before configuring the feature support capability of the non-AP device, the non-AP device is arranged to parse feature support capabilities in capabilities element fields from the first AP and the second AP respectively, wherein when the parsing indicates…
(See Gan paragraph 00169, The first STA of the non-AP MLD parses the received AID allocation information, to learn that the AID allocation information carries the AID allocated to the non-AP MLD. The AID allocation information may be carried in an association response frame. An AID space (or a set of to-be-allocated AIDs) used by the first AP MLD to allocate an AID to the non-AP MLD associated with the first AP MLD and an AID space (or a set of to-be-allocated AIDs) used by the second AP MLD to allocate an AID to the non-AP MLD associated with the second AP MLD are the same.)
The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Gan in the dependent claim consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Cairou and Kenney, in the same field of endeavor, teach,
…the feature support capabilities for the same CG are supported, the feature support capability of the non-AP device is enabled.
(See Cariou and Kenney paragraph 0045, To deploy a non-collocated AP MLD 3, embodiments may define a new AP MLD that overlaps with the existing collocated AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2. In such embodiments, the non-AP MLDs that are capable of supporting non-collocated MLD operation and protocols may associate with the non-collocated AP MLD 3.
The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, and Cariou and Kenney consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20220225200 A1) or Smith in view of Thanayankizil et al. (US 9955493 B1) or Thanayankizil in further view of Cariou et al. (US 20230128996 A1) or Cariou and Kenney in further view of Horn et al. (WO 2011130294 A2) or Horn.
Claim 14
Smith teaches,
The non-AP device of claim 10, wherein the non-AP device is configured to…
(See Smith paragraph 0031, Client device 104 may be a MLD client. Client device 104 may associate with multi-AP MLD entity 140 using a MLD setup procedure (e.g., a multi-link setup signaling exchange) defined by IEEE 802.11be.)
Shows client device as a multi-link device associating and establishing a multi-link with multi-AP MLD entity 104 implying a multi-link operation or MLO
However, Smith fails to explicitly teach limitations of claim 14. Nevertheless, Horn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches limitations of claim 14 as stated in claim 6. The motivation to combine Smith, Thanayankizil, Cariou and Kenney, and Horn in the dependent claim consists of the same motivation as stated in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuang (US 20200045665 A1) teaches terminal positioning through comparing basic service set identification or BSSID of an AP received by a terminal with BSSIDs in a reference set.
Huang et al. (US 20190297632 A1) or Huang teaches determining collocated access points or APs with a first AP with a first BSSID and a second AP with a second BSSID.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ROBERGE BETTENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8:30a.m.-5:00p.m..
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/SAMUEL ROBERGE BETTENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414