DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
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 – 2 and 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0337338 to Homchaudhuri et al. (hereinafter Homchaudhuri).
Claim 1, Lu discloses (¶2) multi-link channel access and operation with efficient utilization of multi-link resources, and further it discloses:
determining a fast channel and a slower channel based on a backoff algorithm (Lu discloses ¶7-¶9 apparatus capable of multi-link operation with respect to at least two links (e.g., Link 1 and Link 2) and differentiates between primary (fast) link e.g. 5GHz Band and/or 6GHz band, and secondary (slower) link such as 2.4GHz band (¶31-¶35), managed in coordination for efficient utilization. Lu discloses ¶36 – ¶38, by applying the random backoff period timer (i.e. backoff algorithm) since it is expected that several STAs attempt frame transmission after waiting for different periods of time, collision may be minimized, if it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting)
wherein the fast channel includes a faster transmission rate than the slower channel (Lu differentiates between primary (fast) link e.g. 5GHz Band and/or 6GHz band, and secondary (slower) link such as 2.4GHz band (¶31-¶35). The fast channel includes a faster transmission rate i.e. 5GHz can support speeds up to ~1.3Gbps, than the slower channel i.e. 2.4GHz is typically capped at ~300Mbps.) However, Lu does not explicitly disclose transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using both the fast channel and the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number. However, in an analogous art, Homchaudhuri teaches:
transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number (Homchaudhuri teaches ¶8 selecting the single-link mode (i.e. 5 GHz, fast channel, ¶34) of the multi-link operations when the composite metric may be less than a composite threshold level and selecting the multi-link mode of the multi-link operations when the composite metric may be at or exceeds the composite threshold level)
and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using either the fast channel or the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number (Homchaudhuri estimates latency based on the packets per-queue ¶76 which provide a measure of increased latency, and the STA uses this channel access latency threshold (¶52) to transition to transmitting the packets on both links, Fig. 5:530)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining a fast channel and a slower channel based on a backoff algorithm, wherein the fast channel includes a faster transmission rate than the slower channel, as disclosed by Lu, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using both the fast channel and the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number, as taught by Homchaudhuri, for the purpose of implementing (¶1) wireless communication, including station performance enhancement with multi-link operations.
Claim 2, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the first threshold number is determined based on a latency (Homchaudhuri teaches ¶63 determining threshold based on low latency, an indication of a low or ultra-low latency mode, an increase in a transmission control protocol window size, an increase in backhaul network capacity) in a scheme that uses the fast channel and the slower channel and a power consumption in the scheme that uses the fast channel and the slower channel (Homchaudhuri teaches ¶63 selecting to operate in the multi-link mode based on detecting battery power below the threshold.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 8, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 1.
Claim 9, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 2.
Claims 3 – 5 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0337338 to Homchaudhuri and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0092837 to Kwan et al. (hereinafter Kwan).
Claim 3, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri discloses determining a fast channel and a slower channel, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using both the fast channel and the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number. However, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri does not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold number is determined based on a rate at which packets arrive in the packet queue. However, in an analogous art, Kwan teaches:
wherein the first threshold number is determined based on a rate at which packets arrive in the packet queue; Kwan teaches (¶16) dynamic threshold mechanism measures congestion and dynamically adjusts admission control rules of incoming data packets based on congestion information. Kwan (¶22) threshold process data packets per class group (CG) or per class of service (COS) based on ingress port.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining a fast channel and a slower channel, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using both the fast channel and the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number, as disclosed by Lu in view of Homchaudhuri, and wherein the first threshold number is determined based on a rate at which packets arrive in the packet queue, as taught by Kwan, for the purpose of implementing (¶1) a multi-link device adopting block acknowledgment and a packet allocation method thereof.
Claim 4, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri in view of Kwan discloses all the elements of claim 3. Further, they teach:
wherein the first threshold number is determined further based on services rates of the fast channel and the slower channel (Homchaudhuri teaches MLO engine 22 setting a threshold (¶18) based on environmental parameters such as channel condition, a transmission speed and transmission bandwidth. This teaches explicitly that the threshold value is adjusted based on the service-rate capability of each link, satisfying the core of the claim.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 3.
Claim 5, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri in view of Kwan discloses all the elements of claim 3. Further, they teach:
wherein if the rate at which packets arrive in the packet queue increases, the threshold is increased (Kwan teaches (¶5) congestion occurs when data arrives at the note at a rate exceeding the rate at which the node can process and forward the data. Thus, the buffer fills at a rate which is the difference between the arrival rate and the processing and forwarding rate. Kwan teaches (¶20) an adaptive dynamic threshold mechanism … the dynamic threshold value varies depending upon the utilization of the shared buffer and the ingress port traffic load. Kwan teaches (¶25) as the buffer occupancy increases due to higher arrival rates, the XOFF threshold is increased accordingly to restrict additional incoming data until sufficient resources become available. The arrival rate condition in Claim 5 corresponds directly to Kwan’s repeated discussion of data arriving at the node and traffic load at the ingress port. Kwan explicitly states that the threshold (XOFF) is increased when arrival rate / traffic load increases – which is the exact claimed logic.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 3.
Claim 10, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 3.
Claim 11, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 4.
Claim 12, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0337338 to Homchaudhuri and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0289442 to Naribole et al. (hereinafter Naribole).
Claim 6, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri discloses determining a fast channel and a slower channel, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using both the fast channel and the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number. Further they teach,
and a queue associated with the fast channel drops below a second threshold number, the second threshold number being the same as or different than the first threshold number; Homchaudhuri teaches (¶17 - ¶18) the MLO engine 22 allocates AMC packets from a common queue to the first link queue 241 and the second link queue 242 according to the link-queue thresholds. The MLO engine 22 may set a low threshold and a high threshold for each link queue and decide whether to continue filling packets or to stop allocation when a link queue reaches its high threshold.
However, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri does not explicitly disclose turning off the slower channel when a queue associated with the slower channel is empty. However, in an analogous art, Naribole teaches:
turning off the slower channel when a queue associated with the slower channel is empty; Naribole teaches criterion that in response to detecting traffic below a threshold level (¶45) the processor disables/turns-off the link. Naribole explicitly teaches the turn-off/disable behavior of a link under low or no traffic. Naribole (in Fig. 5) teaches each link may be in either the active or power-save mode independently … the link may turn off from time to time in order to conserve energy … when the radio link is off, the link may be in an asleep or doze mode where no data is received or transmitted via the link. This directly teaches turning off a link when traffic (and thus its queue feed) falls below a threshold.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining a fast channel and a slower channel, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, and transmitting a packet in the packet queue using both the fast channel and the slower channel when the number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is equal to or greater than the first threshold number, and a queue associated with the fast channel drops below a second threshold number, the second threshold number being the same as or different than the first threshold number, as disclosed by Lu in view of Homchaudhuri, and turning off the slower channel when a queue associated with the slower channel is empty, as taught by Naribole, for the purpose of managing power usage of a multi-link device (¶2) that is configured to receive and transmit data frames over multiple radio links.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0337338 to Homchaudhuri and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0022973 to Kopikare et al. (hereinafter Kopikare).
Claim 7, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri discloses determining a fast channel and a slower channel, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number. However, Lu in view of Homchaudhuri does not explicitly disclose turning off the slower channel when a predetermined time passes. However, in an analogous art, Kopikare teaches:
turning off the slower channel when a predetermined time passes; Kopikare teaches (¶50-¶54 and Fig. 6) that the AP can go to sleep (e.g.., enter power save mode) when the predetermined period of time expires.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining a fast channel and a slower channel, and transmitting a packet in a packet queue using the fast channel without using the slower channel when a number of data packets waiting in the packet queue is smaller than a first threshold number, as disclosed by Lu in view of Homchaudhuri, and turning off the slower channel when a predetermined time passes, as taught by Kopikare, for the purpose of managing power save mode and reduce power/energy consumption (¶3) when the link remains idle beyond a set interval.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 7.
Claims 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0292463 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
Claim 15, Lu discloses (¶2) multi-link channel access and operation with efficient utilization of multi-link resources, and further it discloses:
determining a fast channel and a slower channel based on a backoff algorithm (Lu discloses ¶7-¶9 apparatus capable of multi-link operation with respect to at least two links (e.g., Link 1 and Link 2) and differentiates between primary (fast) link e.g. 5GHz Band and/or 6GHz band, and secondary (slower) link such as 2.4GHz band (¶31-¶35), managed in coordination for efficient utilization. Lu discloses ¶36 – ¶38, by applying the random backoff period timer (i.e. backoff algorithm) since it is expected that several STAs attempt frame transmission after waiting for different periods of time, collision may be minimized, if it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting. The fast channel includes a faster transmission rate i.e. 5GHz can support speeds up to ~1.3Gbps, than the slower channel i.e. 2.4GHz is typically capped at ~300Mbps)
However, Lu does not explicitly disclose when the fast channel and slower channel are idle, selecting one of the fast channels and the slower channel for transmissions based on a probability, when the slower channel is idle and the fast channel is busy, selecting the slower channel for transmissions and transmitting a data packet using the selected channel. However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches:
when the fast channel and slower channel are idle (Kim teaches (¶245) access allowability information for each link includes traffic level, bandwidth utilization, frequency utilization etc.), selecting one of the fast channels and the slower channel for transmissions based on a probability (Kim teaches (¶246-¶247) probability-based selection (biased coin toss, or RA probability=0.2) performed for each link)
when the slower channel is idle and the fast channel is busy, selecting the slower channel for transmissions (Kim teaches (¶247) when load in a specific link is heavy, an RA possibility through the corresponding link may be configured limitedly. In such a case the STA or device intending to perform random access may select another link having higher access allowability (the access allowability provided per unit of a frequency unit smaller than a frequency band, and a link with a probability of 205 is selected and may not select it with a probability of 80%)
transmitting a data packet using the selected channel (Kim teaches (¶256) this link selection for random access method is supported to fully achieve MLO’s goal to increase data transmission speed and reduce a time required for transmission)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining a fast channel and a slower channel based on a backoff algorithm, as disclosed by Lu, and when the fast channel and slower channel are idle, selecting one of the fast channels and the slower channel for transmissions based on a probability, when the slower channel is idle and the fast channel is busy, selecting the slower channel for transmissions and transmitting a data packet using the selected channel, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of implementing (¶2) method and a device for performing or supporting random access in a multi-link operation.
Claim 16, Lu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of claim 15. Further, they teach:
when one of the fast channel and the slower channel finishes a transmission, selecting the finished channel, for a data packet waiting at the head of a packet queue (Lu discloses a multi-link STA wherein aligning the starting time and/or ending time (¶42-¶45), and when a link completes a TXOP, the link becomes idle, and the scheduler may allocate the next pending frame … the packet at the head of the queue is scheduled on that link.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 15.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0292463 to Kim and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0092837 to Kwan et al. (hereinafter Kwan).
Claim 17, Lu in view of Kim discloses method performed by an apparatus capable of multi-link operations with respect to a plurality of channels, comprising: determining a fast channel and a slower channel; when the fast channel and slower channel are idle, selecting one of the fast channels and the slower channel for transmissions based on a probability; when the slower channel is idle and the fast channel is busy, selecting the slower channel for transmissions; and transmitting a data packet using the selected channel. However, Lu in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein an arriving packet waits in a packet queue when both the fast channel and the slower channel are busy. However, in an analogous art, Kwan teaches:
wherein an arriving packet waits in a packet queue when both the fast channel and the slower channel are busy; Kwan explicitly teaches (¶44-¶50) temporary storage in buffer of incoming traffic packets when transmissions cannot proceed, and pausing transmission under heavy load (i.e. all links busy, demonstrate waits in queue behavior). Kwan teaches incoming packets are temporarily stored in the queue while transmission is suspended, and pauses packet transmission until the queue occupancy decreases … this suspension occurs because all output resources (links/channels) are occupied … functionally identical to both channels busy … no transmission, hence packets queued).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine method performed by an apparatus capable of multi-link operations with respect to a plurality of channels, comprising: determining a fast channel and a slower channel; when the fast channel and slower channel are idle, selecting one of the fast channels and the slower channel for transmissions based on a probability; when the slower channel is idle and the fast channel is busy, selecting the slower channel for transmissions; and transmitting a data packet using the selected channel, as disclosed by Lu in view of Kim, wherein an arriving packet waits in a packet queue when both the fast channel and the slower channel are busy, as taught by Kwan, for the purpose of implementing (¶1) a multi-link device adopting block acknowledgment and a packet allocation method thereof.
Claims 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0127420 to Lu, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0292463 to Kim and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0337338 to Homchaudhuri et al. (hereinafter Homchaudhuri).
Claim 18, Lu in view of Kim discloses method performed by an apparatus capable of multi-link operations with respect to a plurality of channels, comprising: determining a fast channel and a slower channel; when the fast channel and slower channel are idle, selecting one of the fast channels and the slower channel for transmissions based on a probability; when the slower channel is idle and the fast channel is busy, selecting the slower channel for transmissions; and transmitting a data packet using the selected channel. However, Lu in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the probability is determined based on a latency a first scheme that uses fast channel and slower channel and power consumption in first scheme that uses fast channel and slower channel. However, in an analogous art, Homchaudhuri teaches:
wherein the probability is determined based on a latency (Homchaudhuri teaches ¶63 determining threshold based on low latency, an indication of a low or ultra-low latency mode, an increase in a transmission control protocol window size, an increase in backhaul network capacity) a first scheme that uses the fast channel and the slower channel and a power consumption in the first scheme that uses the fast channel and the slower channel (Homchaudhuri teaches ¶63 selecting to operate in the multi-link mode based on detecting battery power below the threshold.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine determining a fast channel and a slower channel, as disclosed by Lu, and wherein the probability is determined based on a latency a first scheme that uses the fast channel and the slower channel and a power consumption in the first scheme that uses the fast channel and the slower channel, as taught by Homchaudhuri, for the purpose of implementing (¶1) wireless communication, including station performance enhancement with multi-link operations.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 18. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 18.
Claim 20, Lu in view of Kim discloses all the elements of claim 18. Further, they teach:
wherein the latency in the first scheme (Kim discloses ¶67 and ¶247 controller may calculate the selection probability of each link by using parameters such as transmission delay) is determined based on a collision probability (Kim discloses ¶87, ¶210, ¶214, ¶256 and ¶247 controller may consider a probability of collision in determining link efficiency and transmission delay) a minimum contention window (Kim discloses ¶79, ¶171 access parameters such as contention window size (CW) may be used for calculating delay or access time), a CCA busy time (Kim discloses ¶77 controller may measure a clear-channel assessment (CCA) busy time to estimate medium availability and adjust the delay value), and a transmit opportunity (TXOP) duration in the first scheme (Kim discloses ¶157, transmission opportunity (TXOP) duration is one of the parameters used in computing the expected delay for each link).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 01/14/2026 with respect to the Claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. Hence, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
In response to the applicant’s argument, (Pg. 9), “ … the proposed combination of references cited in the Office Action do not disclose or suggest at least determining a fast channel and a slower channel based on a backoff algorithm, wherein the fast channel includes a faster transmission rate than the slower channel as recited in the overall combination of the claim. Lu discloses an apparatus capable of multilink operation with respect to at least two links and differentiates between a primary link and a secondary link, managed in coordination for efficient utilization 108. (Lu, pars. [0031]-[0035]). However, Lu does not disclose or suggest that the primary link and the secondary link are determined based on a backoff algorithm,” the Examiner notes that Lu reference clear discloses ¶7-¶9 multi-link operation with respect to at least two links (e.g., Link 1 and Link 2) and with primary (fast) link e.g. 5GHz Band and/or 6GHz band, and secondary (slower) link such as 2.4GHz band (¶31-¶35). The Examiner further notes that the fast channel includes a faster transmission rate (i.e. 5GHz can support speeds up to ~1.3Gbps) than the slower channel (i.e. 2.4GHz is typically capped at ~300Mbps). Further, Lu discloses ¶36 – ¶38 the random backoff period timer (i.e. backoff algorithm) since it is expected that several STAs attempt frame transmission after waiting for different periods of time, and by using the backoff counter collision may be minimized. If it is detected that the medium is occupied or busy, the corresponding STA does not start its own transmission and may set a delay period for medium access (e.g., a random backoff period) and attempt frame transmission after waiting for the counter value as suggested by the backoff algorithm.
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 HASSAN ABDUR-RAHMAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6574. The examiner can normally be reached TEAPP - (M-Sa) 9/30/17-9/30/18, 6am-10pm IFP.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451