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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL “Seamless Roaming Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as LG Electronics).
RE Claim 9, LG Electronics discloses an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – AP MLD), comprising:
one or more processors (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – AP MLD has processor/s); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – AP MLD has memory), cause the AP MLD to:
transmit, to a station (STA) MLD, a first frame indicating a plurality of candidate target AP MLDs for a roaming procedure by the STA MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – AP transmits recommended AP list (probe response frame) to STA);
receive, from the STA MLD, one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicating one or more second AP MLDs from the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 7 – non-AP MLD sends reconfiguration request frame indicating target AP) and requesting addition of one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pgs. 7-8 – reconfiguration involves adding new links to new target AP);
based on acceptance of addition of the one or more links by the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 7 – FIGURE – Before roaming vs. After roaming involves “acceptance” of the addition of the one or more links by the one or more second AP MLDs), transmit, to the STA MLD, one or more link reconfiguration response frames indicating the addition of the one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pgs. 7-8 – receiving reconfiguration response frame which indicates one of the three possible roaming options that involves adding new link/s between the STA and target AP; in addition, this step could be construed as any subsequent communication by the AP MLD to the STA MLD that indicates the addition of the one or more (new) link(s) between the STA MLD and the second AP MLD (i.e. pg. 8 – Link “ADD” step or subsequent step/s)); and
transfer, to the one or more second AP MLDs, context related to the STA MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 8 – non-AP MLD establishes new link with target AP MLD and communication is transferred to target AP MLD).
RE Claim 10, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the AP MLD to receive, from the STA MLD, a second frame requesting a recommendation of candidate target AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – non-AP MLD can ask for recommendation list of potential target APs).
RE Claim 12, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 11 above, wherein the second link reconfiguration request frame executes the transition to the third AP MLD (See LG Electronics pgs. 8-9 – non-AP MLD establishes new link with the target AP MLD).
RE Claim 13, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above, wherein the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs are part of a same mobility domain as the first AP MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – APs affiliated with the same UFT AP MLD).
RE Claim 14, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above, wherein the STA MLD is associated with the AP MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – STA MLD is associated with AP MLD).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Seamless Roaming Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as LG Electronics) in view of Fang et al. (US# 2026/0150025 hereinafter referred to as Fang).
RE Claim 1, LG Electronics discloses A station (STA) multi-link device (MLD) (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – non-AP MLD STA), comprising:
one or more processors (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – STA MLD has processor/s); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – STA MLD has memory), cause the STA MLD to:
receive, from a first access point (AP) MLD with which the STA MLD is associated, a first frame indicating a plurality of candidate target AP MLDs for a roaming procedure by the STA MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – STA receives recommended AP list (probe response frame) from AP MLD);
transmit, to the first AP MLD, one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicating one or more second AP MLDs from the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 7 – non-AP MLD sends reconfiguration request frame indicating target AP) and requesting addition of one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pgs. 7-8 – reconfiguration involves adding new links to new target AP);
receive, from the first AP MLD, one or more link reconfiguration response frames indicating addition of the one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 7 – receiving reconfiguration response frame which indicates one of the three possible roaming options that involves adding new link/s between the STA and target AP); and
transmit, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs, a second communication to the third AP MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 8 – non-AP MLD establishes new link with target AP MLD).
LG Electronics does not specifically disclose transmitting, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs, a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting comprising a request to execute a transition from the first AP MLD transitioning to the third AP MLD for the roaming procedure.
However, Fang teaches of transmitting, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs (See Fang FIG 5; [0040]-[0042] – non-AP MLD sends second ML Update/reconfiguration Request (i.e. 508, 512) to A-AP2), a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting comprising a request to execute a transition from the first AP MLD transitioning to the third AP MLD for the roaming procedure (See Fang FIG 5; [0040]-[0042] –second ML Update/reconfiguration Request (i.e. 508, 512) to A-AP2 to transition to A-AP2 (“at this point, the non-AP MLD has completed its transition from being linked to A-AP1 to being linked with A-AP2, such that A-AP2 is now the serving A-AP for the non-AP MLD”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, comprising transmitting, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs, a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting comprising a request to execute a transition from the first AP MLD transitioning to the third AP MLD for the roaming procedure, as taught in Fang. One is motivated as such in order to provide enhanced roaming to account for link stability issues and improve link reliability (See Fang Background; Summary).
RE Claim 2, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 1 above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA MLD to transmit to the first AP MLD a second frame requesting a recommendation of candidate target AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – non-AP MLD can ask for recommendation list of potential target APs).
RE Claim 3, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs are part of a same mobility domain as the first AP MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – APs affiliated with the same UFT AP MLD).
RE Claim 4, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 1 above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA MLD to receive one or more frames from at least one of the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pgs. 8-9 – communication is transferred to new AP MLD).
RE Claim 5, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 4 above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA MLD to determine a link quality for at least one of the one or more links (See Fang [0040]-[0042] – non-AP MLD detecting signal strength measurements for links).
RE Claim 6, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 1 above, wherein the second link reconfiguration request frame executes the transition to the third AP MLD (See LG Electronics pgs. 8-9 – non-AP MLD establishes new link with the target AP MLD).
RE Claim 11, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the AP MLD to receive, from the STA MLD, a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting transitioning to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pgs. 6-9 – AP receiving communication from non-AP MLD that announces link/s it intends to add/delete which leads to transitioning to new target AP MLD).
LG Electronics does not specifically disclose a second link reconfiguration request frame comprising a request to execute a transition to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs for the roaming procedure.
However, Fang teaches of a second link reconfiguration request frame comprising a request to execute a transition to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs for the roaming procedure (See Fang FIG 5; [0040]-[0042] –second ML Update/reconfiguration Request (i.e. 508, 512) to A-AP2 to transition to A-AP2 (“at this point, the non-AP MLD has completed its transition from being linked to A-AP1 to being linked with A-AP2, such that A-AP2 is now the serving A-AP for the non-AP MLD”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, comprising a second link reconfiguration request frame comprising a request to execute a transition to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs for the roaming procedure, as taught in Fang. One is motivated as such in order to provide enhanced roaming to account for link stability issues and improve link reliability (See Fang Background; Summary).
RE Claim 18, LG Electronics discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a station (STA) multi-link device (MLD) (See LG Electronics pg. 3 – non-AP MLD STA),
cause the STA MLD to:
receive, from a first access point (AP) MLD with which the STA MLD is associated, a first frame indicating a plurality of candidate target AP MLDs for a roaming procedure by the STA MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – STA receives recommended AP list (probe response frame) from AP MLD);
transmit, to the first AP MLD, one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicating one or more second AP MLDs from the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 7 – non-AP MLD sends reconfiguration request frame indicating target AP) and requesting addition of one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pgs. 7-8 – reconfiguration involves adding new links to new target AP);
receive, from the first AP MLD, one or more link reconfiguration response frames indicating addition of the one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 7 – receiving reconfiguration response frame which indicates one of the three possible roaming options that involves adding new link/s between the STA and target AP); and
transmit, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs, a second communication to the third AP MLD (See LG Electronics pg. 8 – non-AP MLD establishes new link with target AP MLD).
LG Electronics does not specifically disclose transmitting, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs, a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting comprising a request to execute a transition from the first AP MLD transitioning to the third AP MLD for the roaming procedure.
However, Fang teaches of transmitting, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs (See Fang FIG 5; [0040]-[0042] – non-AP MLD sends second ML Update/reconfiguration Request (i.e. 508, 512) to A-AP2), a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting comprising a request to execute a transition from the first AP MLD transitioning to the third AP MLD for the roaming procedure (See Fang FIG 5; [0040]-[0042] –second ML Update/reconfiguration Request (i.e. 508, 512) to A-AP2 to transition to A-AP2 (“at this point, the non-AP MLD has completed its transition from being linked to A-AP1 to being linked with A-AP2, such that A-AP2 is now the serving A-AP for the non-AP MLD”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, comprising transmitting, to a third AP MLD of the one or more second AP MLDs, a second link reconfiguration request frame requesting comprising a request to execute a transition from the first AP MLD transitioning to the third AP MLD for the roaming procedure, as taught in Fang. One is motivated as such in order to provide enhanced roaming to account for link stability issues and improve link reliability (See Fang Background; Summary).
RE Claim 19, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium, as set forth in claim 18 above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the STA MLD to transmit to the first AP MLD a second frame requesting a recommendation of candidate target AP MLDs (See LG Electronics pg. 6 – non-AP MLD can ask for recommendation list of potential target APs).
Claims 7, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Seamless Roaming Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as LG Electronics) in view of Fang et al. (US# 2026/0150025 hereinafter referred to as Fang) and Chen et al. (US# 2024/0032120 hereinafter referred to as Chen).
RE Claim 7, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 1 above. LG Electronics, modified by Fang, does not specifically disclose wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs.
However, Chen teaches of wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs (See Chen [0051] – AP sends neighbor report element including capabilities of AP and other APs proximate to the AP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, modified by Fang, wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs, as taught in Chen. One is motivated as such in order to improve communication and take advantage of the efficiency and security benefits of newer device capabilities (See Chen [0046], [0065], [0270]).
RE Claim 20, LG Electronics, modified by Fang, discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium, as set forth in claim 18 above. LG Electronics, modified by Fang, does not specifically disclose wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs.
However, Chen teaches of wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs (See Chen [0051] – AP sends neighbor report element including capabilities of AP and other APs proximate to the AP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, modified by Fang, wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs, as taught in Chen. One is motivated as such in order to improve communication and take advantage of the efficiency and security benefits of newer device capabilities (See Chen [0046], [0065], [0270]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Seamless Roaming Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as LG Electronics) in view of Chen et al. (US# 2024/0032120 hereinafter referred to as Chen).
RE Claim 16, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above. LG Electronics does not specifically disclose wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs.
However, Chen teaches of wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs (See Chen [0051] – AP sends neighbor report element including capabilities of AP and other APs proximate to the AP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, wherein the first frame comprises a neighbor report element, and wherein the neighbor report element indicates capabilities of each of the plurality of candidate target AP MLDs, as taught in Chen. One is motivated as such in order to improve communication and take advantage of the efficiency and security benefits of newer device capabilities (See Chen [0046], [0065], [0270]).
Claims 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Seamless Roaming Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as LG Electronics) in view of Fang et al. (US# 2026/0150025 hereinafter referred to as Fang) and Gupta et al. (US# 2025/0287272 hereinafter referred to as Gupta).
RE Claim 8, LG Electronics discloses a STA MLD, as set forth in claim 1 above. LG Electronics does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicate identifiers of streams of the STA MLD.
However, Gupta teaches of wherein the one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicate identifiers of streams of the STA MLD (See Gupta [0034] – roaming request frame includes data transfer request element indicating flow/traffic IDs that STA is requesting data transfer for).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, wherein the one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicate identifiers of streams of the STA MLD, as taught in Gupta. One is motivated as such in order to support a more reliable and seamless roaming (See Gupta Background; Overview).
RE Claim 17, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above. LG Electronics does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicate identifiers of streams of the STA MLD.
However, Gupta teaches of wherein the one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicate identifiers of streams of the STA MLD (See Gupta [0034] – roaming request frame includes data transfer request element indicating flow/traffic IDs that STA is requesting data transfer for).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, wherein the one or more first link reconfiguration request frames indicate identifiers of streams of the STA MLD, as taught in Gupta. One is motivated as such in order to support a more reliable and seamless roaming (See Gupta Background; Overview).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Seamless Roaming Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as LG Electronics) in view of Gupta et al. (US# 2025/0287272 hereinafter referred to as Gupta).
RE Claim 15, LG Electronics discloses an AP MLD, as set forth in claim 9 above. LG Electronics does not specifically disclose wherein the context related to the STA MLD comprises sequence numbers per traffic identifier for the STA MLD..
However, Gupta teaches of wherein the context related to the STA MLD comprises sequence numbers per traffic identifier for the STA MLD. (See Gupta [0035] – This can also include requests for dynamic context transfer such as Sequence Number (SN) or packet number (PN) for DL and/or UL transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the MLD transition system, as disclosed in LG Electronics, wherein the context related to the STA MLD comprises sequence numbers per traffic identifier for the STA MLD., as taught in Gupta. One is motivated as such in order to support a more reliable and seamless roaming (See Gupta Background; Overview).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant's arguments that LG Electronics does not specifically disclose the elements of Claims 1-8, 11, 18-20, the Examiner submits that these arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment (See Claims 1-8, 11, 18-20 above, Fang reference).
Regarding Applicant's argument that LG Electronics does not specifically disclose Claim 9, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has argued that slide 7 of LG Electronics is relied upon to teach “based on acceptance of addition of the one or more links by the one or more second AP MLDs, transmit, to the STA MLD, one or more link reconfiguration response frames indicating the addition of the one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs” and that slide 7 only contains a single sentence: “[u]pon accepting the roaming request, the UFT AP MLD or the non-AP MLD responds with a Reconfiguration Response frame” and does not describe a frame “indicating the addition of one or more links between the STA MLD and the one or more second AP MLDs”. The Examiner submits that firstly, the language of “[t]he roaming process should be triggered first and this involves…a Reconfiguration Response frame” does not necessitate that the Reconfiguration Response frame 1) be the trigger of the roaming process or 2) not contain other “non-trigger” information. In the same section of slide 7, the Figure shows the “before roaming” and “after roaming” states which involve the new links being added to the second AP. Secondly, even if the Reconfiguration Response Frame of slide 7 was sent as a trigger of the roaming process, arguendo, any of the subsequent “responses” by the AP to the STA that indicate the “ADD”/”DELETE” links (i.e. slide 8) could be interpreted as the claimed reconfiguration response frame/s. That is, the claimed “reconfiguration response frame” can be any subsequent communication from the AP to the STA after the request that shows the “addition” of the one or more links.
Regarding Applicant's argument that LG Electronics does not show an acceptance of “addition of the one or more links”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least the Figure on slide 7, LG Electronics shows that the second AP “accepts” the new links as part of the Roaming procedure (Reconfiguration Request/Reconfiguration Response).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chu et al. (US# 2025/0048464 – which teaches of MLD roaming operations).
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 Steve R Young whose telephone number is (571)270-7518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
/STEVE R YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights