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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-22 are added. Claims 1-6, 9, 13-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026, have been fully considered and entered but they are not persuasive /moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Main Argument:
… Applicant respectfully submits that Asterjadhi does not disclose or suggest the claim features of independent claim 1 reciting: ...declaring, to one or more non-AP stations, a profile identifier identifying a defined traffic profile...and... scheduling, in the BSS, resources of the wireless network to traffic matching the defined traffic profile based on the declared profile identifier.
…. In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection by the Office Action fails to identify any passages of Asterjadhi that disclose that the AP schedules resources of the wireless network based on a profile identifier identifying a traffic profile, as recited independent claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that because this element is not disclosed by Asterjadhi, the anticipation rejection is invalid.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the anticipation rejection by the Office Action does not clearly support that each of the claimed elements was disclosed by the cited reference - Asterjadhi. In the Office Action, the Office Action cites entire steps of the claim and appends parentheses citing paragraphs from Asterjadhi. However, the Office Action fails to establish an explicit link between the claimed features and the elements disclosed in Asterjadhi. Furthermore, the Office Action does not provide any reasoning as to why these citations are considered to disclose the claimed features. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant cannot reasonably determine which feature of Asterjadhi is believed to correspond with which feature recited in the claims.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Asterjadhi discloses that the AP may advertise uplink access modes and access categories and may indicate contention parameters to STAs via management frames such as beacon messages, probe responses, association responses, or other control frames. See, for example, Asterjadhi ¶¶ [0064]-[0065], [0075], [0091], [0116]. Asterjadhi further discloses that the AP may signal to one or more STAs which access category or uplink mode is to be used for particular traffic types, including low-latency traffic, voice traffic, video traffic, or other QoS-associated traffic. See, e.g., ¶¶ [0057], [0060]-[0065], [0072]-[0076], [0080], [0090]-[0091].
Thus, Asterjadhi teaches that the broad reasonable interpretation of the first limitation that AP declares to STAs a profile-like uplink configuration identifying how traffic of a particular type is to be handled in the BSS.
Asterjadhi further discloses that the AP selects an uplink access mode and allocates resources based on QoS requirements of the STA. In particular: the AP receives uplink QoS parameters from the STA, the AP determines the uplink access mode based on those QoS parameters, the AP allocates uplink resources or trigger opportunities to the STA, and the STA uses the selected mode for uplink transmission. See, e.g., ¶¶ [0005]-[0010], [0056]-[0059], [0073]-[0079], [0088]-[0090], [0096]-[0100], [0106]-[0111].
Thus, Asterjadhi teaches that the broad reasonable interpretation of the first limitation that scheduling of wireless resources in the BSS to traffic that matches the defined QoS profile corresponding to an access category.
First Argument: In Asterjadhi, the AP allocates resources based on an uplink QoS parameter obtained from the STA - not based on an access category.
In Asterjadhi, the STA sends, to the AP, a QoS parameter for the uplink communications (i.e., for communications from the STA to the AP). This is explicitly disclosed in the following passage of paragraph [0056], recited below:
"In accordance with this disclosure, the AP may obtain at least one uplink QoS parameter from the STA. For example, the STA may transmit the uplink QoS parameter in a traffic specification message to the AP. The uplink QoS parameter may refer to throughput, delay, capacity, jitter, or latency, among other examples." (Emphasis added)
Asterjadhi further discloses that the AP allocates resources to satisfy the QoS parameter. This is explicitly and consistently disclosed in numerous passages of Asterjadhi reproduced below:
"The AP may [...] allocate resources to the STA to satisfy the uplink QoS parameter." (See paragraph [0056] of Asterjadhi, Emphasis added)
"The resources may be allocated to satisfy the uplink QoS parameter." (See paragraph [0057] of Asterjadhi)
"The uplink access manager 126 [of the AP 102] may allocate resources to the first STA 144 based on the quality of service determined by the uplink QoS determination unit 122" (See paragraph [0076], Emphasis added).
However, nowhere does Asterjadhi mention, disclose, teach, or suggest that the AP allocates resources based on an access category. In this regard, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to identify any passage of Asterjadhi disclosing Applicant's claim features of independent claim 1 that the AP allocates resources based on a profile identifier identifying a traffic profile.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., “allocating resources based on an uplink QoS parameter obtained from the STA - not based on an access category”) 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 is so broad, there is no definition of “profile identifier” or defined “traffic profile”, or how the resources will be allocated based on that traffic profile.
Please note: At least here the applicant agrees that (i) Asterjadhi teaches “declaring, to one or more non-AP stations, a profile identifier identifying a defined traffic profile…, where the traffic profile is defined as “access category”. (ii) Asterjadhi teaches that the AP allocates resources based on an uplink QoS parameter obtained from the STA.
Asterjadhi does not merely disclose that the AP receives a raw QoS metric and allocates resources in the abstract. Rather, Asterjadhi teaches that the AP uses the received QoS information to select and declare an uplink access mode, access category, or contention configuration to the STA, and then allocates uplink resources accordingly.
As set forth in Asterjadhi, the AP may obtain uplink QoS parameters from the STA and may select an uplink access mode based on those parameters. See, for example, paragraphs [0056]–[0057], [0073]–[0076], [0079]–[0081], and [0090]–[0091]. Asterjadhi further discloses that the AP may advertise uplink access modes and access categories, may transmit management frames indicating those modes, and may configure STAs to use particular contention parameters or low-latency access categories. See paragraphs [0064]–[0065] and [0114]–[0117]. These teachings show that the AP is not simply reacting to a QoS parameter; it is declaring a traffic-handling for the STA and scheduling resources based on that declared traffic.
Second Argument: In Asterjadhi, access categories are used for the selection of the contention parameters of the STA, not for resource scheduling by the AP.
It should be noted that Asterjadhi first indicates that the "AP advertises access categories that the AP supports." (See paragraph [0064] of Asterjadhi, Emphasis added). Asterjadhi then discloses that the access categories are used to define the contention parameters of the STA (i.e., to define how the STA contends for the medium when performing uplink communication). This is explicitly disclosed in the following passages of Asterjadhi, reproduced below:
"Using EDCA, a set of parameters (referred to as contention parameters) may be associated with a particular access category (AC) and level of priority." (See paragraph [0060], Emphasis added)..."the mode controller 154 [of the STA 144] also may determine which contention parameters (or set of parameters) should be used based on [...] an access category associated with the uplink data." (See
paragraph [0076], Emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that the disclosure of Asterjadhi is consistent with
conventional EDCA operation in which different contention parameters are associated with the different access categories.
In Asterjadhi, consistent with the conventional operation of EDCA and contrary to the Office Action's assertion, the access categories are used to define the contention parameters of the STA, and not for resource allocation by the AP.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Asterjadhi discloses that access categories are associated with contention parameters used by the STA, that disclosure does not exclude the AP’s role in declaring and using those access categories to control uplink access in the BSS.
Asterjadhi expressly teaches that the AP may advertise access categories that the AP supports and may indicate uplink access modes and contention parameters to the STA. See, for example, paragraphs [0064], [0065], [0075], [0090]–[0091], and [0114]–[0117]. Asterjadhi further discloses that the AP uses the received QoS information to select an uplink access mode and allocate uplink resources to satisfy the QoS requirement. See paragraphs [0056]–[0059], [0073]–[0076], [0079]–[0081], and [0094]–[0104].
Thus, while the access category may also govern STA contention behavior, it is not limited to that function. In Asterjadhi, the access category and associated mode signaling are part of the AP’s broader control of uplink resource access, including scheduling trigger opportunities, resource units, contention opportunities, and low-latency access behavior.
Accordingly, Asterjadhi reasonably teaches that the AP declares an identifier corresponding to a traffic profile and then schedules uplink resources in accordance with that declared profile. Applicant’s attempt to separate contention parameter selection from resource scheduling is therefore unavailing.
Third Argument: In Asterjadhi, allocating resources based on a QoS parameter cannot be equated with allocating resources based on an access category.
In Asterjadhi, the uplink QoS parameter is defined as follows: "the uplink QoS parameter may refer to throughput, delay, capacity, jitter, or latency, among other examples." (See paragraph [0056] of Asterjadhi). This definition is consistent throughout the entire disclosure (see also paragraphs [0025], [0072], and [0079] of Asterjadhi).
Differently, the Access Categories (ACs) in Asterjadhi are defined as follows: "The ACs may include one or more of background (ACLLBK) 340, best effort (ACLLBE) 342, voice (ACLLVO) 344, or video (ACLLVI) 346. Alternatively, or additionally, a new access category may be defined as a low latency access category (ACLL) 348." (See paragraph [0090] of Asterjadhi). This definition is consistent throughout the entire disclosure of Asterjadhi (see also paragraph [0087] of Asterjadhi).
Applicant respectfully submits that it follows clearly from Asterjadhi that the uplink QoS parameters and the access categories are distinct elements.
In particular, contrary to the Office Action's assertion, there is no direct and unique correspondence in Asterjadhi between an uplink QoS parameter and an access category. For example, the same uplink QoS parameter, such as throughput, could be used for several different access categories.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that allocating resources based on an uplink QoS parameter in Asterjadhi cannot be equated with allocating resources based on an access category.
In particular, as previously described, nowhere does Asterjadhi mention, disclose, teach, or suggest that the AP allocates resources based on an access category. In this regard, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to identify any passage of Asterjadhi disclosing Applicant's claim features of independent claim 1 that the AP allocates resources based on a profile identifier identifying a traffic profile.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., “allocating resources based on a QoS parameter cannot be equated with allocating resources based on an access category”) 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 is so broad, there is no definition of “profile identifier” or defined “traffic profile”, or how the resources will be allocated based on that traffic profile.
Please note: At least here the applicant agrees that (i) Asterjadhi teaches “declaring, to one or more non-AP stations, a profile identifier identifying a defined traffic profile…, where the traffic profile is defined as “access category”. (ii) Asterjadhi teaches that the AP allocates resources based on an uplink QoS parameter obtained from the STA.
Asterjadhi does not merely disclose that the AP receives a raw QoS metric and allocates resources in the abstract. Rather, Asterjadhi teaches that the AP uses the received QoS information to select and declare an uplink access mode, access category, or contention configuration to the STA, and then allocates uplink resources accordingly.
As set forth in Asterjadhi, the AP may obtain uplink QoS parameters from the STA and may select an uplink access mode based on those parameters. See, for example, paragraphs [0056]–[0057], [0073]–[0076], [0079]–[0081], and [0090]–[0091]. Asterjadhi further discloses that the AP may advertise uplink access modes and access categories, may transmit management frames indicating those modes, and may configure STAs to use particular contention parameters or low-latency access categories. See paragraphs [0064]–[0065] and [0114]–[0117]. These teachings show that the AP is not simply reacting to a QoS parameter; it is declaring a traffic-handling for the STA and scheduling resources based on that declared traffic.
Fourth Argument: The Office Action's analysis results from hindsight.
As described above, the Office Action's analysis incorrectly combines two distinct and independent aspects in Asterjadhi: (i) the resource allocation by the AP to satisfy an uplink QoS parameter reported by the STA; and (ii) the definition of the contention parameters of the STA based on access categories.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's reading of Asterjadhi extends beyond the explicit teaching of this document in order to read the claims onto this document.
In particular, as previously described in detail above, Asterjadhi fails to disclose or suggest the claimed steps implemented by the AP of "...declaring, to one or more non- AP stations, a profile identifier identifying a defined traffic profile...and...scheduling, in the BSS, resources of the wireless network to traffic matching the defined traffic profile based on the declared profile identifies', as recited in amended independent claim 1.
For at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submit that independent claim 1 is novel and non-obvious in view of Asterjadhi.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Asterjadhi expressly teaches that an AP receives uplink QoS information from a STA, selects an uplink access mode based on that QoS, and allocates or schedules uplink resources accordingly. See, for example, paragraphs [0056]–[0059], [0073]–[0076], [0079]–[0081], [0094]–[0104], and [0114]–[0117].
Applicant characterizes Asterjadhi as containing two separate concepts: (i) AP resource allocation based on QoS, and (ii) STA contention parameters based on access categories. That characterization is incomplete. In Asterjadhi, the AP’s QoS-based selection of an access mode or access category is the mechanism by which uplink resources are controlled in the BSS. The AP may advertise supported access categories, indicate uplink modes, configure low-latency or MU EDCA parameters, and allocate trigger frames, resource units, or contention opportunities based on those selections. See paragraphs [0064]–[0065], [0090]–[0091], [0100]–[0104], and [0114]–[0117].
Thus, Asterjadhi reasonably discloses the claimed steps of:
declaring, to one or more non-AP stations, an identifier corresponding to a traffic profile; and
scheduling wireless resources in the BSS to traffic associated with that profile based on the declared identifier.
To conclude:
Applicant’s attempt to separate access-category signaling from resource scheduling is not persuasive because Asterjadhi teaches them as linked parts.
Examination is under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, which is so broad and just required identifying traffic profile “any parameter related to traffic”, and allocating resources based on the matched traffic profile “any parameter related to traffic”.
Claim 21, is a step in the right direction to narrow the limitations of “the traffic profile” and “resources allocation”.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 13, 15-16, 17-19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Asterjadhi et al (US 20200029350 A1) hereinafter Asterjadhi.
Regarding claim 1,
Asterjadhi teaches a communication method in a wireless network, comprising at an access point, AP, station of a basic service set, BSS (transmission scheduling method, for a BSS including a managing AP and one or more wireless STAs [0003] and [0062]-[0074]; Fig. 1): declaring, to one or more non-AP stations, a profile identifier identifying a defined traffic profile (AP advertising access categories to other STAs [0064]), and scheduling, in the BSS, resources of the wireless network to traffic matching the defined traffic profile based on the declared profile identifier parameters (AP allocates resources based on QoS parameters corresponding to an access category for STAs in a BSS [0003] and [0056]-[0057]).
Claim 2 “Non-AP method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “AP method”.
Regarding claim 3,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches declaring includes using a management frame, such as a beacon frame or a probe response frame, sent by the AP station during the association of the non-AP station with the AP station (indicating in a beacon message or a probe response access category during association [0015] and [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 4,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches declaring includes using a management frame, such as a beacon frame or an action frame, sent by the AP station to the non-AP stations of the BSS (indicating in a beacon message or a probe response access category [0015] and [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 6,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches declaring further includes declaring a plurality of QoS parameter sets applicable to plural traffics matching respective defined traffic profiles (advertising multiple access modes and categories corresponding to multiple QoS parameter latency requirements [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 9,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches declaring further includes declaring a plurality of QoS parameter sets applicable to plural traffics matching respective defined traffic profiles (advertising multiple access modes and categories corresponding to multiple QoS parameter latency requirements [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 13,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches scheduling is made upon detecting needs of one or more of the stations for transmitting traffic matching the defined traffic profile (allocating resources based on QoS parameter requirements for a particular traffic type [0064]).
Regarding claim 15,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches at the AP station, monitoring use of the scheduled resources that the traffic transmitted therein matches the defined traffic profile (AP monitoring channel conditions for satisfying QoS parameter requirements for access category [0023] and [0080]).
Regarding claim 16,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches at the AP station, upon detecting a non-AP station transmitting traffic not matching the defined traffic profile in the scheduled resources, applying a corrective measure to the detected non-AP station (if the channel conditions do not satisfy the QoS requirements, the AP may notify the STA to take action [0023] and [0080]).
Regarding claim 17,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches at the non-AP station, determining that local traffic matches the defined traffic profile and responsively accessing the scheduled resources to send the local traffic (at a STA, determining whether the STA can transmit withing a latency requirement [0078]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 18,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi further teaches at the non-AP station, declaring, to the AP station, local traffic matching the defined traffic profile (reporting to the AP quality parameters [0078]-[0080]).
Claim 19 “non-transitory CRM” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “AP method”.
Claim 20 “AP device” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “AP method”, where Asterjadhi teaches the AP device comprising a microprocessor (processor [0127]; Fig. 10).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Hiertz et al. (US 20090010210 A1) hereinafter Hiertz.
Regarding claim 5,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach declaring includes specifying an index referring to a predefined configuration associating the defined traffic profile with the QoS parameters.
Hiertz teaches declaring includes specifying an index referring to a predefined configuration associating the defined traffic profile with the QoS parameters (beacon frame comprising elements indicating QoS parameters of the planned transmission [0077]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Hiertz to the teachings of Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is part of the IEEE 802.11 standard (Hiertz [0077]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asterjadhi in view of Choi et al. (US 20200084102 A1) hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 14,
Asterjadhi teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach scheduling includes scheduling a protected Target Wake Time, TWT, service period for traffic matching the defined traffic profile.
Choi teaches scheduling includes scheduling a protected Target Wake Time, TWT, service period for traffic matching the defined traffic profile (TWT allocated based on the service type [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Choi to the teachings of Asterjadhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is part of the IEEE 802.11 standard (Choi [0064]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 20210360646 A1) hereinafter Chu.
Regarding claim 21 (limitations of claim 1 are included),
Chu teaches a communication method in a wireless network, comprising at an access point, AP, station of a basic service set, BSS (an AP operating in a WLAN/BSS. [0040], [0046], [0060]; Fig. 1):
declaring, to one or more non-AP stations, a profile identifier identifying a defined traffic profile (The AP announces support for high-priority communication service, including through management frames, extended capability elements, service type fields, EDCA parameters, and TSPEC-related signaling [0060], [0064], [0066], [0071], [0072]), and
scheduling, in the BSS, resources of the wireless network to traffic matching the defined traffic profile based on the declared profile identifier parameters (announce the specific random RUs for low latency or NS/EP frame transmission; … negotiating restricted TWT service periods, using trigger frames to solicit high-priority traffic, using buffer status reports, and prioritizing traffic matching the high-priority service. [0050]-[0055], [0057]-[0059], [0061]-[0065], [0074]-[0077]).
wherein: the declared profile identifier is a Traffic Identifier, TID, identifying a latency sensitive defined traffic profile (TIDs and TID-based traffic mapping / prioritization in connection with high-priority service and low-latency traffic [0069]-[0073]), and
scheduling resources of the wireless network includes scheduling a restricted Target Wake Time, TWT, service period for traffic matching the latency sensitive defined traffic profile identified by the declared TID (TWT service periods for high-priority / low-latency traffic [0054]-[0058], [0061]-[0065], [0074]-[0077], [0082]-[0083]. It is an obvious implementation of the same disclosed traffic-classing and scheduling framework. Chu already teaches associating high-priority traffic with TIDs, using those identifiers in QoS control and traffic mapping, and scheduling wireless resources based on that identification). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to tag the scheduled resources with the declared TID to maintain consistent classification, prioritization, and scheduling of latency-sensitive traffic.
Regarding claim 22 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 21, where Chu teaches that an AP in a WLAN/BSS can announce support for a high-priority service, identify the service using traffic classification mechanisms such as TIDs and related QoS descriptors, and then schedule restricted TWT service periods so that traffic belonging to that class receives preferential treatment. The additional limitation that “the scheduled resources are tagged by the AP with the declared TID” is an obvious implementation of the same disclosed traffic-classing and scheduling framework. Chu already teaches associating high-priority traffic with TIDs, using those identifiers in QoS control and traffic mapping, and scheduling wireless resources based on that identification. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to tag the scheduled resources with the declared TID to maintain consistent classification, prioritization, and scheduling of latency-sensitive traffic.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AYMAN A ABAZA whose telephone number is (571)270-0422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights