DETAILED ACTION
This is a FINAL Office Action (“Action”) in reply to the response filed May 29, 2026 (“May Resp.”). In the May Resp. claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on March 24, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Cited Prior Art
The following is the prior art cited and relied upon in this Action.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0164709, to Ajami et al. (“Ajami”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0294633, to Lu et al. (“Lu”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0141770, to Ahn et la. (“Ahn”).
Response to Arguments and Claim Amendments
Previously Presented Claim Objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Claim Rejection
The previously presented claim objections and section 112(b) claim rejection are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments submitted in the May Resp., except as maintained below.
Previously Presented Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Applicant makes the following arguments as to why Ajami and Ajami in combination with Lu do not anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention.
First Argument
Applicant argues that “Lu does not disclose or suggest that the rTWT response from AP2 indicates a capability of AP2 to participate in multi-AP coordination.” May Resp. 13. Applicant further argues that “[i]n fact, inclusion of such an indication in the rTWT response would be unnecessary in the example of Lu Fig. 14 for the AP1 to determine that the AP2 has a capability to participate in multi-AP coordination, as Lu explicitly states that in Fig. 14, it is assumed that the AP1 and the AP2 have already performed a multi-AP coordinated transmission establishment process.” Id. Lastly, Applicant argues that “amended Claim 1 recites that the first AP device receives the request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device after transmitting the frame indicating the capability of the first AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination,” which is not taught in Lu, nor in Ajami or Ahn. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
The first part of Applicant’s argument requires a claim interpretation that the “frame indicating a capability of the first AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination,” as recited in now amended claim 1, have an explicit or express indication within the frame, such as a field, bit/byte, etc. However, this is not a requirement of the plain language of the claim. All that is required is that the frame indicate the capability, whether that is express or by the frame itself, either teaches the limitation as written. As taught in Lu, and explained in the rejections, the “rTWT response [1] from AP2” itself is an indication of the capability to participate in the multi-AP coordination because the purpose of the response message is to finish negotiation of multi-AP coordination. See Lu, ¶¶171-174. As such, this argument is not persuasive based on the current language of the claim.
The second part of Applicant’s argument argues that “the request frame for multi-AP coordination after” transmission of the frame indicating the capability. Claim 1, however, never previously recites a “request frame” until this newly added limitation. Thus, any request frame for multi-AP coordination transmitted after the “rTWT response 1” frame in Lu would teach this limitation. As shown in at least Fig. 14 of Lu, there is a “rTWT request 4” frame transmitted from AP2 to AP1 that is also used to negotiate multi-AP coordination and is transmitted after “rTWT response 1.” As a result, Applicant’s argument on this point is also not persuasive.
Second Argument
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 12, that the beacon frames transmitted by the APs in Fig. 6 of Ajami are between each other, as opposed to being transmitted to stations, as required by claim 12. See May Resp. 14-15. As a result, the Ajami alone or when combined with Lu and Ahn does not disclose, teach, or suggest the entirety of claim 12. See id.
This argument is not persuasive for the following reason.
Ajami describes in paragraph 66, “each of the access points AP1, AP2, and AP3 may assign or otherwise allocate low-latency STAs to the service periods r-TWT SP1, r-TWT SP2, and r-TWT SP3, respectively, based on r-TWT schedule information carried in beacon or other management frames transmitted prior to (or during) one or more r-TWT SPs.” Ajami also describes that the beacon frames are broadcast. See id. at ¶68. Lastly, it is clear from the entirety of Ajami that the stations, “STA,” are meant to also receive or intercept these beacon frames. See id. at ¶¶35, 62, 63, “AP 110 may periodically broadcast beacon frames to enable the STAs 120a-120i and other wireless devices within wireless range of the AP 110 to establish and maintain a communication link with the AP 110,” “the AP 512 may acquire the r-TWT SP schedule of the AP 513 by intercepting beacon frames, management frames, or other packets transmitted by the AP 513 to its associated STAs (such as the STA 506),” and “the STA 505 may intercept one or more beacon frames, management frames, or other packets transmitted by the AP 513 to its associated STAs (such as the STA 506).” For at least these reasons, Applicant’s argument with respect to the beacon frames in Ajami and claim 12 are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “includes a mode information” should be amended as “includes [[a]] mode information” for readability. Addressing the informality through amendment or argument is required.
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 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ajami.
Independent Claim 12
Claim 12 recites and Ajami discloses:
A station in a wireless network (Ajami, ¶75, Fig. 5, any of STAs 501-506 are stations in a wireless network), the station comprising:
a memory (Ajami, ¶37, Fig. 2, memory 240);
a processor coupled to the memory (Ajami, ¶¶37-38, Fig. 2, processor 220), the processor configured to cause the station to:
receive a target wake time (TWT) element from a first AP device which is associated with the station, wherein the TWT element includes information indicating that a TWT schedule corresponding to the TWT element is established in a second basic service set (BSS) established by a second AP device (Ajami, ¶¶62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may send a beacon frame 601/701, 602/702, which includes a TWT schedule for AP3 (r-TWT SP3) (see id., ¶68), AP3 is part of its own (“second”) BSS (¶56, Fig. 5), and AP1 and AP2 are part of “a first BSS” (¶56, Fig. 5)); and
ensure that a transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a first BSS ends before a start time of a TWT service period of the TWT schedule, wherein the first BSS is established by the first AP device (Ajami, ¶¶61, 68, 69, 72, 78, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (“first AP device”) ensures that any communications (“TXOP”) in r-TWT SP1, SP2 end prior to r-TWT SP3 as indicated by the “Prevent Communications” indication in Figs. 6, 7; see also Fig. 4).
Dependent Claim 13
Claim 13 recites and Ajami discloses the “station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the station to: abstaining from transmitting a frame to the first AP device during the TWT service period.” Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2.
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14 recites and Ajami discloses:
the processor is further configured to cause:
abstain from transmitting a frame to the first AP device after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2); and
initiate communication with the first AP device in a time indicated from the first AP device, wherein the time is before an end time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, the r-TWT SP3 is a TWT service period, and communication between AP1 or AP2 and a station, such as any of STAs 501-505, occurs before the end of this service period).
Dependent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites and Ajami discloses the “station of claim 12, wherein the TWT schedule established in the second BSS is associated with communication of latency sensitive traffic.” Ajami, ¶¶61, 64-66, 69-75.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami in view of Lu, both of which are in the same field of multiple access point scheduling as the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Ajami discloses:
A first access point (AP) device in a wireless network (Ajami, ¶64, Fig. 6, AP1 or AP2 are a “first access point” in a wireless network; see also Ajami, Fig. 5, APs 511, 512), the first AP device comprising:
a memory (Ajami, ¶45, Fig. 3, memory 330); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Ajami, ¶¶45, 47, Fig. 3, processor 320), the processor configured to cause the first AP device to:
receive information related to a target wake time (TWT) schedule established in a second basic service set (BSS), wherein the second BSS is established by a second AP device (Ajami, ¶¶2, 62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may receive a beacon frame 603, 703, which includes a TWT schedule for AP3 (r-TWT SP3), AP3 is part of its own (“second”) BSS (¶56, Fig. 5), and AP1 and AP2 are part of “a first BSS” (¶56, Fig. 5));
ensure that a transmission opportunity (TXOP) established in a first BSS ends before a start time of a TWT service period of the TWT schedule established in the second BSS, wherein the first BSS is established by the first AP device (Ajami, ¶¶61, 69, 72, 78, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (“first AP device”) ensures that any communications (“TXOP”) in r-TWT SP1, SP2 end prior to r-TWT SP3 as indicated by the “Prevent Communications” indication in Figs. 6, 7; see also Fig. 4) … .
Ajami does not disclose the additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches that “the processor [is] configured to cause the first AP device to … transmit a frame indicating a capability of the first AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination.” Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 sends an “rTWT response 1” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination, which is an indication of being capable to participate in the multi-AP coordination. Lu also teaches that “the processor [is] configured to cause the first AP device to … after transmission of the frame indicating the capability of the first AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination, receive a request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.” Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 transmits “rTWT request 4” frame to AP1 that is used to negotiate multi-AP coordination and is transmitted after “rTWT response 1.”
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 AP in Ajami to transmit a frame indicating capability information and transmit a request for multi-AP coordination after receiving the frame indicating capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 recites that the “first AP device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to: abstain from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS during the TWT service period,” which Ajami further discloses. Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 recites and Ajami discloses:
the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2); and
initiate communication with a station associated with the first AP device in a time indicated from the second AP device, wherein the time is before an end time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, the r-TWT SP3 is a TWT service period, and communication between AP1 or AP2 and a station, such as any of STAs 501-505, occurs before the end of this service period).
Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 recites and Ajami further discloses that “the TWT schedule established in the second BSS is associated with communication of latency sensitive traffic.” Ajami, ¶¶61, 64-66, 69-75.
Dependent Claim 5
Claim 5 recites and Ajami discloses:
the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to any station associated with the first AP device in the first BSS after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2);
…; and
initiate communication with a station associated with the first AP device before an end time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, the r-TWT SP3 is a TWT service period, and communication between AP1 or AP2 and a station, such as any of STAs 501-505, occurs before the end of this service period).
Ajami does not disclose “the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to … receive a trigger frame to solicit a response frame,” as further recited in the claim. Lu remedies this and teaches that during a TWT service period, a trigger frame may be received/generated by the processor of the AP that initiates a solicitation of a response from another AP device. Lu, ¶¶171, 174, Fig. 12, AP 1 generates/sends the Multi-AP trigger frame to AP2, which causes AP2 to generate a DL PPDU, which then causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1; alternatively, as shown in Fig. 12, AP1 may receive a trigger frame from AP2, send a DL PPDU to STA1-1, which causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1.
It is noted that Lu does not make clear with respect to Fig. 12 if the ACK message is only sent to AP2 and then forwarded to AP1 from STA1-1, or if STA1-1 sends both AP1 and AP2 an ACK message. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that these are the only two options for sending an ACK message based on the description in Lu, and both achieve the same desired result of sending a response (ACK) frame to an AP that has transmitted downlink data. In other words, it would have been obvious to try either option and achieve the same predictable result. See MPEP § 2143, subsection I.E. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to send trigger frames from a first AP device to a second AP device to solicit a response frame, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶174.
Dependent Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
the process is further configured to cause the first AP device to:
after receiving the request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device, transmit a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the second AP device.
Ajami does not disclose these additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches “receiv[ing] a request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device, (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, in the second negotiation, AP2 sends a “rTWT request 4” for multi-AP coordination to AP1), which is after “transmit[ting] a response frame indicating acceptance of the request for multi-AP coordination to the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP1 sends an “rTWT response 3” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination after receiving the “rTWT request 4”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive a request frame from a second AP device and sending a response, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
the processor is further configured to cause the first AP to:
receive an announcement frame for the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device before transmitting the frame indicating the capability of the first AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination.
Ajami does not disclose these additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches “receiv[ing] an announcement frame for the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, in the first negotiation, AP2 receives an “rTWT request 2” for multi-AP coordination to AP1), which is before “transmitting the frame indicating capability of the first AP device to participate in the multi-AP coordination,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 sends an “rTWT response 1” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination, which is an indication of being capable to participate in the multi-AP coordination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive an announcement frame from a second AP device and sending a frame with capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 recites and Ajami further discloses that “information related to the TWT schedule is received from the second AP device.” Ajami, ¶¶2, 62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may receive a beacon frame 603, 703, which includes a TWT schedule for AP3 (r-TWT SP3), AP3 is part of its own (“second”) BSS (¶56, Fig. 5), and AP1 and AP2 are part of “a first BSS” (¶56, Fig. 5).
Dependent Claim 9
Claim 9 recites and Ajami discloses the “the processor is further configured to cause the first AP device to: transmit a TWT element including information for the TWT schedule to one or more stations associated with the first AP device.” Ajami, ¶¶35, 66.
Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10 recites and Ajami further discloses that “the TWT element includes information indicating that the TWT schedule is established in the second BSS.” Ajami, ¶¶35, 66.
Independent Claim 17
Claim 17 recites and Ajami discloses:
A first access point (AP) device in a wireless network (Ajami, ¶64, Fig. 6, AP1 or AP2 are a “first access point” in a wireless network; see also Ajami, Fig. 5, APs 511, 512), the first AP device comprising:
a memory (Ajami, ¶45, Fig. 3, memory 330); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Ajami, ¶¶45, 47, Fig. 3, processor 320), the processor configured to cause the first AP device to:
…
… transmit a request frame for multi-AP coordination to [a] second AP device, wherein the request frame includes a TWT schedule established in a first basic service set (BSS) and the first BSS is established by the first AP device (Ajami, ¶¶2, 62, 63, 67, 71, Figs. 5-7, AP1 or AP2 (either may be “a first AP device”) may receive a beacon frame 603, 703 (“a request”), which includes a TWT schedule for a first BSS associated with AP1 and AP2 (¶56, Fig. 5) and where AP1 and AP2 are AP coordinated).
Ajami does not disclose the additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches that “the processor [is] configured to cause the first AP device to … receive a frame indicating a capability of a second AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination.” Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 sends an “rTWT response 1” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination, which is an indication of being capable to participate in the multi-AP coordination. Lu also teaches that “the processor [is] configured to cause the first AP device to … after reception of the frame indicating the capability of the second AP device to participate in multi-AP coordination, transmit a request frame for multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.” Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 transmits “rTWT request 4” frame to AP1 that is used to negotiate multi-AP coordination and is transmitted after “rTWT response 1.” Lastly, Lu teaches “the processor [is] configured to cause the first AP device to … receive a response frame indicating acceptance of the multi-AP coordination from the second AP device.” Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP1 sends an “rTWT response 3” that AP2 receives, and which accepts the request for multi-AP coordination.
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 AP in Ajami to transmit a frame indicating capability information and transmit a request for multi-AP coordination after receiving the frame indicating capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
the process is further configured to cause the first AP device to:
before receiving the frame indicating capability of the second AP device to participate in the multi-AP coordination, transmit an announce frame for the multi-AP coordination, wherein the announce frame includes [] mode information for the multi-AP coordination.
Ajami does not disclose these additionally recited limitations. Lu remedies this and teaches “transmit[ting] an announcement frame for the multi-AP coordination,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, in the first negotiation, AP2 receives an “rTWT request 2” for multi-AP coordination to AP1), which is before “transmit[ting] the frame indicating capability of the first AP device to participate in the multi-AP coordination,” (Lu, ¶¶174-177, Fig. 14, AP2 sends an “rTWT response 1” that accepts the request for multi-AP coordination, which is an indication of being capable to participate in the multi-AP coordination), and necessarily includes “mode information” since it is an announce frame for the mode of multi-AP coordination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive an announcement frame from a second AP device and sending a frame with capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Dependent Claim 19
Claim 19 recites and Ajami discloses the “first AP device of claim 17, wherein the TWT schedule is associated with communication of latency sensitive traffic.” Ajami, ¶¶61, 64-66, 69-75.
Dependent Claim 20
Claim 20 recites additional limitations not taught in Ajami. Even so, Lu remedies this and teaches: “the first AP device of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to cause: transmitting a trigger frame to the second AP device before an end time of a TWT service period corresponding to the TWT schedule, wherein the trigger frame indicates that the second AP is allowed to initiate communication with an associated station in the second BSS.” Lu, ¶¶171, 174, Fig. 12, AP 1 generates/sends the Multi-AP trigger frame to AP2, which causes AP2 to generate a DL PPDU, which then causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1; alternatively, as shown in Fig. 12, AP1 may receive a trigger frame from AP2, send a DL PPDU to STA1-1, which causes STA1-1 to send back an ACK to AP2, which finally results in AP2 sending the ACK (“a response frame”) to AP1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to receive an announcement frame from a second AP device and sending a frame with capability information, as in Lu, to effectuate coordinated joint transmission to “transmission of delay sensitive service data.” See Lu, ¶¶174, 177.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami in view of Ahn, both of which are in the same field of multiple access point scheduling as the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 15
Claim 15 recites and Ajami discloses:
the station of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the station to:
abstain from transmitting a frame to the first AP device after the start time of the TWT service period (Ajami, ¶¶58, 65, 66, Figs. 6, 7, communication is prevented during r-TWT SP3 by either of AP1 and AP2).
Ajami does not disclose the additionally recited limitation. Ahn remedies this and teaches “initiat[ing] communication with the first AP device when a trigger frame to solicit a response frame is received from the first AP device before an end time of the TWT service period.” Ahn, ¶227, Fig. 23, the STA receives a trigger frame during a TWT service period, which solicits a WU response. 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 system of Ajami to initiate communication during a TWT service period, as in Ahn, so that even though during a TWT service period, buffered data ready for transmission can be communicated from an AP to a STA. See id.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 11 were presented in the last non-final Office action mailed May 29, 2026 and remain the same.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights