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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 01 July 2026. Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 17-24 are pending in the application. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, 17 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses a first wireless access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless AP to (Fig. 1, APs; Fig. 10, [0047]):
receive, via one or more frames (Fig. 2, 204; [0025] disclosing “If AP3 (AP2) transmits a frame AP1 may receive the frame”; [0026] disclosing “the AP3 may announce in a frame 204 the restricted target wake up time service period (r-TWT SP) information of AP3”), timing information associated with communication periods of a second wireless AP (Fig. 8, 812 [0044]-[0045] disclosing the TWT Element 800 is used to announce the r-TWT SP) and a hop count value ([0026] disclosing “the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not) associated with a multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information…AP2 is a two hop neighbor of AP3 because AP2 is not able to detect AP3's beacon (and the frame exchanges between AP3 and AP3's associated STAs)); and
selectively transmit, via a frame of the first wireless AP, the timing information associated with the communication periods of the second wireless AP, wherein the timing information is transmitted in accordance with the hop count value satisfying one or more threshold values indicating that the first wireless AP is to propagate the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information; this appears to implicitly disclose satisfaction of thresholds of either zero or one (e.g., each AP transmits r-TWT SP information when the hop count is zero signifying the information is an announcement of the r-TWT information of the AP transmitting the r-TWT SP information and each AP transmits r-TWT information of its one hop neighbors)), wherein the one or more threshold values indicate at least a quantity of hops to be performed for the multi-hop propagation of the timing information (It is implicit in the disclosure cited above that when an AP receives r-TWT information with a hop count of zero it should forward the r-TWT to one hop neighbors and when an AP receives r-TWT information with a hop count of 1 that it should forward the r-TWT information zero hops (e.g., not forward the information); for example see [0026] disclosing “The r-TWT SP information provided by an AP for its neighboring AP is information for a one hop neighbor. In the example, the AP3 may announce in a frame 204 the r-TWT SP information of AP3, the AP1 may announce in a frame 206 the r-TWT SP information of AP1, and the AP2 may announce in a frame 208 the r-TWT SP information of AP2. Additionally or alternatively, the AP1 may announce in a frame 212 the r-TWT SP information of neighbor nodes AP2 and AP3 which it received based on the announcements, the AP2 may announce in a frame 214 the r-TWT SP of neighbor node AP1 which it received based on the announcement, and the AP3 may announce in frame 210 the r-TWT SP information of neighbor nodes AP1 which it received based on the announcement. Based on the announcement by AP1, AP2 may receive the r-TWT SP information of AP3 which is a two hop neighbor to AP2 and vice versa.”).
Regarding claim 2, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein, to receive the hop count value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information, the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive the hop count value via a broadcast target wake time (TWT) identifier (ID) field (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045] disclosing TWT element 800 used to announce or report TWT information may be a broadcast TWT with an ID ).
Regarding claim 4, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 2, wherein the hop count value is indicative of a presence, within a TWT element associated with the broadcast TWT ID field, of one or more additional fields associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 4, wherein the one or more additional fields include a group ID field, a basic service set (BSS) color field, an acceptable interference field (Fig. 6, [0036]-[0039]), a field indicative of a list of other AP IDs, or any combination thereof, the one or more additional fields to be propagated with the timing information.
Regarding claim 6, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein, to receive the hop count value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information, the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive the hop count value via a hop count field of a frame or element dedicated to conveying information associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not).
Regarding claim 7, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 6, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive, via the frame or element, one or more additional fields associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information (Fig. 6, 608, [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 7, wherein the one or more additional fields include a schedule start time field, a periodicity field, a service period duration field, a persistence field, a group ID field, a basic service set (BSS) color field, a transmission parameter field, or any combination thereof, the one or more additional fields to be propagated with the timing information (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
transmit an updated hop count value in accordance with transmitting the timing information via the frame of the first wireless AP, wherein the updated hop count value is associated with an increment or a decrement of the hop count value ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information).
Regarding claim 11, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 10, wherein the updated hop count value is transmitted via the frame or a second frame of the first wireless AP ([0025]-[0026] Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
transmit scheduling information to one or more wireless stations (STAs) associated with the first wireless AP in accordance with the hop count value, wherein the hop count value is further associated with a coordination status between the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP (Fig. 1, coordination logic 120, [0023], [0026]), [0031]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 13, Chu discloses the first wireless AP of claim 12, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
communicate with the one or more wireless STAs outside of the communication periods of the second wireless AP in accordance with the hop count value indicating a first coordination status, the first coordination status being associated with an expectation to honor the communication periods of the second wireless AP ([0031]-[0035]); or
communicate with the one or more wireless STAs during at least a portion of the communication periods of the second wireless AP in accordance with the hop count value indicating a second coordination status, the second coordination status being associated with no expectation to honor the communication periods of the second wireless AP ([0031]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 17, Chu discloses a method for wireless communication by a first wireless access point (AP), comprising:
receiving, via one or more frames (Fig. 2, 204; [0025] disclosing “If AP3 (AP2) transmits a frame AP1 may receive the frame”; [0026] disclosing “the AP3 may announce in a frame 204 the restricted target wake up time service period (r-TWT SP) information of AP3”), timing information associated with communication periods of a second wireless AP (Fig. 8, 812 [0044]-[0045] disclosing the TWT Element 800 is used to announce the r-TWT SP) and a hop count value ([0026] disclosing “the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not) associated with a multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information…AP2 is a two hop neighbor of AP3 because AP2 is not able to detect AP3's beacon (and the frame exchanges between AP3 and AP3's associated STAs)); and
selectively transmitting, via a frame of the first wireless AP, the timing information associated with the communication periods of the second wireless AP, wherein the timing information is transmitted in accordance with the hop count value satisfying one or more threshold values indicating that the first wireless AP is to propagate the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information),
wherein the one or more threshold values indicate at least a quantity of hops to be performed for the multi-hop propagation of the timing information.
Regarding claim 21 Chu appears to disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising:
transmitting an updated hop count value in accordance with transmitting the timing information via the frame of the first wireless AP, wherein the updated hop count value is associated with an increment or a decrement of the hop count value ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information.
Regarding claim 22 Chu appears to disclose the method of claim 17, wherein receiving the hop count value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information further comprises:
receiving the hop count value via a broadcast target wake time (TWT) identifier (ID) field (Fig. 8, [0044]-[0045] disclosing TWT element 800 used to announce or report TWT information may be a broadcast TWT with an ID ).
Regarding claim 23 Chu appears to disclose the method of claim 17, wherein receiving the hop count value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information further comprises:
receiving the hop count value via a hop count field of a frame or element dedicated to conveying information associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information ([0026] disclosing “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not).
Regarding claim 24 Chu appears to disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising:
transmitting scheduling information to one or more wireless stations (STAs) associated with the first wireless AP in accordance with the hop count value, wherein the hop count value is further associated with a coordination status between the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP (Fig. 1, coordination logic 120, [0023], [0026]), [0031]-[0035]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1) in view of Haider et al. “R-TWT Multi-AP Coordination”, IEEE 802.11-23/0291r0.
Regarding claim 3, Chu does not expressly disclose the following; however, Haider discloses the first wireless AP of claim 2, wherein the broadcast TWT ID field is associated with the hop count value in accordance with a TWT schedule information subfield being set to a second value (Slide 10, Restricted TWT Schedule Info).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the Schedule info field of Haider in the invention of Chu because the teaching lies in Chu that this field is already existent in the field of endeavor and can be utilize when sharing R-TWT schedules which can lead to further enhancement of R-TWT operation and medium protection (Slides 2 and 10).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1) over Kyo et al. (JP-2007-184937-A) citations correspond to the pages of the attached translation.
Regarding claim 18, Chu discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
selecting the value in accordance with one or more criteria ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information…AP2 is a two hop neighbor of AP3 because AP2 is not able to detect AP3's beacon (and the frame exchanges between AP3 and AP3's associated STAs)).
Chu does not disclose the following; however, Kyo suggests receiving, via one or more second frames, the timing information associated with the communication periods of the second wireless AP and a second hop count value associated with the multi-hop propagation of the timing information; and selecting the hop count value instead of the second hop count value in accordance with one or more criteria (pg. 3 paragraph below TECH-SOLUTION disclosing upon receiving a duplicate broadcast packet with a higher hop count of the first received broadcast packet, not forwarding the duplicate packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Chuy as suggested by Kyo because the teaching lies in Kyo that in techniques such as those taught by Chu in which a node which receives a broadcast packet forwards such packets, unnecessary redundant transmission or a broadcast storm problem can occur (Fig.1, Fig. 2, pg. 1 last paragraph to pg. 2 line 10) and that the proposed technical solution can reduce the numb er of forwarding nodes while guaranteeing a high broadcast coverage ratio, save energy of wireless nodes, greatly reduce the redundant flow in the network, and shorten the transmission delay of broadcast packets (pg. 3, paragraph below TECH-PROBLEM)
Regarding claim 19, Chu discloses the method of claim 18, wherein selecting the hop count value instead of the second hop count value further comprises:
selecting the hop count value in accordance with the one or more frames being of the second wireless AP ([0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2)).
It is noted that the alternative features selecting the value in accordance with the hop count value being relatively lower than the second hop count value; or selecting the hop count value in accordance with the hop count value being relatively higher than the second hop count value appear to be disclosed by Kyo (pg. 3, paragraph below TECH-SOLUTION).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2024/0114553 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (WO 2023/183240 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chu discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
receiving from a third wireless AP a set of medium access schedules including one or more first medium access schedules of the third wireless AP and one or more second medium access schedules of one or more other wireless APs propagated by the third wireless AP (Fig. 1, [0017] “Each AP announces its r-TWT SP information and r-TWT SP information of neighbor APs”, [0021], [0025]-[0026]).
Chu does not disclose the following; however, Gupta suggests transmitting, to a third wireless AP, a first frame including a request for information indicative of a set of most recent medium access schedules; and receiving, from the third wireless AP, a second frame including the information indicative of the set of most recent medium access schedules (pg. 22, lines 13-25 disclosing an AP can request and receive from another AP the latest TWT schedule).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Chu as taught by Gupta because this can reduce judder in virtual reality systems thus avoiding motion sick ness that degrades the user experience (pg. 1, lines 8-29).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has cancelled the non-elected invention of claims 14-16. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 31 October 2025.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 01 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F .2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N. V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference ... need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[oes] not expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once envisage' the claimed arrangement or combination.") (quoting In re Petering, 301F.2d676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).
Applicant asserts Chu does not disclose “a hop count value associated with a multi-hop propagation of the timing information…and Chu does not disclose the tagged information includes a count of hops.” Applicant has undercut the assertion by admitting Chu discloses “in AP1's beacon, AP2's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information.” This appears to support a prima facie factual basis of anticipation. This argument again ignores the express disclosure in Chu, “([0026] disclosing “the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not.” ([0026]). This would appear, at the very least, to disclose a hop count of 1 is indicated. Moreover, the disclosure in Chu, “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information” ([0025]) appears to disclose the hop count is associated with multi-hop propagation, i.e., two-hops, one hop from AP3 to AP1 and another hop form AP1 to AP2.
Applicant asserts Chu does not disclose, “he timing information is transmitted in accordance with the hop count value satisfying one or more threshold values.” Chu discloses, “each AP may announce its r-TWT SP information…the r-TWT SP information may explicitly identify whether the r-TWT SP information is 1-hop neighbor's r-TWT SP information or not; [0025] disclosing “In order for AP2 to acquire AP3's r-TWT SP information, AP1 needs to forward AP3's r-TWT SP information to AP2…AP3's r-TWT SP information is tagged as AP1's 1-hop AP's r-TWT SP information; this appears to implicitly disclose satisfaction of thresholds of either zero or one (e.g., each AP transmits r-TWT SP information when the hop count is zero signifying the information is an announcement of the r-TWT information of the AP transmitting the r-TWT SP information and each AP transmits r-TWT information of its one hop neighbors) ([0026]).
Applicant asserts that Chu does not disclose the one or more threshold values indicate at least a quantity of hops to be performed for the multi-hop propagation of the timing information. It is implicit in the disclosure cited above that when an AP receives r-TWT information with a hop count of zero it should forward the r-TWT to one hop neighbors and when an AP receives r-TWT information with a hop count of 1 that it should forward the r-TWT information zero hops (e.g., not forward the information). Moreover, Chu discloses, “The r-TWT SP information provided by an AP for its neighboring AP is information for a one hop neighbor. In the example, the AP3 may announce in a frame 204 the r-TWT SP information of AP3, the AP1 may announce in a frame 206 the r-TWT SP information of AP1, and the AP2 may announce in a frame 208 the r-TWT SP information of AP2. Additionally or alternatively, the AP1 may announce in a frame 212 the r-TWT SP information of neighbor nodes AP2 and AP3 which it received based on the announcements, the AP2 may announce in a frame 214 the r-TWT SP of neighbor node AP1 which it received based on the announcement, and the AP3 may announce in frame 210 the r-TWT SP information of neighbor nodes AP1 which it received based on the announcement. Based on the announcement by AP1, AP2 may receive the r-TWT SP information of AP3 which is a two hop neighbor to AP2 and vice versa.” ([0026]).
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant has not presented any additional arguments related to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information material to patentability as set forth in 37 CFR 1.56.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ajami et al., “Considerations for AP coordination in UHR: Coordinated Medium Access”, IEEE 802.11-23/226r1.
Chu et al. “AP Coordination”, IEEE 802.11-23/0250r0.
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 Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights