DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 31 July 2024. Claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-24, 34-36, 44, 50, 59-61 and 63-64 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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:
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 17, 34-35, 44, 50, 59-61 and 63-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shafin et al. (US 2024/0340881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shafin appears to disclose a first wireless access point (AP), comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless AP to (Fig. 2A, controller/processor 224, memory 229, [0060]-[0061], [0177] disclosing a software/hardware implementation):
receive information (([0101]-[0103] disclosing coordinated TWT (C-TWT) in which the sharing AP sends the TWT coordination request and the shared AP receives said request; [0135] disclosing the request frame comprising one or more TWT elements) indicative of: a coordinated time region associated with a second wireless AP (Fig. 11 from t2 to t3 , [0113] disclosing the R-TWT SP for STA 2 used by the R-TWT coordination AP set for R-TWT multi-AP coordination according to the first R-TWT schedule; [0116] disclosing triggered access mode-5; Fig. 13, [0120], [0123] disclosing the TWT element comprising the R-TWT schedule), and a first set of channel access parameters associated with the coordinated time region ([0116] disclosing triggered access mode-5 wherein the AP ends its TXOP before the start of the scheduled R-TWT SP; Fig. 13, [0124] and Table 1 disclosing the TWT element specifying which mode to use for access for R-TWT coordination); and
transmit a frame within a transmission opportunity (TXOP) obtained in accordance with a first channel access procedure (Fig. 11, [0113] disclosing AP2 transmits during its TXOP) or a second channel access procedure (Fig. 11, [0116] disclosing the AP2 ends its TXOP before the R-TWT SP at t2 and AP2 can begin contention when triggered by the sharing AP), wherein the TXOP is obtained in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to a beginning of the coordinated time region (Fig. 11, [0116] disclosing the AP2 ends its TXOP before the R-TWT SP at t2 and AP2 can begin contention when triggered by the sharing AP),
wherein the first channel access procedure is in accordance with a second set of channel access parameters different than the first set of channel access parameters ([0052] disclosing APs contend for the wireless channel; [0098] AP2 commences transmission to STA 3 at time t1, Fig. 11,[0111]-[0113] disclosing AP2’s TXOP (e.g., a normal contention for the channel); as opposed to mode-2 at time t4 during the R-TWT SP or [0116] triggered access mode-5).
Regarding claim 2, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
initiate the first channel access procedure in accordance with the second set of channel access parameters prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region (Fig. 11, [0098], [0111]-[0113]),
wherein interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region is in association with:
initiating the first channel access procedure in accordance with the second set of channel access parameters prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region; and the coordinated time region being associated with the first set of channel access parameters (Fig. 11, [0111]-[0113], [0116]]).
Regarding claim 11, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
initiate the second channel access procedure in accordance with the first set of channel access parameters within the coordinated time region in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region ([0113], [0116]).
Regarding claim 17, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein, in accordance with a rule associated with the coordinated time region, the first wireless AP refrains from performing a channel access procedure within at least a portion of the coordinated time region ([0108], [0111], [0113], [0116]).
Regarding claim 34-35, the claims are drawn towards the method performed by the first wireless access point of claims 1-2; accordingly, claims 34-35 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1-2.
Regarding claim 44, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 34, further comprising: initiating the second channel access procedure in accordance with the first set of channel access parameters within the coordinated time region in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region ([0111], [0113], [0116]).
Regarding claim 50, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 34, wherein in accordance with a rule associated with the coordinated time region, the first wireless AP refrains from performing a channel access procedure within at least a portion of the coordinated time region ([0108], [0111], [0113], [0116]).
Regarding claim 59, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 34, further comprising:
activating, in association with receiving the information, the first set of channel access parameters for any channel access procedures initiated within the coordinated time region ([0108], [0111], [0113], [0116]); and
deactivating the first set of channel access parameters in accordance with a satisfaction of one or more conditions associated with the coordinated time region ([0018], [0052], [0057] i.e., conventional contention outside of the TWT SP).
Regarding claim 60, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 59, wherein the satisfaction of the one or more conditions comprises one or more of:
the first wireless AP obtaining a first threshold quantity of channel accesses; the second wireless AP obtaining a second threshold quantity of channel accesses; an expiration of the coordinated time region in accordance with a start time and a duration of the coordinated time region; the first wireless AP detecting a threshold quantity of channel busy events within the coordinated time region; or a start of a second coordinated time region of a third wireless AP ([0018], [0052], [0057], Fig. 13, [0123]).
Regarding claim 61, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 60, further comprising:
receiving, via the information or via one or more frames associated with a negotiation between the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP, an indication of:
one or more of the first threshold quantity of channel accesses; the second threshold quantity of channel accesses; the start time and the duration of the coordinated time region; or the threshold quantity of channel busy events (Fig. 13, [0123]).
Regarding claim 63, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 34, wherein the first wireless AP receives the information from the second wireless AP via one or more management frames ([0101]-[0103], Fig. 13, [0120], [0123], [0135]).
Regarding claim 64, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 34, wherein the first wireless AP receives the information from a central controller via a backhaul link (Fig. 19, [0156]-[0157]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10, 12-23, 18-22 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2024/0340881 A1) in view of Baek et al. (WO 2024/232721 A1) citations correspond to EP 4712664 A1 serving as a translation.
Regarding claim 3, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 1, wherein:
the first wireless AP classifies the beginning of the coordinated time region as a channel busy event and interrupts the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region in association with classifying the beginning of the coordinated time region as the channel busy event ([0097]).
Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Baek suggests interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises pausing the first channel access procedure ([0279], [0281] disclosing protecting an OBSS R-TWT using the back-off procedure rules of the R-TWT SP; [0206] disclosing suspending decrementing the back-off counter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Regarding claim 4, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 3, wherein in accordance with a rule associated with the coordinated time region, the first wireless AP classifies the beginning of the coordinated time region as the channel busy event independent of an energy detection measurement at the beginning of the coordinated time region ([0113]).
Regarding claim 10, Shafin suggests the first wireless AP of claim 3, wherein:
the first wireless AP accesses the channel after the coordinated time region in association with detecting, within the coordinated time region, an idle channel for a threshold time duration; and the threshold time duration spans a duration of the coordinated time region ([0113], [0116] disclosing the AP and STAs contend for access within the R-TWT SP). Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that contention requires sensing the channel to be idle for a particular duration of time before winning access to the channel. One of ordinary skill in the art using common sense as a guide would understand the possibility that an AP would begin sensing in the R-TWT SP which could result in starting the sensing inside the R-TWT SP and completing the sensing after the R-TWT SP ends; thus, based on common knowledge this feature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Shafin does not disclose the following; however, Baek suggests the first wireless AP resumes the first channel access procedure ([0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Regarding claim 12, Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Baek suggests the first wireless AP of claim 11, wherein:
the first wireless AP stores a state associated with the first channel access procedure in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region; and interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises pausing the first channel access procedure ([0279], [0281], [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Regarding claim 13, Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Baek suggests the first wireless AP of claim 12, wherein the first wireless AP resumes the first channel access procedure after the coordinated time region in association with storing the state associated with the first channel access procedure ([0279], [0281], [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Regarding claim 18, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 17, wherein:
the first wireless AP contends for channel access after at least the portion of the coordinated time region in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region in accordance with the rule ([0111]).
Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Baek suggests the first wireless AP resumes the first channel access procedure; and interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises pausing the first channel access procedure ([0279], [0281], [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Regarding claim 19, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 17, wherein: the first wireless AP classifies at least the portion of the coordinated time region as a channel busy event and interrupts the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region in association with classifying at least the portion of the coordinated time region as the channel busy event ([0113]).
Shaffin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Baek suggest interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises pausing the first channel access procedure ([0279], [0281], [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Regarding claim 20, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 19, wherein, in accordance with the rule associated with the coordinated time region, the first wireless AP classifies the portion of the coordinated time region as the channel busy event independent of one or more energy detection measurements within the portion of the coordinated time region ([0113]).
Regarding claim 21, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 19, wherein, in accordance with the rule associated with the coordinated time region, the first wireless AP classifies an entirety of the coordinated time region as the channel busy event independent of one or more energy detection measurements within the entirety of the coordinated time region ([0108]).
Regarding claim 22, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 19, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
receive, via the information or via one or more frames associated with a negotiation between the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP, an indication of a duration of the portion of the coordinated time region ([0108], [0113], Fig. 13, [0120]-[0124], Table 1).
Regarding claim 36, Shafin appears to disclose the method of claim 34, wherein:
the first wireless AP classifies the beginning of the coordinated time region as a channel busy event and interrupts the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region in association with classifying the beginning of the coordinated time region as the channel busy event ([0111], [0113], [0116]).
Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Baek suggests interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises pausing the first channel access procedure ([0279], [0281], [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ar before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2024/0340881 A1) in view of Baek et al. (WO 2024/232721 A1); Further in view of Viger et al. (GB 2629025 A).
Regarding claim 5, Shafin does not disclose the following; hoever, Baek suggests the first wireless AP of claim 3, wherein:
the first wireless AP resumes the first channel access procedure within the coordinated time region ([0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin to allow the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]).
Viger suggests in association with detecting, within the coordinated time region, an idle channel for a threshold time duration; and the threshold time duration is associated with the first set of channel access parameters (Fig. 7, 731, pg. 28, line 1, OBSS EDCA parameter set for protecting the OBSS TWT SP; pg. 28, lines 11-14; pg. 29, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin as suggested by Viger because this gives priority for accessing the medium to the stations belonging to the BSS which needs TWT protection (pg. 27, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 6, Shafin does not disclose the following; however, Baek and Viger suggests the first wireless AP of claim 5, wherein the first channel access procedure that is resumed within the coordinated time region is associated with a hybrid set of channel access parameters in accordance with:
a resumption of a backoff value selected in accordance with the second set of channel access parameters (Baek: [0206]); and a use of the threshold time duration associated with the first set of channel access parameters (Viger: Fig. 7, 731, pg. 28, line 1, OBSS EDCA parameter set for protecting the OBSS TWT SP; pg. 28, lines 11-14; pg. 29, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the techniques of Shafin as suggested by Baek and Viger because this allows the AP to protect the OBSS R-TWT SP following the same backoff procedure rules because this allows the AP to attempt transmission of non-delay sensitive traffic within the R-TWT when it has no delay-sensitive traffic pending ([0182], [0193], [0206]); and this gives priority for accessing the medium to the stations belonging to the BSS which needs TWT protection (pg. 27, lines 9-12).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2024/0340881 A1) in view of Das et al. (WO 2024/019739 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Das suggests the first wireless AP of claim 11, wherein:
the first wireless AP discards a state associated with the first channel access procedure in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region; and interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises terminating the first channel access procedure (pg. 5, lines 21-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the techniques of Das in the invention of Shafin because this promotes fair access to all devices after the TWT SP ends.
Regarding claim 16, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 15, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
initiate a third channel access procedure in accordance with the second set of channel access parameters after the coordinated time region in association with discarding the state associated with the first channel access procedure ([0108]).
Regarding claim 23, Shafin does not expressly disclose the following; however, Das suggests the first wireless AP of claim 17, wherein:
the first wireless AP discards a state associated with the first channel access procedure in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to the beginning of the coordinated time region in accordance with the rule; and interrupting the first channel access procedure comprises terminating the first channel access procedure (pg. 5, lines 21-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the techniques of Das in the invention of Shafin because this promotes fair access to all devices after the TWT SP ends.
Regarding claim 24, Shafin appears to disclose the first wireless AP of claim 23, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless AP to:
initiate the second channel access procedure in accordance with the second set of channel access parameters or the first set of channel access parameters after at least the portion of the coordinated time region in association with discarding the state associated with the first channel access procedure ([0111], [0113], [0116]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 31 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the reference of record Shafin does not disclose or suggest “the TXOP is obtained in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to a beginning of the coordinated time region.” Applicant admits in the record that Shafin discloses,
“the second AP and any non-AP STAs associated with the second AP and operating in the second BSS shall ensure the TXOP ends before the start time of an R-TWT SP corresponding to the first R- TWT schedule in the first BSS." Id. [0108]. For example, at one portion cited by the Office Action, Shafin describes that "[t]he TXOP established between AP 2 and STA 3 in BSS 2 ends before the start time 12 of the R-TWT SP in BSS 1." Id. [0113] (emphasis added). At another portion, Shafin describes that, at a designated time, "AP 2 or any associated STAs in BSS 2 may start contending for channel access and transmit frames after winning the contention." Id.[0113].”
Applicant asserts that an existing TXOP ending before a start time of a scheduled service period is not the same as obtaining a TXOP “in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to a beginning of the coordinated time region.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant provides definition of a TXOP as follows, “The TXOP is the duration of time the wireless communication device can transmit frames over the channel after it has “won” contention for the wireless medium.” Thus it would appear that AP2s TXOP in Fig. 11 of Shafin is a duration of time the wireless communication device can transmit frames over the channel after it has “won” contention for the wireless medium. (Fig. 11 DL PPDU during TXOP, [0111]-[0113], [0052] disclosing APs contend for the wireless channel). Further, the duration of AP2s TXOP in Fig. 11 is in association with interrupting said TXOP. Thus, it would appear that the duration of time in AP2s TXOP is obtained in association with interruption at the end of the TXOP. That is to say this appears to disclose the first alternative in the independent claims of, “transmit a frame within a transmission opportunity (TXOP) (Fig. 11, DL PPDU during AP2’s TXOP) obtained1 in accordance with a first channel access procedure ([0052] contention is a channel access procedure)… wherein the TXOP is obtained in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to a beginning of the coordinated time region (Fig. 11, Duration of AP2’s TXOP ends before the R-TWT SP).
Furthermore, Shafin discloses “triggered access mode-5” in which “the second AP operating in the second BSS shall ensure the TXOP ends before the start time of an R-TWT SP corresponding to the first R-TWT schedule in the first BSS, and ii) the second AP or any STAs associated with the second AP and operating in the second BSS may start contention for channel access after being triggered by the first AP. ([0116]). Moreover, Shafin discloses, “AP 2 may end the TXOP (not shown) established between AP 2 and ST 3 before the start time 12 of the R-TWT SP in BSS 1. However, when AP 2 receives a C-TWT trigger from AP 1, AP 2 responds by sending a CTS (clear to send) frame to the AP 1 and start contention for channel access to transmit DL PPDU to STA 3.” (Fig. 12, [0118]). This appears to disclose the second alternative in the independent claims of, “transmit a frame (Fig. 12 DL PPDU) within a transmission opportunity (TXOP) obtained1 in accordance with…a second channel access procedure (i.e., by contending for the channel when triggered within the R-TWT SP AP2 is able to use a duration of time to transmit DL PPDU to STA3), wherein the TXOP is obtained in association with interrupting the first channel access procedure at or prior to a beginning of the coordinated time region (i.e., “AP 2 may end the TXOP (not shown) established between AP 2 and ST 3 before the start time 12 of the R-TWT SP in BSS 1”).
1 obtained as defined by Merriam-Webster; transitive verb: “to gain or attain usually by planned action or effort”; intransitive verb: “to be generally recognized or established” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtain
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the reference of record Shafin does not disclose the features of claim 11 by merely contradicting examiner’s findings with out any evidentiary support. Such assertions fail to shift the burden to examiner.
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).
Applicant is advised to clarify the disputed terms by defining them within the claims to differentiate the claims from the prior art. The term “channel access procedure” is broad and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to interpret a TXOP gained through conventional contention between APs and terminated by other constraints (beginning of the R-TWT SP) to encompass “a first channel access procedure.” Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to interpret a triggered contention won by the AP2 in which a DL PPDU is transmitted to STA3 within the R-TWT SP (i.e., “triggered access mode-5” in Shafin) as a second channel access procedure. Accordingly the arguments directed towards the features of claim 11 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chisci et al., "AP Coordination Listening Instances", IEEE 802.11-23/478r0, Mar 2024; Chisci et al., "Coordinated Medium Access for Multi-AP Deployments", IEEE 802.11-23/1887r0, Jan 2024.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
