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 in response to remarks filed on 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 & 11-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2021-146412, filed on 9/8/2021.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8 & 11-13 have been amended.
Claim 15 has been added and is presented for examination.
Rejections to claims 1-3, 5-9 & 11-14 under 35 USC 103 made in the prior record Non-final Rejection dated 11/25/2025 have been withdrawn, however new grounds of rejections to these claims have been made under 35 USC 103 based on new references Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0156840)(herein after “Chitrakar”) and Kwon et al. (US 2022/0174536)(herein after “Kwon”) based on amendments to claims 1, 5, 6, 8 & 11-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn based on amendments to this claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 5, 6 & 12 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5, 6 & 12 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn based on amendments to these claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9 & 11-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejections are made under 35 USC 103 in view of new references Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0156840)(herein after “Chitrakar”) and Kwon et al. (US 2022/0174536)(herein after “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Patil and Kim do not alone or in combination teach or suggest all of the limitations in amended claim 1. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejection of claim 1 made in the prior record Non-Final Rejection dated 11/25/2025. However, after further consideration, examiner introduces a new ground of rejection to claim 1 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Chitrakar. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 8, applicant submits that this claim traverse the rejection of this claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 11/25/2025 due to similar amendments and arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of claim 8 under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-Final Rejection dated 11/25/2025. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces a new ground of rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Chitrakar.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9 & 11-14, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 11/25/2025 due to amendments and arguments made for claims 1 & 8 and due to their dependency on claims 1 & 8. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9 & 11-14 under 35 USC 103 made in the Non-final Rejection dated 11/25/2025. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces new grounds of rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9 & 11-14 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Chitrakar.
Regarding claim 5, applicant submits that the cited references fail to disclose all the limitations in amended claim 5. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 103. However, after further consideration, examiner introduces a new grounds of rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 103 based on new references Chitrakar and Kwon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2021/0014911) (herein after “Patil”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022/035291)(herein after “Kim”), and further in view of Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0156840)(herein after “Chitrakar”).
Regarding Claims 1 & 8, Patil discloses a communication apparatus, and a method for a communication apparatus (ABSTRACT – discloses apparatuses and methods for associating wireless communication devices such as a wireless station (STA) of a STA multi-link device (MLD) with an access point (AP) MLD over a first communication link of the AP MLD and one or more secondary APs associated with one or more respective secondary communication links of the first AP MLD.), comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ([0013] discloses at least one memory storing instructions.); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, the instructions, when executed, causing the communication apparatus to perform operations ([0013] discloses at least one processor that may execute the instructions causing an AP MLD to perform operations.) comprising:
communicating an Association frame for setting up a first link with another communication apparatus (Fig 9B & [0134] disclose a first device D1 transmitting a first packet including association information (i.e. an Association frame) to a second device D2 for setting up at least a first communication link and a second communication link.).
Patil fails to disclose but Kim teaches wherein the communicating is with an Action frame ([0263]-[0264] discloses
an action frames formats for TID-to-link mapping request and response frames.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a communication apparatus communicating with a plurality of links set up between the communication apparatus and another communication apparatus, to additionally set up a third link different from the first link and from the second link between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus, including information indicating a request for addition of the third link and information regarding TID (Traffic Identifier)-To-Link Mapping in the communication apparatus, as disclosed by Patil, wherein the communicating is with an Action frame, as taught by Kim. The motivation to do so would be to have a communication apparatus transmit an action frame as part of a packet transmission to indicate the addition of a third communication link and TID mapping for the addition of the third communication link in order to improve throughput at the apparatus by transmitting on both the first and third communication links for apparatuses having Multi- Link capability.
Patil fails to disclose but Chitrakar further teaches communicating an Action frame with the other communication apparatus with the first link set up between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus (Figs 5 & 14C and [0063]-[0064] & [0083] disclose an AP MLD 502 communicating a multi-link action frame 1400 to a non-AP MLD 504 after a first link 1 has been setup between AP MLD 502 and AP MLD 504.), the Action frame including a first field including first information regarding a type, a second field including second information regarding a Link ID, and a third field including third information regarding TID (Traffic Identifier)-To-Link Mapping (Fig 14C and [0083] disclose that multi-link action frame 1400 includes an action type field (i.e. a first field) including information on the type of action for the multi-link action frame (e.g. a TID-to-link mapping request), a link ID subfield (i.e. a second field) including information on a link ID, and a UL TID map and DL TID map subfields (i.e. a third field) including information regarding TID-to-link mapping.),
wherein the Action frame indicates a request for addition of a second link based on the first information indicating Add Link and the second information indicating the Link ID corresponding to the second link (Figs 8 & 14C and [0069] & [0083] disclose that the action type field may be set to 1 to indicate a multi-link setup request and 2 to indicate a multi-link setup response, with multi-link element 1402 including a Link ID subfield indicating the link to be setup. In the case where a first link 1 has already been setup, and the action type field is set to 1 or 2 to indicate a multi-link setup request or response, and the link ID subfield in multi-link element 1402 is set to a second link 2, the multi-link action frame would indicate a request for addition of link 2.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a communication apparatus, or a method for a communication apparatus, communicating an Association frame for setting up a first link with another communication, as disclosed by Patil, and communicating an Action frame with the other communication apparatus with the first link set up between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus, the Action frame including a first field including first information regarding a type, a second field including second information regarding a Link ID, and a third field including third information regarding TID (Traffic Identifier)-To-Link Mapping, wherein the Action frame indicates a request for addition of a second link based on the first information indicating Add Link and the second information indicating the Link ID corresponding to the second link, as further taught by Chitrakar. The motivation to do so would have been to have an MLD AP, and a method for an MLD AP, and non-AP MLD communicate action frames for setting up a fist link and for requesting and responding to adding a second link for multi-link operation, wherein the action frame includes a field indicating the action type for the action frame, a field indicating a Link ID for the action and a filed for indicating TID mapping so that the non-AP MLD can request and establish multi-link operation across two different frequency bands to increase throughput.
Regarding Claim 6, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the apparatus of claim 13, and information regarding TID-To-Link Mapping of the second link.
Patil fails to disclose wherein the TID to link mappings are stored in the TID-To-Link Mapping element of the Action frame.
However, Kim teaches wherein the TID to link mappings are stored in the TID-To-Link Mapping element of the Action frame ([0263]-[0264] disclose a TID-to-link element included in TID-to-link mapping of action frames, such as request frames and response frames, for indicating and storing TID to link mappings.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 13, including information regarding TID-To-Link Mapping of the second link, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar, wherein the TID to link mappings are stored in the TID-To-Link Mapping element of the Action frame, as taught by Kim. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus use action frames including elements for TID-to-link mapping to communicate with other apparatuses such that the other apparatuses can recognize when a TID-to-link mapping or re-mapping may occur by identifying a received frame as an action frame.
Regarding Claim 7, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Patil discloses wherein the Action frame is an action frame conforming to an IEEE802.11 standard ([0069] discloses that the described inventions can be implemented according to one or more of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standards. Figs. 10 & [0148] discloses a frame that may be a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, or some other appropriate frame (e.g. an Action frame).).
Regarding Claim 9, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the communication method according to claim 8.
Patil discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to be executed by one or more processors of the communication apparatus, the program including instructions for causing the communication apparatus to perform the communication method according to Claim 8 ([0104] discloses a memory that can include tangible storage media such as random-access memory (RAM) or read-only memory (ROM), or combinations thereof. The memory also can store non-transitory processor- or computer-executable software (SW) code containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform various operations of the invention.).
Regarding Claim 11, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar discloses the communication method according to claim 1.
Patil discloses additionally set up, between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus, the second link indicated by the information indicating the request for addition of the second link, and assign a TID to the second link ([0143]-[0147] discloses that the first Device D1 may transmit a third packet indicating to remap TIDs to different links. The third packet may request and assign TID remapping to add a second link, such as the addition of a second communication link to TID=4 or TID=6.).
Patil fails to disclose receiving a Response frame that is a response to the Action frame; and wherein the additionally setting up is upon receiving the Response frame.
However, Kim teaches receiving a Response frame, and wherein the additionally setting up is upon receiving the Response frame ([0263]-[0264] disclose TID-to-link mapping negotiation between ML devices using Action frames consisting of Response frames and Request frames. A broadest reasonable interpretation is that, as part of TID-to-link mapping negotiation a Response frame is transmitted in response to a Request frame (i.e. the Action frame consisting of the third packet transmitted as disclosed by Patil).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1 including additionally setting up, between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus, a second link indicated by the information indicating the request for addition of the second link, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar, and receiving a Response frame that is a response to the Action frame; and wherein the additionally setting up is upon receiving the Response frame, as taught by Kim. The motivation to do so would be to have method for a communication apparatus to communicate with another apparatus through Action frames and response frames to negotiate the addition of a second communication link and TID mapping for the addition of the second communication link in order to improve throughput at the apparatus by transmitting on both the first and second communication links for apparatuses having Multi-Link capability.
Regarding Claim 12, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the communication method according to claim 11.
Patil discloses wherein the Response frame includes information that indicates a permission to add the second link (Fig 9B & [0143]-[0147] discloses that the first Device D1 may transmit a third packet indicating to remap TIDs to different links. The third packet may request and assign TID remapping to add a second link (i.e. indicate permission to add the second link), such as the addition of a second communication link to TID=4 or TID=6).).
Regarding claim 13, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the communication method according to claim 1.
Patil fails to disclose wherein the Action frame includes a TID-To-Link Mapping element, and wherein the third information regarding TID-To-Link Mapping is included in the TID- To-Link Mapping element.
However, Chitrakar teaches wherein the Action frame includes a TID-To-Link Mapping element, and wherein the third information regarding TID-To-Link Mapping in the communication apparatus is included in the TID-To-Link Mapping element (Fig 14C and [0083] disclose that the multi-link action frame includes a Multi-link Element 1404 wherein UL and DL TID maps (i.e. third information) are included in sub-fields within Multi-link Element 1404.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 1, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar, wherein the Action frame includes a TID-To-Link Mapping element, and wherein the third information regarding TID-To-Link Mapping is included in the TID-To-Link Mapping element, as taught by Chitrakar. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus use action frames including elements for TID-to-link mapping to communicate with other apparatuses such that the other apparatuses can recognize when a TID-to-link mapping or re-mapping may occur by identifying a received frame as an action frame.
Regarding claim 14, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar discloses the communication method according to claim 13.
Patil discloses wherein the TID-To-Link Mapping element includes Link Mapping of TID 0 field, Link Mapping of TID 1 field, Mapping of TID 2 field, Mapping of TID 3 field, Mapping of TID 4 field, Mapping of TID 5 field, Mapping of TID 6 field, and Mapping of TID 7 field (Fig 9B and [0146]-[0147] discloses that the third packet may dynamically map (i.e. include filed for mapping) TIDs to any set of communication links include TID-To-Link Mapping elements for TID=2, TID=3, TID=4, TID=5 & TID=6.).
Patil fails to include TID-To-Link Mapping fields for TID=0, TID=1 and TID=7.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additional TID-To-Link Mapping fields for TID=0, TID=1 and TID=7, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance (MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B). The motivation to do so would be to have a device that can dynamically map 8 different TIDs to 8 different combinations of communication links (e.g. TID=0 maps to a first link, TID=1 maps to a second link, TID=2 maps to a third link, TID=3 maps to the first and the second link, TID=4 maps to the first and the third link, etc.) in order to enable fast switching between communication links used in ML communication between two devices by sending a packet indicating to switch TIDs.
Regarding claim 15, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the communication apparatus according to Claim 1.
Patil fails to disclose but Chitrakar further teaches wherein the second link is a link that is not set up between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus by communicating the Association frame, and is additionally set up between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus based on the Action frame (Figs 5 & 14C and [0083] disclose that a Multi-link Action frame is used to setup a second link 2 between AP MLD 502 and non-AP MLD 504, and not an Association frame.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the communication apparatus according to claim 1, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar, wherein the second link is a link that is not set up between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus by communicating the Association frame, and is additionally set up between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus based on the Action frame, as further taught by Chitrakar. The motivation to do so would have been to have an MLD AP and non-AP MLD communicate action frames, and not association frames, for setting up a fist link and requesting and responding to adding a second link for multi-link operation, wherein the action frame include a field indicating the action type for the action frame, a field indicating a Link ID for the action and a filed for indicating TID mapping so that the non-AP MLD can request and establish multi-link operation across two different frequency bands to increase throughput.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2021/0014911) (herein after “Patil”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022/035291)(herein after “Kim”) and Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0156840)(herein after “Chitrakar”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0174536)(herein after “Kwon”).
Regarding Claim 5, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar disclose the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Patil fails to disclose but Kwon further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the communication apparatus to, in a case where the first link and the second link form a non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (non-STR) link pair, assign, to the second link, a TID identical to a TID assigned to the first link ([0004] discloses a non-STR soft AP MLD establishing communication with a non-AP MLD over a first group of links that are assigned a first TID. And two links of the group of links represent a case where a first link a second link form a non-STR link pair between the non-STR soft AP MLD and the non-AP MLD, wherein the second of the two links is assigned the same TID as the TID assigned to a first link of the two links. [0013] discloses that the first link and the second link form a NSTR link pair.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the communication apparatus according to claim 1, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the communication apparatus to, in a case where the first link and the second link form a non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (non-STR) link pair, assign, to the second link, a TID identical to a TID assigned to the first link, as further taught by Kwon. The motivation to do so would have been to have a non-STR AP-MLD assign, to a non-AP MLD, the same TID to two different links forming an non-STR link pair in order to ensure alignment of channel access so that transmissions and receptions over the links occur in an organized sequence rather than overlapping.
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2021/0014911) (herein after “Patil”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022/035291)(herein after “Kim”) and Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0156840)(herein after “Chitrakar”), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Patil et al. (IEEE 802.11-20/1044r0)(herein after “Patil-IEEE”).
Regarding Claim 2, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar discloses the apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the communications apparatus to perform operations.
Patil fails to disclose wherein the operations include mapping of a TID for the second link without changing mapping of a TID for the first link.
However, Patil-IEEE further teaches wherein the controlling unit performs the control so as to perform the mapping of the TID for the second link without changing mapping of the TID for the first link (Slide 7, 1st figure on left – discloses a scenario where TID-4 is mapped to a first link at 5 GHz and then TID-4 is set to a second link at 2.4 GHz without changing the TID-4 setting on the first link at 5 GHz.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 13, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar, to include performing control so as to map a TID for the second link without changing the mapping of the TID for the first link, as further taught by Patil-IEEE. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a protocol for determining the result of a TID-to-link negotiation for including a second link that minimizes overhead.
Regarding Claim 3, Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar and Patil-IEEE disclose the apparatus of Claim 2.
Patil fails to disclose wherein the TID includes multiple types of TIDs, and each of the multiple types of TIDs is able to be mapped to the first link or the second link, or the first link and the second link.
However, Patil-IEEE further teaches wherein the TID includes multiple types of TIDs, and each of the multiple types of TIDs is able to be mapped to the first link or the second link, or the first link and the second link (Slide 2, 2nd bullet, 3rd sub-bullet - discloses multiple types of TIDs including a high-volume, latency tolerant traffic flow TIDbe and a latency sensitive flow TIDvo. Each TID is able to be mapped to a first link or a second link (e.g. TIDbe is only mapped to STAa 1/STAb 1) or mapped to a first link and a second link (e.g. TIDvo is mapped to STAa1/STAb 1 and STAa2/STAb2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 2, as disclosed by Patil in view of Kim and Chitrakar and Patil-IEEE, wherein the TID includes multiple types of TIDs, and each of the multiple types of TIDs is able to be mapped to the first link or the second link, or the first link and the second link, as further taught by Patil-IEEE. The motivation to do so would be to have an STA that can map latency sensitive flow TIDs to multiple links to provide better higher throughput & reduced latency, while mapping latency tolerant flow TIDs to only a subset of links that provides lower throughput but can withstand higher latency.
Patil fails to disclose wherein the TID includes eight types of TIDs.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 3rd through 8th types of TIDs, for example TID3 through TID8 to the figure in slide 2 of Patil-IEEE and map TID3 through TID8 to subsets of links (e.g. to a first or second link, or to a first and second link), since it has been held that mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance (MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include eight types of TIDs, and each of the eight types of TIDs is able to be mapped to the first link or the second link, or the first link and the second link. The motivation to do so would be to have an STA that can map 8 different types of TIDs, each with different quality of experience (QoE) requirements, to multiple links to optimize the QoE of each TID by mapping higher throughput, lower latency tolerant QoE TIDs to more links and lower throughput, higher latency tolerant QoE TIDs to fewer links.).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 12425963) discloses a Technique for Performing Multi-Link Communication in Wireless Communication System.
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 JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights