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 Office Action is a response to communications dated 04/20/2026. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are still pending in the application.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 13-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 2022/0124855) (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 1, in accordance with Hu reference entirety, Hu discloses A first wireless node (FIG. 7; AP MLD 710), comprising: at least one transceiver (transceiver is disclosed in Abstract and para [0005] and thereinafter); at least one memory (318) comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors (316) configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the first wireless node (FIG. 7; AP MLD 710) to:
Provision, via the at least one transceiver, a second wireless node (FIG. 7; Non-AP MLD1, Non-AP MLD2, or Non-AP MLD3) for communication via a subset of multiple links (para [0077]: “ML”) with which a first wireless node (FIG. 7; AP MLD 710) is associated (para [0077]: "... The AP MLD 710 may be associated with 3 MLDs (e.g., non-AP MLD1 721, non-AP MLD2 722, non-AP MLD3 723). For example, MLD1 with 3 STAs is initially on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz. MLD2 with 2 STAs is initially on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. MLD3 with 3 STAs is initially on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz.");
detect a breach condition (congestion/link loss/traffic engineering) (para [0077]: "... Now, the AP MLD 710 may want or desire or be configured/caused to move MLD2 and MLD3 to operate at 6 GHz (from current 5 GHz) due to congestion or link loss or just traffic engineering at the 5 GHz channel ... ."); and
perform one or more actions (disable/deactivate/remove), after detecting the breach condition (congestion/link loss/traffic engineering), and via the at least one transceiver, to adjust (disable/deactivate/remove/changing/switching) a set of channels (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) used for communicating with the second wireless node (FIG. 7; Non-AP MLD1, Non-AP MLD2, or Non-AP MLD3) via the subset of multiple links (ML), wherein the adjustment (disable/deactivate/remove/changing/switching) is based on at least one service metric (due to congestion or link loss or just traffic engineering) (para [0077]: "... MLD3 can simply disable/deactivate/remove the 5 GHz link. MLD2, however, may involve a ML reconfiguration. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, AP2 of the AP MLD 710 can perform a ML reconfiguration by changing/switching the AP endpoint of the link (to MLD2) from AP2 to AP3. After performing the ML reconfiguration, MLD1 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz, MLD2 with 2 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz, and MLD3 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz.").
Regarding claim 2, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu also discloses wherein the at least one service metric (due to congestion or link loss or just traffic engineering) relates to at least one of: a quality of service (QOS) metric (degrading quality) or a service level agreement (para [0070] and thereinafter, it is also discussed that the transition in ML configuration is to avoid the degrading of quality. The degrading of quality is equated to corresponding to “QoS” metric. Moreover, it is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu also discloses wherein the one or more actions (configured/caused to move/changing/switching) comprise switching the communication with the second wireless node (FIG. 7; Non-AP MLD1, Non-AP MLD2, or Non-AP MLD3) to at least one new channel, wherein the at least one new channel comprises at least one of: a first new channel within the subset of multiple links; or a second new channel within a link outside of the subset (para [0064] and [0065]: "removing a link or switching one end of a link, between the first wireless MLD and the second wireless MLD ... ." Or para [0077]: "... Now, the AP MLD 710 may want or desire or be configured/caused to move MLD2 and MLD3 to operate at 6 GHz (from current 5 GHz) due to congestion or link loss or just traffic engineering at the 5 GHz channel. MLD3 can simply disable/deactivate/remove the 5 GHz link. MLD2, however, may involve a ML reconfiguration. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, AP2 of the AP MLD 710 can perform a ML reconfiguration by changing/switching the AP endpoint of the link (to MLD2) from AP2 to AP3. After performing the ML reconfiguration, MLD1 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz, MLD2 with 2 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz, and MLD3 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz.").
Regarding claim 4, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu also discloses wherein at least one of: the breach condition (ML configuration may be changed/congestion/link loss/traffic engineering) relates to congestion (due to congestion) associated with at least one currently active link (5 GHz channel); or the one or more actions comprise searching for one or more channels with less congestion than the congestion associated with the at least one currently active link (para [0076]: "a desired ML configuration (e.g., a mapping between non-AP and AP STAs of MLDs) may be specified through the multi-link information element (ML IE) in Association Request (from STA). In some embodiments, an AP MLD (e.g., AP MLD 501 in FIG. 5) can reject the requested mapping for a variety of reasons (for example, a requested link is too congested, etc.) ... ." Or para [0077]: "... Now, the AP MLD 710 may want or desire or be configured/caused to move MLD2 and MLD3 to operate at 6 GHz (from current 5 GHz) due to congestion or link loss or just traffic engineering at the 5 GHz channel. MLD3 can simply disable/deactivate/remove the 5 GHz link. MLD2, however, may involve a ML reconfiguration. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, AP2 of the AP MLD 710 can perform a ML reconfiguration by changing/switching the AP endpoint of the link (to MLD2) from AP2 to AP3. After performing the ML reconfiguration, MLD1 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz, MLD2 with 2 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz, and MLD3 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz." it is also noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations.).
As per claims 13-16, the claims appear to call for a method having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of apparatus claims 1-4, respectively. Thus, they are anticipated by Hu for the same rationales applied to apparatus claims 1-4 as above discussed.
Regarding claim 21, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu also discloses wherein the first wireless node is configured to operate as an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) (FIG. 7; AP MLD 710 and para [0077]: “… a ML reconfiguration (e.g., post-association ML configuration) may be performed by changing an AP endpoint of a link from one AP (e.g., AP2 of an AP MLD 710) to another AP (e.g., AP3 of the AP MLD 710). The AP MLD 710 may be associated with 3 MLDs (e.g., non-AP MLD1 721, non-AP MLD2 722, non-AP MLD3 723) ... .").
As per claim 22, the claim appears to call for instructions stored thereon a non-transitory computer-readable medium having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of claim 1. Thus, it is anticipated by Hu for the same rationales applied to claim 1 as above discussed.
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 5-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Kucharewski et al. (US 2025/0287444) (hereinafter “Kucharewski”).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu appears to fail to explicitly disclose the limitation of “wherein at least one of: the breach condition relates to potential violation of a service level agreement (SLA) involving the at least one service metric; or the one or more actions comprise searching for one or more channels that can satisfy the SLA.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Hu’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Kucharewski.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Kucharewski teaches
systems and methods for provisioning resources in a wireless network (Kucharewski; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitations of “wherein at least one of: the breach condition relates to potential violation of a service level agreement (SLA) involving the at least one service metric; or the one or more actions comprise searching for one or more channels that can satisfy the SLA” (Kucharewski; FIG. 29; block 2900, and para [0017] and thereinafter: "Obtain an indication of a violation of one or more service level agreement (SLA) parameters by at least one STA assigned to a reserved communication link of the multiple communication links").
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching of indication of a violations of SLA parameters into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu appears to fail to explicitly disclose the limitation of “wherein the at least one service metric relates to airtime utilization of the wireless node.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Hu’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Kucharewski.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Kucharewski teaches
systems and methods for provisioning resources in a wireless network (Kucharewski; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitations of “wherein the at least one service metric relates to airtime utilization of the wireless node” (Kucharewski; para [0131]: The peer telemetry 921 may include a Tx Airtime value, an Rx Airtime value, a Tx Retry value, a Tx Frames value, an Rx Retry value, an Rx Frames value, and an RSSI value, among other examples. The Tx Airtime value indicates the percentage or portion of a time period that the respective peer device 920 spent transmitting UL data to the AP MLD. The Rx Airtime value indicates a percentage or portion of the time period that the respective peer device 920 spent receiving DL data from the AP MILD. In some instances, the Tx Airtime value and the Rx Airtime value may be determined or obtained by the host controller described with reference to FIG. 7. In some aspects, the Tx Airtime value may be referred to as the Transmission Airtime Consumption Percentage, and the Rx Airtime value may be referred to as the Reception Airtime Consumption Percentage.” Or para [0134]: “… An available Airtime value … the time period.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to features recited in base claim 6 (see rationales discussed above), Hu in view of Kucharewski also render obvious the claim limitation of “wherein the one or more actions comprise at least one of: reducing operating bandwidth to exclude one or more channels which contribute to other basic service set (OBSS) loading; resource unit puncturing on one or more channels that contribute to OBSS loading; or moving the wireless node to a new link and announcing a channel switch on the new link” (Kucharewski; para [0134]: “… the Available Airtime value may also be an indication of the percentage of the period of time that OBSS interference rendered the respective communication link busy … .”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu appears to fail to explicitly disclose the limitation of “wherein the one or more actions comprise: initiating a handover of the wireless node, from a first basic service set (BSS) to a second BSS if channels in the first BSS are unable to satisfy a service level agreement (SLA) involving the at least one service metric.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Hu’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Kucharewski.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Kucharewski teaches
systems and methods for provisioning resources in a wireless network (Kucharewski; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitations of “wherein the one or more actions comprise: initiating a handover (switch) of the wireless node, from a first basic service set (BSS) to a second BSS if channels in the first BSS are unable to satisfy a service level agreement (SLA) involving the at least one service metric” (Kucharewski; para [0009]: " In other instances, the interface is further configured to obtain a second indication of at least one of the latency, the level of interference, or the traffic load associated with the other single communication link being at least equal to the respective latency threshold, interference threshold, or traffic load threshold, and the processing system is further configured to switch communications between the first STA and the AP MLD from the other single communication link of the AP MLD to all communication links of the AP MLD based on the second indication. In some instances, switching the communications includes re-mapping the one or more TIDs from the other single communication link of the AP MLD to all of the communication links of the AP MLD. In some aspects, the processing system is further configured to generate a third frame including a T2LM element indicating the re-mapping of the one or more TIDs from the other single communication link of the AP MLD to all of the communication links of the AP MLD, and the interface is further configured to output the third frame for transmission to the first STA on the other single communication link.").
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Hu appears to fail to explicitly disclose the limitation of “wherein performing one or more actions to adjust the set of channels is based on results of a scanning algorithm to determine other basic service set (OBSS) loading on secondary channels outside the set of channels” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Hu’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Kucharewski.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Kucharewski teaches
systems and methods for provisioning resources in a wireless network (Kucharewski; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitations of “wherein performing one or more actions to adjust the set of channels is based on results of a scanning algorithm to determine other basic service set (OBSS) loading on secondary channels outside the set of channels” (Kucharewski; para [0064]: "[0064] Aspects of the present disclosure also recognize that when congestion on individual communication links of the AP MLD is at least equal to the second threshold, or when OBSS interference levels on the communication links is at least equal to an interference threshold, none of the communication links of the AP MLD may, when provisioned as a single communication link to a respective STA, be able to provide lower latencies or higher throughput than the respective latencies and throughput achieved by using all of the communication links associated with the AP MLD. As such, aspects of the subject matter disclosed herein may achieve lower latencies and higher throughput using all of the communication links of the AP MLD, rather than a single communication link of the AP MLD, when congestion on the individual communication links is at least equal to the second threshold or when OBSS interference levels on the communication links is at least equal to the interference threshold." Moreover; passive or active scanning operations (“scans”) are also discussed in para [0069] and “roaming” scan to find another AP is also discussed in para [0070] and thereinafter).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to features recited in base claim 9 (see rationales discussed above), Hu in view of Kucharewski also render obvious the claim limitation of “wherein the scanning algorithm involves at least one of: background scanning, via the at least one transceiver, of secondary channels in time slices; receiving, via the at least one transceiver, radio measurements of secondary channels from one or more other wireless nodes; or an auxiliary radio that is separate from a radio used for communicating with the wireless node” (Kucharewski para [0069]: “.. perform passive or active scanning operations (“scans”) on frequency channels in one or more frequency bands … uses to track the STA 104.” Moreover; passive or active scanning operations (“scans”) are also discussed in para [0069] and “periodically scan” and “roaming” scan to find another AP is also discussed in para [0070] Furthermore; it is also noted that the claim is drafted in alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to features recited in base claim 9 (see rationales discussed above), Hu in view of Kucharewski also render obvious the claim limitation of “wherein the scanning algorithm involves: moving one or more wireless nodes from a first link of the multiple links; scanning, via the at least one transceiver, channels of the first link after the moving; and moving the one more wireless nodes back to the first link after the scanning” (Kucharewski; para [0104]: "... the resource manager 722 may switch communications with the first STA from the first communication link to another single communication link based on the first indication ...").
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to features recited in base claim 11 (see rationales discussed above), Hu in view of Kucharewski also render obvious the claim limitation of “wherein the moving the one or more wireless nodes from and back to the first link involves traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping” (Kucharewski; para [0005]: "... switching the communications includes re-mapping the one or more TIDs from the provisioned single communication link of the AP MLD to the other single communication link of the AP MLD... ." Or para [0010]: "... the processing system is further configured to map the one or more TIDs to only the provisioned multiple communication links of the AP MLD ... .")..
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Kucharewski’s teaching into Hu’s system to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome shortfalls of existing art in meeting various latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low-latency applications (Kucharewski; para [0004]).
As per claims 17-18, the claims appear to call for a method having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of apparatus claims 5-7. Thus, they are rendered obvious over Hu in view of Kucharewski for the same rationales applied to apparatus claims 5-7 as above discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 04/20/2026.
Pertaining the rejection of claims 1-4 and 13-16, under 35 U.S.C, paragraph 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 2022/0124855), the Applicant appears to argues “Hu fails to teach adjusting a set of channels used for communicating via the subset of links that were provisioned … Hu is silent with respect to such a scenario where a node is provisioned with a subset of links, where then in such a scenario, one or more actions, are taken to adjust one or more channels for communicating via the subset of links after a breach is detected.”
The argument is noted but not persuasive. As clearly described in paragraph [0007] in reference to FIG. 7, and in a manner as clearly pointed out in the office action, Hu teaches in verbatim that para [0077]: “FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example ML reconfiguration scenario according to an example implementation of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, referring to FIG. 7, a ML reconfiguration (e.g., post-association ML configuration) may be performed by changing an AP endpoint of a link from one AP (e.g., AP2 of an AP MLD 710) to another AP (e.g., AP3 of the AP MLD 710). The AP MLD 710 may be associated with 3 MLDs (e.g., non-AP MLD1 721, non-AP MLD2 722, non-AP MLD3 723). For example, MLD1 with 3 STAs is initially on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz. MLD2 with 2 STAs is initially on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. MLD3 with 3 STAs is initially on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz. Now, the AP MLD 710 may want or desire or be configured/caused to move MLD2 and MLD3 to operate at 6 GHz (from current 5 GHz) due to congestion or link loss or just traffic engineering at the 5 GHz channel. MLD3 can simply disable/deactivate/remove the 5 GHz link. MLD2, however, may involve a ML reconfiguration. For example, as shown in FIG. 7, AP2 of the AP MLD 710 can perform a ML reconfiguration by changing/switching the AP endpoint of the link (to MLD2) from AP2 to AP3. After performing the ML reconfiguration, MLD1 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz, MLD2 with 2 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz, and MLD3 with 3 STAs is on 2.4 GHz and 6 GHz.” Such teaching is clearly anticipated the claim recitations in a present condition.
Pertaining the rejection of claims 5-12 and 17-18, the Applicant appears to state that the claims “is allowable over Hu for at least the reasons discussed above.”
The statement is noted but not overcome the rejection for the same rationales applied in the response discussed above.
Examiner believes an earnest attempt has been made in addressing all of the Applicants’ arguments. Due to the response fails to place the instant application in a favorable condition for allowance, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sevin et al. (US 2024/0292234).
Chang (US 2023/0155784).
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 FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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 at 571-272-2832. 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.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights