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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 07/29/2025 has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is made below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-16, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Santiago et al. (NPL 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While Fig. 9 provides support for a table displaying aggregated error statistics comprising an average and a standard deviation, Fig. 9 fails to provide support for a plot displaying this information, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “plot” would be a graph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (EP 2575121, previously cited) in view of Santiago et al., previously cited) and further in view of Kanagarajan (US 20210390863, previously cited) and further in view of Shavit (US 8665121, previously cited).
Claim 1.
Bailey teaches:
generating, by a playback processor, the ETA log file, wherein generating the ETA log file comprises:
All the steps of this process are discussed in detail below. Because all the steps are taught by Bailey et al., it is thus also the case that Bailey et al. teaches the overall method of generating the ETA log file.
receiving one or more user-specified flight parameters
(Bailey – [0092]) “the decoder 170 converts user defined points such as latitude/longitude, floating waypoints, place bearing distance, or along track waypoints, intersections and airways and flight procedures into associated waypoints”
simulating the stored flight data based on the one or more user-specified flight parameters wherein the stored flight data is associated with a stored flight
(Bailey – [0026]) “the flight trajectory predictor 18… receives the flight object containing a list of waypoints making up a flight plan/route from the flight plan/route processor 14 and then calculates an updated predicted flight trajectory 22 based on that flight plan/route, [or] an original flight trajectory (if available), …”
[Examiner Note: The predicted flight trajectory here is also the stored flight data, based on user-specified parameters as discussed above.]
replaying the stored flight data to generate the predicted trajectory, wherein the predicted trajectory includes aircraft state data and predicted trajectory data
(Bailey – [0026]) “the flight trajectory predictor 18… receives the flight object containing a list of waypoints making up a flight plan/route from the flight plan/route processor 14 and then calculates an updated predicted flight trajectory 22 based on that flight plan/route, [or] an original flight trajectory (if available), …”
storing the predicted trajectory in the ETA log file
(Bailey – [0029]) “The predicted trajectory is stored in the flight object.”
receiving, from the playback processor, the ETA log file
(Bailey – [0023]) “a flight object, which is a generic container comprising a multiplicity of fields containing flight information”
(Bailey – [0025]) “the flight plan/route processor 14 sends the flight object to the flight trajectory predictor 18”
[Examiner Note: If the flight object is sent to the flight trajectory predictor, then the flight trajectory predictor is receiving the flight object.]
parsing the ETA log file by performing an indexing of the ETA log file and organizing the aircraft state data, the stored flight data, and the predicted trajectory data
(Bailey – [0069]) “Aircraft current state data 122 may include an identifier for an aircraft and current state information about that particular aircraft, such as, without limitation, on-ground, climbing, cruising, descending, altitude, heading, weight, center of gravity, speed, and/or any other suitable state data.”
(Bailey – [0092]) “the decoder 170 pulls (i.e., parses) data out of the flight plan/route and maps that data into applicable attribute fields of the flight object.”
[Examiner Note: As discussed above, the stored flight data and the predicted trajectory information refer to the same data; as the flight plan would include altitudes, headings, and speeds, it therefore also constitutes aircraft state data.]
extracting the aircraft state data and the predicted trajectory data from the ETA log file
(Bailey – [0021]) “Flight information necessary to compute the predicted trajectory (such as waypoints, their locations, estimated time of arrivals (ETAs) at those waypoints, and fuel remaining) is extracted and used”
(Bailey – [0023] “a flight object, which is a generic container comprising a multiplicity of fields containing flight information, such as elements of flight plans, flight trajectories, etc. The flight object may also contain associated aircraft state data such as weight, center of gravity, fuel remaining, etc.”
(Bailey – [0026]) “the flight trajectory predictor 18… receives the flight object containing a list of waypoints making up a flight plan/route from the flight plan/route processor 14 and then calculates an updated predicted flight trajectory 22 based on that flight plan/route, [or] an original flight trajectory (if available), …”
(Bailey – [0029]) “The predicted trajectory is stored in the flight object.”
wherein the aircraft state data includes at least one of a coordinate position of the stored flight, an altitude of the stored flight, and a groundspeed of the stored flight
(Bailey – [0067]) “Aircraft current state data 122 includes information pertaining to a number of aircraft. Aircraft current state data 122 may include an identifier for an aircraft and current state information about that particular aircraft such as, without limitation, on-ground, climbing, cruising, descending, altitude, heading, weight, center of gravity, speed, and/or any other suitable state data”
wherein the predicted trajectory data comprises at least one of a predicted path, a predicted altitude, and a predicted speed of flight to a future point in the predicted trajectory
(Bailey – [0067]) “Aircraft current state data 122 includes information pertaining to a number of aircraft. Aircraft current state data 122 may include an identifier for an aircraft and current state information about that particular aircraft such as, without limitation, on-ground, climbing, cruising, descending, altitude, heading, weight, center of gravity, speed, and/or any other suitable state data”
(Bailey – [0068]) “Aircraft predictions 124 includes aircraft state data predictions associated with a number of points in time based on predicted weather, flight plan, weight of aircraft, aircraft configurations, and/or any other suitable information.”
Bailey et al. does not teach computing ETA error data for the stored flight. However, Santiago et al. teaches:
computing ETA error data for the stored flight based on the aircraft state data, the predicted trajectory data, and a reference trajectory of the stored flight, wherein the computing comprises obtaining average and standard deviation measures between the predicted trajectory data and the reference trajectory of the stored flight
(Santiago – Introduction) “The comparison between the actual flight data and predicted trajectories comprises the TP errors”
(Santiago – Selection Screen) “a maximum of two errors can be represented… These errors may be calculated according to various statistics including the mean, … [and] standard deviation”
displaying, via a graphical user interface, the ETA error data in a first plot, … and aggregated error statistics, wherein the aggregated error statistics comprise the average and the standard deviation measures, in a third plot
(Santiago – Selection Screen) “a maximum of two errors can be represented… These errors may be calculated according to various statistics including the mean, … [and] standard deviation”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the flight trajectory predictor of Bailey et al. with the visualization of Santiago et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the ability to analyze the received data (Santiago – Abstract).
Neither Bailey et al. nor Santiago et al. teaches displaying the predicted trajectory and the reference trajectory via a graphical user interface. However, Kanagarajan teaches:
displaying, via a graphical user interface, the ETA error data in a first plot, the predicted trajectory and the reference trajectory of the stored flight in a second plot
(Kanagarajan – [0032]) “the lateral display 206 of a cockpit display generally includes a display box 204 with a lateral display 206 that displays the trajectory of the aircraft along a flight path 208… the system 10 presents various graphical representations of the critical RTA constraint data 21 in a dialogue box alongside the display box 204”
(Kanagarajan – [0034]) “The calculated critical data for the RTA constraint 21 displayed by the user interface 20 may include, but is not limited to, an RTA type 304, an RTA time 306, an indication of whether the RTA is active (RTA activation 308), an area to indicate any RTA error and RTA status 310, an RTA pointer 312, a latest ETA 316, an ETA window band 318, an allowable band 320 (may be depicted in a first color, such as green), a tolerance band 322 (may be depicted in a second color, such as white), an ETA pointer 324, an earliest ETA 326”
[Examiner Note: The trajectory here corresponds to predicted trajectory, the flight path corresponds to the reference trajectory, and the RTA data (including an RTA and an ETA) corresponds to the ETA error data, as the two in conjunction provide information as to how far off the ETA is from a desired time of arrival.]
update, new point in time and the updated second plot is configured to display an updated ETA error data
(Kanagarajan – [0032]) “the lateral display 206 of a cockpit display generally includes a display box 204 with a lateral display 206 that displays the trajectory of the aircraft along a flight path 208… the system 10 presents various graphical representations of the critical RTA constraint data 21 in a dialogue box alongside the display box 204”
[Examiner Note: The trajectory here corresponds to predicted trajectory, the flight path corresponds to the reference trajectory, and the RTA data corresponds to the ETA, as they are both different times of arrival.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the trajectory and ETA calculator of the combination of Bailey et al. and Santiago et al. such that it is displayed on the cockpit display of Kanagarajan. One would have been motivated to do this because the addition of arrival time information to the cockpit display increases a pilot’s ability to comprehend the information (Kanagarajan – [0019]).
None of the aforementioned references teaches a GUI comprising a slider bar or comparing a predicted trajectory to an actual flight profile; however, Shavit teaches:
wherein the graphical user interface comprises a slider bar
(Shavit – [Col. 17, lines 25-27]) “To see the flight parameters at a given point, a user may drag a slider 1101 on the timeline and see the parameters of the flight at that point.”
associate one or more positions of the slider bar with one or more points in time of the stored flight
(Shavit – [Col. 17, lines 25-27]) “To see the flight parameters at a given point, a user may drag a slider 1101 on the timeline and see the parameters of the flight at that point.”
receive an input indicating a change in a position of the slider bar to a new position on the graphical user interface, wherein the new position is associated with a new point in time of the stored flight
(Shavit – [Col. 17, lines 25-27]) “To see the flight parameters at a given point, a user may drag a slider 1101 on the timeline and see the parameters of the flight at that point.”
update, based on the new point in time, the
(Shavit – [Col. 17, lines 25-27]) “To see the flight parameters at a given point, a user may drag a slider 1101 on the timeline and see the parameters of the flight at that point.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., and Kanagarajan with the slider bar of Shavit. One would have been motivated to do this because it allows a user to see the flight parameters at any point in the flight, rather than just the present flight parameters (Shavit – [Col. 17, lines 25-27]).
a comparison of the predicted trajectory with the actual flight profile
(Shavit – Col. 16, lines 59-61) “web client 206 may provide a graphical display of the actual flight vs. the intended route.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., and Kanagarajan with the graphically displayed route comparison of Shavit. One would have been motivated to do this to assist in visualizing deviations from a proper approach (Shavit – Col. 16 line 65-Col. 17, line 1).
Claim 2.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bailey et al. further teaches:
wherein the stored flight data is further based on historical flight data that is associated with an actual flight
(Bailey – [0030]) “the flight trajectory predictor can adjust its process based on a user configuration 26, such as setting the trajectory prediction process to include… past flight histories”
wherein the stored flight further comprises the actual flight
(Bailey – [0030]) “the flight trajectory predictor can adjust its process based on a user configuration 26, such as setting the trajectory prediction process to include… past flight histories”
(Bailey – [0045]) “The flights used to generate trajectory objects by the knowledge system can be selected from flights flown in similar conditions”
Claim 3.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bailey et al. further teaches:
wherein the ETA log file further comprises waypoint data associated with a plurality of waypoints in the predicted trajectory
(Bailey – [0021]) “Flight information necessary to compute the predicted trajectory (such as waypoints, their locations, estimated time of arrivals (ETAs) at those waypoints, and fuel remaining) is extracted and used”
wherein the waypoint data for each waypoint is represented in a coordinate format
(Bailey – [0029]) “each waypoint and pseudo-waypoint in the trajectory object constructed by the flight trajectory predictor would have an associated position location (latitude, longitude)”
[Examiner Note: The latitude and longitude are themselves a coordinate format.]
converting the coordinate format into a corresponding latitude and a corresponding longitude
(Bailey – [0029]) “each waypoint and pseudo-waypoint in the trajectory object constructed by the flight trajectory predictor would have an associated position location (latitude, longitude)”
Claim 4.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Bailey et al. further teaches:
identifying a waypoint in the plurality of waypoints based on the corresponding latitude and the corresponding longitude
(Bailey – [0090]) “the decoder 170 converts user defined points such as latitude/longitude… into associated waypoints by internal computations or by reference to a navigation database”
Claim 5.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Bailey et al. further teaches:
associating the plurality of waypoints with the predicted trajectory based on a unique flight number
(Bailey – [0067]) “Aircraft current state data 122 may include an identifier for an aircraft”
(Bailey – [0081]) “The flight trajectory predictor 164 also identifies aircraft state data and aircraft-observed weather information for the identified aircraft currently flying in accordance with the received flight plan/route.”
[Examiner note: Specific number has no significance except as identifier, so any identifier meets this limitation.]
Claim 9.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Bailey et al. further teaches:
generating an updated predicted trajectory,
(Bailey – [0026]) “the flight trajectory predictor 18… receives the flight object containing a list of waypoints making up a flight/plan route from the flight plan/route processor 14 and then calculates an updated predicted flight trajectory 22 based on that flight plan/route, an original flight trajectory (if available), the aircraft type and how it is equipped, current and/or forecast environmental conditions retrieved from an environmental database 20”
(Bailey – [0029]) “After the application of the environmental data, the trajectory predictions are recalculated. This is an iterative process.”
[Examiner Note: As an iterative process, the results of this are thus updated for new information.]
However, Bailey et al. does not teach the ETA error data. Santiago et al. teaches:
(Santiago – Introduction) “The comparison between the actual flight data and predicted trajectories comprises the TP errors”
(Santiago – Selection Screen) “a maximum of two errors can be represented… These errors may be calculated according to various statistics including the mean, … [and] standard deviation”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same reasoning as in claim 1.
Kanagarajan teaches:
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a selection of a point in time of the stored flight
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A system for graphical representation of arrival time (originally Figure 10 in Kanagarajan)
As Fig. 1 shows, the display device is based on real-time data. Therefore, one can receive information about a point in time as it occurs.
updating the graphical user interface to display the updated predicted trajectory, the updated ETA error data, and the updated reference trajectory of the stored flight
(Kanagarajan – [0032]) “the lateral display 206 of a cockpit display generally includes a display box 204 with a lateral display 206 that displays the trajectory of the aircraft along a flight path 208… the system 10 presents various graphical representations of the critical RTA constraint data 21 in a dialogue box alongside the display box 204”
As discussed above, Fig. 1 shows that the display is based on real-time arrival time data. Therefore, the trajectory and flight path must necessarily also be based on real-time data.
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings by the same reasoning in claim 1.
Claim 10.
Bailey et al. teaches:
a memory
(Bailey – [0024]) “The elements of the decoded and translated flight plan/route are stored in fields of the flight object”)
a processor coupled to the memory
(Bailey – [0024]) “The elements of the decoded and translated flight plan/route are stored in fields of the flight object… where they are available for use by the flight plan/route processor 14 and a flight trajectory predictor 18.”
extract the aircraft state data and flight plan data from the ETA log file
(Bailey – [0023]) “a flight object, which is a generic container comprising a multiplicity of fields containing flight information, such as elements of flight plans, flight routes, flight trajectories, etc. The flight object may also contain associated aircraft state data”
wherein the flight plan data includes the predicted trajectory
(Bailey – [0026]) “the flight trajectory predictor 18… receives the flight object containing a list of waypoints making up a flight plan/route from the flight plan/route processor 14 and then calculates an updated predicted flight trajectory 22 based on that flight plan/route”
Santiago et al. does not teach computing ETA error data for the stored flight. However, Santiago et al. teaches:
compute ETA error data for the stored flight based on the aircraft state data, the flight plan data, and a reference trajectory of the stored flight, wherein the computing comprises obtaining average and standard deviation measures between the predicted trajectory data and the reference trajectory of the stored flight
(Santiago – Introduction) “The comparison between the actual flight data and predicted trajectories comprises the TP errors”
(Santiago – Selection Screen) “a maximum of two errors can be represented… These errors may be calculated according to various statistics including the mean, … [and] standard deviation”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale, including reason why it would have been obvious to combine the references, as claim 1.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit as applied to claims 5 and 12 above, and further in view of De Prins et al. (US 11257382).
Claim 6.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 5. However, none of the aforementioned references teach a path comprising a plurality of trajectory integration steps. De Prins et al. teaches:
wherein the predicted path comprises a plurality of trajectory integration steps
(De Prins – [Col. 1, lines 36-39]) “The result of all the foregoing, including the weather conditions, is a groundspeed value at every distance to a required time-of-arrival (RTA) waypoint, which may be integrated to give an estimated time-of-arrival (ETA).”
wherein each trajectory integration step in the plurality of trajectory integration steps corresponds to a different segment in the predicted trajectory
(De Prins – [Col. 1, lines 36-39]) “The result of all the foregoing, including the weather conditions, is a groundspeed value at every distance to a required time-of-arrival (RTA) waypoint, which may be integrated to give an estimated time-of-arrival (ETA).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the trajectory and ETA calculation system of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit with the integrable groundspeed values of De Prins et al.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220163339).
Claim 7.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kanagarajan further teaches:
wherein the predicted trajectory data comprises a predicted ETA at a waypoint and the reference trajectory comprises an
(Kanagarajan – [0036]) “The time error represents a difference between a pilot input constraint (RTA goal at the waypoint) and the estimated time of arrival at the waypoint.”
wherein computing the ETA error data comprises: calculating a difference between the predicted ETA and the
(Kanagarajan – [0036]) “The time error represents a difference between a pilot input constraint (RTA goal at the waypoint) and the estimated time of arrival at the waypoint.”
While Kanagarajan teaches calculating a difference between a predicted ETA and an input constraint, Kanagarajan does not teach calculating a difference between the predicted ETA and the actual crossing time. However, Lee teaches:
calculating a difference between the predicted ETA and the actual crossing time at the waypoint
(Lee – [0056]) “the processor according to the present disclosure calculates a difference between the actually provided ETA and an actual travel time”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the ETA error time of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, and Shavit to be the difference between ETA and actual travel time as calculated by Lee. One would be motivated to do this because the particular time difference of Lee can be used in correcting vehicle traffic information (Lee – [0056]).
Claim 8.
The combination of Bailey et al., Santiago et al., Kanagarajan, Shavit and Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Bailey further teaches:
wherein the predicted trajectory includes the waypoint
a second waypoint
(Bailey – [0029]) “each waypoint… would have an associated position location (latitude, longitude), altitude, phase of flight, estimated time of arrival to the flight destination, … and metadata used for calculating trajectory data (segment distances, speeds, ETAs at waypoints, etc.)”
[Examiners Note: The word “each” indicates a plurality of waypoints.]
However, Bailey et al. does not teach calculation of ETA error data. Santiago et al. teaches:
ETA error data
(Santiago – Introduction) “The comparison between the actual flight data and predicted trajectories comprises the TP errors”
(Santiago – Selection Screen) “a maximum of two errors can be represented… These errors may be calculated according to various statistics including the mean, … [and] standard deviation”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings by the rationale laid out in discussion of claim 1.
While Santiago et al. teaches comparing the actual flight data and predicted trajectory, Santiago et al. does not explicitly teach calculating a difference between the predicted ETA and the actual crossing time. However, Lee teaches:
wherein calculating the difference further comprises: comparing the predicted ETA at the waypoint with the actual crossing time
(Lee – [0056]) “the processor according to the present disclosure calculates a difference between the actually provided ETA and an actual travel time”
wherein the
(Lee – [0056]) “the processor according to the present disclosure calculates a difference between the actually provided ETA and an actual travel time”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings by the rationale laid out in discussion of claim 7.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights