CTFR 17/502,709 CTFR 96915 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 with respect to claim(s) 01/30/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 11-12, 14, 17-18, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, and Hotra US-8689224-B2, in view of Beveridge US-9891953-B2 . 1. (Currently amended) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses A method, performed by a computing system configured to process distributed flight data, the method comprising: (Sampigethaya [claim 12] A computer-implemented method of monitoring an airborne object using an air traffic management (ATM) system) obtaining distributed flight data from a communication system operating externally from the computing system; (Sampigethaya [col.4 ln.65] ATM system 102 receives situation awareness information from the plurality of sensor devices 104 , …, ATM system 102 is a central processing system that generates and updates the dynamic map of air traffic by processing and fusing data in the received situational awareness information with the data from additional databases . …, but not limited to, sensor device characteristics (e.g., sensing range, operator/user profile), aeronautical databases (e.g., active flight plans , weather updates , and aircraft operator history ), public knowledge databases with contextual information (e.g., breaking news), and security databases (e.g., vulnerability and emerging threats to the sensor device, airspace, flying object, and terrain). (Sampigethaya [FIG.1; col.3 ln.25] In the exemplary implementation, system 100 includes a plurality of computer devices (not shown ). More specifically, in the exemplary implementation, system 100 includes a server system or air traffic management (ATM) system 102 , which is a type of computer system , and a plurality of client sub-systems , or sensor devices 104 that are communicatively coupled to ATM system 102 , (Sampigethaya [col.11 ln.4] Known air traffic management (ATM) systems attempt to monitor and control all flights in airspace to ensure safety, security, capacity, efficiency, and environmental goals are satisfied … also includes generating 504 an air traffic map to disp lay a present location and a flight path for each of the plurality of airborne objects based on the received object data . ; creating a plurality of records identifying the distributed flight data in a plurality of queues of the computing system, wherein each of the plurality of records is stored in a different queue of the plurality of queues, wherein each of the plurality of queues is associated with a different airline client communication system of a plurality of airline client communication systems operating externally from the communication system, and wherein the plurality of airline client communication systems are associated with airlines that operate one or more aircraft associated with the distributed flight data; (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2; col.4 ln.32] sensor devices 104 include any type(s) of sensors capable of sensing the presence of airborne object 101 Airline fleet network 104 b is associated with a specific airline or airlines (Sampigethaya [col.4 ln.65] ATM system 102 receives situation awareness information from the plurality of sensor devices 104 , and generates and continuously updates a dynamic map display of the air traffic in the geographical region …, ATM system 102 is a central processing system that generates and updates the dynamic map of air traffic by processing and fusing data in the received situational awareness information with the data from additional databases . The additional databases include , but not limited to, sensor device characteristics (e.g., sensing range , operator/user profile ), aeronautical databases (e.g., active flight plans, weather updates , and aircraft operator history ), public knowledge databases with contextual information (e.g., breaking news), and security databases (e.g., vulnerability and emerging threats to the sensor device, airspace, flying object, and terrain) (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2; col.4 ln.32] sensor devices 104 include any type(s) of sensors capable of sensing the presence of airborne object 101 and transmitting a signal associated with such detection. For example, …, an airline fleet network 104b,... Sensor devices 104 may all be identical or at least one sensor device 104 may differ from other sensor devices 104 used with ATM system 102… Airline fleet network 104b is associated with a specific airline or airlines, and enables communication between a first airborne object 101 and a plurality of other airborne objects 101 and ground-based information systems (not shown) associated with the airline. Situation awareness information is shared among aircraft in an airline fleet to increase efficiency and performance of the fleet. The situation awareness information is communicated among airline fleet network 104b, including the first airborne object 101, other airborne objects 101, and ground information systems (not shown) using Internet Protocol (IP) communications, for example. In the exemplary implementation, airline fleet network 104b also communicates situation awareness information to ATM system 102 Panergo US-10848939-B1 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for aircraft to ground data systems and computing methods wherein “… each of the plurality of records is stored in a different queue of the plurality of queues, wherein each of the plurality of queues is associated with a different airline client communication system of a plurality of airline client communication systems operating externally from the communication system, and wherein the plurality of airline client communication systems are associated with airlines that operate one or more aircraft associated with the distributed flight data”; (Panergo [col.4,ln.5] the ground computing device 102 is associated with a service provider, such as an aircraft manufacturer that provides third parties, such as airlines , with communication infrastructure for communicating with aircraft in flight . … pull system health information gathered by sensors on aircraft 108 and/or 112, and/or to push software updates to electronic systems within aircraft 108 and/or 112. Alternatively or in addition, a service provider uses the ground computing device 102 to acquire performance data about one or more aircraft 108 and/or the components on the aircraft while the aircraft is in flight , and then push some or all the performance data to a third party airline . For example, in some embodiments where the ground computing device 102 exchanges data with aircraft operated … … by different airlines , the ground computing device 102 segregates the data from an individual aircraft 108 according to the corresponding airline that operates the individual aircraft 108 , and/or transmits some or all of the data to the corresponding airline . In this way, the ground computing device 102 enables multiple airlines to simultaneously exchange data with aircraft in its fleet… As shown in FIG. 1, the ground computing device 102 is connected to one or more of third party computing devices 114 , remote aircraft interface computing devices 116, other remote aircraft interface computing devices 118, local storage locations 120, and transient storage locations 122 via network 124. In various embodiments, network 124 is a wired network, a wireless network, or a combination of both … … FIG. 1, environment 100 includes an aircraft interface computing device 116 and other aircraft interface computing devices 118 in communication with ground computing device 102 over network 124. Each of the aircraft interface computing devices 116, 118 executes aircraft APIs that enables data files to be exchanged between the ground computing device 102 and aircraft computing devices 106 and/or other aircraft computing devices 110 …) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include each of the plurality of records is stored in a different queue of the plurality of queues, wherein each of the plurality of queues is associated with a different airline client communication system of a plurality of airline client communication systems operating externally from the communication system, and wherein the plurality of airline client communication systems are associated with airlines that operate one or more aircraft associated with the distributed flight data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Panergo , for the benefit of enabling multiple airlines to simultaneously exchange data with aircraft in its fleet [col.4]. processing the distributed flight data identified in the plurality of records using a plurality of virtualized environments (VEs) of the computing system, each VE of the plurality of VEs comprising a task scheduler and a plurality of containerized applications that operate to process the distributed flight data, wherein processing the distributed flight data comprises: for each VE of the plurality of VEs : (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Hotra US-8689224-B2 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for processing the distributed flight data comprising the use of a “… a plurality of virtualized environments (VEs) of the computing system, each VE of the plurality of VEs comprising a task scheduler and a plurality of containerized applications … for each VE of the plurality of VEs ” (Hotra [col.1 ln.31] In systems related to aircraft safety and operation, for example, space and time partitions have been used to partition the software into safety critical and non-safety critical regions... An example of an aircraft is utilized to help further illustrate virtualization. In an embodiment, the initial aircraft software is built in a virtual machine and is certified) …using a plurality ([FIG.7] virtual machine 1-N (412, 414, 416)) of virtualized environments (VE) of the computing system, each VE of the plurality of VEs comprising a task scheduler and a containerized application ([FIG 7] software applications contained of virtual machines 1 and 2; col. 8, ll. 40-60 disclosing multiple software solutions can co-exist on a single virtual machine) that operates to process data ([Claim 4] 4. A method according to claim 1 wherein creating the first virtual machine comprises creating the first virtual machine for at least one of a scheduler and an executive associated with the software applications, the first virtual machine accessible through at least one of the virtual I/O device and the inter-operating system communication mechanism.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include using a plurality of virtualized environments (VEs) of the computing system, each VE of the plurality of VEs comprising a task scheduler and a plurality of containerized applications that operate to process the data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Hotra , for the benefit of yielding a computational environment within a computing system configured to include operating the task scheduler to allocate one or more containerized applications of the plurality of containerized applications in the VE to process the distributed flight data identified in one or more of the plurality of records ; operating the task scheduler to run the allocated one or more containerized applications to process the distributed flight data identified in the one or more of the plurality of records ; (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Beveridge US-9891953-B2 discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for allocating processing resources according to comparisons against predetermined operational information configured to “…operating the task scheduler to allocate one or more containerized applications of the plurality of containerized applications in the VE to process the distributed flight data identified in one or more of the plurality of records; operating the task scheduler to run the allocated one or more containerized applications to process ….” (Beveridge [Claim 1] 1. A system for resource allocation in a virtualized computing environment , comprising at least one physical computing system hosting a plurality of virtual machines (VMs), the system comprising: a memory; a processor; a plurality of agents , each associated with at least one of the plurality of VMs , that, when executed by the processor, collect activity information about the associated VM; a module that is stored in the memory and, when executed by the processor , dynamically allocates physical computing resources of the at least one physical computing system amongst the plurality of VMs , each of the plurality of VMs configured to execute a virtual desktop remotely accessible by a user, the dynamic allocation performed by: monitoring , by the plurality of agents, a state of the virtual desktop of each associated VM to detect activities forming at least a portion of the activity information ; comparing the collected activity information to a policy ; in response to the comparing, automatically modifying, based on the activity information, an allocation of the physical computing resources of the at least one physical computing system to each of the plurality of VMs , wherein modifying the allocation of the physical resources for each of the plurality of VMs comprises: unboosting a number of resources for a VM when one or more of the following activities is detected: a user is idle, the VM is inactive, an application being executed on the VM is a low priority application, and the application is inactive; and boosting the number of resources for the VM when one or more of the following activities is detected: the VM is active, and the application being executed on the VM is a high priority application) . As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that Beveridge discloses a consideration for comparing operational information and allocate resources accordingly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include allocating resources with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Beveridge , for the benefit of yielding a method for determining a current load upon an operating system and allocating computational power according to available resources, ensuring a system operates as efficiently as possible according to real-time needs and demands. and in response to determining there is no record to process in the plurality of different queues , deallocating the allocated one or more containerized applications of the VE ; and (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; “… in response to determining there is no record to process in the plurality of different queues, and deallocating the allocated one or more containerized applications of the VE ”, The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection, the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling would be motivated to try a finite number of combinations in order to meet design needs, including allocating less ( deallocating ) computational resources, to include containerized applications, once it is determined there are no records in a queue to process. With a finite number of alternatives; allocating, more, less, or the same number of applications , it would be obvious to experiment with different functional relationships between operating applications in order to identify which relationship better suits design needs regarding processing data within a queue during operations. Without any undue experimentation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success upon this modification. For more information, please see MPEP 2143; " The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham ." providing processed flight data to the plurality of airline client communication systems operating externally from the communication system. (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2; col.4 ln.32] sensor devices 104 include any type(s) of sensors capable of sensing the presence of airborne object 101 and transmitting a signal associated with such detection . For example, …, an airline fleet network 104 b ,... Sensor devices 104 may all be identical or at least one sensor device 104 may differ from other sensor devices 104 used with ATM system 102… Airline fleet network 104 b is associated with a specific airline or airlines , and enables communication between a first airborne object 101 and a plurality of other airborne objects 101 and ground-based information systems (not shown) associated with the airline . Situation awareness information is shared among aircraft in an airline fleet to increase efficiency and performance of the fleet. The situation awareness information is communicated among airline fleet network 104 b , including the first airborne object 101, other airborne objects 101, and g round information systems (not shown) using Internet Protocol (IP) communications , for example. In the exemplary implementation, airline fleet network 104 b also communicates situation awareness information to ATM system 102) (Sampigethaya [col.5 ln.25] In another exemplary implementation, sensor device 104 transmits authentic , verifiable identification information with the transmitted situational awareness information. In yet another exemplary implementation, the communications of sensor device 104 are encrypted with a cryptographic key shared between sensor device 104 and the other communicating entity .) 2. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya (US-9310477-B1) discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein the communication systems comprises one of an aerial communication system and an airline communication system operating externally to the computing system [FIG.2; col.4 ln.32] Airline fleet network 104 b is associated with a specific airline or airlines , and enables communication between a first airborne object 101 and a plurality of other airborne objects 101 and ground-based information systems (not shown) associated with the airline . …, airline fleet network 104 b also communicates situation awareness information to ATM system 102 . 3. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya (US-9310477-B1) discloses The method of Claim 2, wherein obtaining the distributed flight data comprises receiving the distributed flight data from different communication devices [col.4 ln.65] ATM system 102 receives situation awareness information from the plurality of sensor devices 104 , …, ATM system 102 is a central processing system that generates and updates the dynamic map of air traffic by processing and fusing data in the received situational awareness information with the data from additional databases . …, but not limited to, sensor device characteristics (e.g., sensing range, operator/user profile), aeronautical databases (e.g., active flight plans , weather updates , and aircraft operator history ), public knowledge databases with contextual information (e.g., breaking news), and security databases (e.g., vulnerability and emerging threats to the sensor device, airspace, flying object, and terrain) operating in one of the aerial communication system and the airline communication system operating externally to the computing system [FIG.2; col.4 ln.32] Airline fleet network 104 b is associated with a specific airline or airlines , and enables communication between a first airborne object 101 and a plurality of other airborne objects 101 and ground-based information systems (not shown) associated with the airline . …, airline fleet network 104 b also communicates situation awareness information to ATM system 102 . 11. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein each containerized application of the plurality of containerized applications of each VE comprises independently executable instructions configured to process the distributed flight data. (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; Hotra (US-8689224-B2), further discloses (([FIG.7] virtual machine 1-N (412, 414, 416); software applications contained of virtual machines 1 and 2; col. 8, ll. 40-60 disclosing multiple software solutions can co-exist on a single virtual machine); wherein each containerized application of the plurality of containerized applications of each VE comprises independently executable instructions configured to process the distributed data (Hotra col. 6, ll. 35-45 disclosing each virtual machine contain processing code; col. 8, ll. 40-60 disclosing multiple software solutions can co-exist on a single virtual machine;). See also, Boggio, which as shown above discloses that processed distributed data can be flight data (0024] FIG. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include wherein each containerized application of the plurality of containerized applications of each VE comprises independently executable instructions configured to process the distributed flight data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Hotra , for the benefits of increasing computational capabilities by allowing the system to process one or more executable instructions for processing incoming data. Additionally or alternatively, regarding the limitation ; “…a plurality ”, as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04, in re Harza, the court upheld that even though the reference did not disclose a plurality of parts, the mere duplication of parts which achieve essentially the same function has been recognized as an obvious mechanical expedient and therefore has no patentable weight or significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As such, while Hotra discloses a plurality of virtual machine comprising at least one of a scheduler and an executive associated with the software applications, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the software application and executive associated with the software (to include executable instructions) of the virtual machine of the system could be duplicated to enable the system to be configured with additional programming for increasing processing power. 12. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 11, wherein the plurality of records identifying the distributed flight data to be processed comprises information identifying a storage device of the computing system storing the distributed flight data; and wherein each containerized application of the plurality of containerized applications of each VE obtains the distributed flight data from the storage device based on the information identifying the storage device in the record. (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) (Sampigethaya [col.4 ln.32] Airline fleet network 104 b is associated with a specific airline or airlines, and enables communication between a first airborne object 101 and a plurality of other airborne objects 101 and ground-based information systems (not shown) associated with the airline … information is communicated among airline fleet network 104 b … also communicates situation awareness information to ATM system 102 . to be processed comprises information identifying a storage device of the computing system storing the distributed flight data [col.2 ln.17] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon is provided for monitoring an airborne object using an air traffic management (ATM) system . The ATM system includes a memory device in communication with a processor ... ;) (Sampigethaya [col.3 ln.63] A database server 108 is coupled to a database 110 that contains and stores information on a variety of matters , as is described in more detail below. In one implementation, centralized database 110 is stored on ATM system 102 .) Regarding the limitation ; “…wherein each containerized application of the plurality of containerized applications of each VE … ”, the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 11 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 11. 14. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein operating the task scheduler to allocate the one or more containerized applications of the plurality of containerized applications in the VE to process the distributed flight data identified in the plurality of records comprises: operating the task scheduler to obtain a total number of the plurality of containerized applications of the VE, a number of containerized applications currently running in the VE, a number of records to process in the queue, and a total number of containerized applications that have stopped running in the VE; and operating the task scheduler to allocate the one or more containerized applications of the plurality of containerized applications in the VE to process the distributed flight data based on the total number of the plurality of containerized applications of the VE, the number of containerized applications currently running in the VE, the number of records to process in the queue, and the total number of containerized applications that have stopped running in the VE . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; “… the queue ”, the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim Regarding the limitation ; “… containerized applications ”, the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 11. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 11. Regarding the remaining limitation ; Beveridge (US-9891953-B2) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for allocating processing resources according to comparisons against predetermined operational information. ([Claim 1] 1. A system for resource allocation in a virtualized computing environment , comprising at least one physical computing system hosting a plurality of virtual machines (VMs), the system comprising: a memory; a processor; a plurality of agents , each associated with at least one of the plurality of VMs , that, when executed by the processor, collect activity information about the associated VM; a module that is stored in the memory and, when executed by the processor, dynamically allocates physical computing resources of the at least one physical computing system amongst the plurality of VMs , each of the plurality of VMs configured to execute a virtual desktop remotely accessible by a user, the dynamic allocation performed by: monitoring , by the plurality of agents, a state of the virtual desktop of each associated VM to detect activities forming at least a portion of the activity information ; comparing the collected activity information to a policy ; in response to the comparing, automatically modifying, based on the activity information, an allocation of the physical computing resources of the at least one physical computing system to each of the plurality of VMs , wherein modifying the allocation of the physical resources for each of the plurality of VMs comprises: unboosting a number of resources for a VM when one or more of the following activities is detected: a user is idle, the VM is inactive, an application being executed on the VM is a low priority application, and the application is inactive; and boosting the number of resources for the VM when one or more of the following activities is detected: the VM is active, and the application being executed on the VM is a high priority application). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that Beveridge discloses a consideration for comparing operational information and allocate resources accordingly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include allocating resources with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Beveridge , as it would yield a method for determining a current load upon an operating system and allocating computational power according to available resources, ensuring a system operates as efficiently as possible according to real-time needs and demands. 17. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein providing the processed flight data to the plurality of airline client communication systems operating externally from the communication system comprises: storing the processed flight data in a database system of the computing system; responsive to storing the processed flight data, providing access to the processed flight data to the plurality of airline client communication systems via an interface of the database system. (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) (Sampigethaya [col.3 ln.33] In one implementation, at least one sensor device 104 is a computer that includes a web browser and a memory device , such that ATM system 102 is accessible to sensor devices 104 via the Internet . In the exemplary implementation, sensor devices 104 may be interconnected to the Internet through many interfaces including a network, such as a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), dial-in-connections, cable modems, and/or special high-speed ISDN lines. (Sampigethaya [col.3 ln.63] A database server 108 is coupled to a database 110 that contains and stores information on a variety of matters , as is described in more detail below. In one implementation, centralized database 110 is stored on ATM system 102 18. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 17, wherein providing access to the processed flight data to the plurality of airline client communication systems via the interface of the database system comprises: receiving, via the interface, a unique Key identifying processed flight data associated with an airline client communication system of the plurality of airline client communication systems; and exposing, via the interface, the processed flight data associated with the airline client communication system based on the unique Key. (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) (Sampigethaya [col.5 ln.25] In another exemplary implementation, sensor device 104 transmits authentic , verifiable identification information with the transmitted situational awareness information. In yet another exemplary implementation, the communications of sensor device 104 are encrypted with a cryptographic key shared between sensor device 104 and the other communicating entity … of the plurality of airline client communication systems [FIG.1-2; col.4 ln.32] sensor devices 104 include any type(s) of sensors capable of sensing the presence of airborne object 101 Airline fleet network 104 b is associated with a specific airline or airlines (Sampigethaya [col.6 ln.22-49] user interface module 304 includes an input device 314, such as a camera , touchscreen , keypad and/or keyboard , and/or mouse that enables user 302 to enter information and interact with portable device 300 … User interface module 304 also includes a display device 316 that enables user 302 to view situation awareness information (Sampigethaya [col.5 ln.25] … are encrypted with a cryptographic key shared between sensor device 104 and the other communicating entity . The map may be displayed on a monitor, computer, and/or any other type of display system. ATM system 102 manages situation awareness information, generates trajectory predictions for aircraft, and generates and transmits reroute commands and/or advisories to airborne object 101 20. (Currently amended) Regarding the limitations of claim 20 ; the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 1. Regarding the remaining limitation ; “…A computer program product comprised on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” Sampigethaya (US-9310477-B1) discloses [col.2 ln.17] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon is provided for monitoring an airborne object using an air traffic management (ATM) system . The ATM system includes a memory device in communication with a processor ... 22. (Previously presented) Regarding the limitations of claim 22 ; the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 1 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, Hotra US-8689224-B2, and Beveridge US-9891953-B2 , as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bailey US-8630790-B1 . 4. (Currently amended) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of records identifies a different portion of the distributed flight data . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; Bailey (US-8630790-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for processing the distributed flight data identified in the record of the queue (Bailey [col.5 ln.27] After the received flight message has been parsed , a determination is made (operation 14 in FIG. 1) whether a global flight information object already exists in computer memory for the particular flight to which the received message relates. If a global flight information object does not already exist , one is instantiated (operation 16). The data in the local flight information object corresponding to the received flight message is then imported into the global flight information object (not shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively , if a global flight information object already exists for the particular flight , the data in the local flight information object corresponding to the received flight message are imported into the pre-existing flight information object . The pre-existing global flight information object may contain a queue of old messages or parts of old messages and the new flight message is added to that queue . The pre-existing global flight information object may also contain elements of a current and/or intended flight trajectory (not yet updated to reflect new flight messages). The newly imported data and the pre-existing old data comprising elements of flight trajectories are then amalgamated (operation 18 in FIG. 1) to f orm an updated current and/or intended flight trajectory , which is also stored in the global flight information object. Then a signal is sent or a flag is set to indicate whether the resulting global flight information object is new or updated (operation 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include wherein each of the plurality of records identifies a different portion of the distributed flight data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Bailey , as it would yield a system configured to process more than one data item in a predetermined operative order, increasing efficiency and overall computation capabilities. 5. (Currently amended) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 4, wherein creating a record of the plurality of records in of the plurality of queues comprises: identifying an airline client communication system of the plurality of airline client communication systems associated with the different portion of the distributed flight data corresponding to the record; selecting a queue of the plurality of queues based on the identification of the airline client communication system of the plurality of airline client communications systems; and storing the record in the selected queue of the plurality of different queues . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2; col.4 ln.32] sensor devices 104 include any type(s) of sensors capable of sensing the presence of airborne object 101 and transmitting a signal associated with such detection . For example, …, an airline fleet network 104b,... Sensor devices 104 may all be identical or at least one sensor device 104 may differ from other sensor devices 104 used with ATM system 102… Airline fleet network 104b is associated with a specific airline or airlines associated with the distributed flight data [col.4 ln.65] ATM system 102 receives situation awareness information from the plurality of sensor devices 104 , …, ATM system 102 is a central processing system that generates and updates the dynamic map of air traffic by processing and fusing data in the received situational awareness information with the data from additional databases . …, but not limited to, sensor device characteristics (e.g., sensing range, operator/user profile), aeronautical databases (e.g., active flight plans , weather updates , and aircraft operator history ), public knowledge databases with contextual information (e.g., breaking news), and security databases (e.g., vulnerability and emerging threats to the sensor device, airspace, flying object, and terrain)) Regarding the limitation ; Bailey (US-8630790-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for processing the distributed flight data identified in the record of the queue (Bailey [col.5 ln.27] After the received flight message has been parsed , a determination is made (operation 14 in FIG. 1) whether a global flight information object already exists in computer memory for the particular flight to which the received message relates. If a global flight information object does not already exist , one is instantiated (operation 16). The data in the local flight information object corresponding to the received flight message is then imported into the global flight information object (not shown in FIG. 1). Alternatively , if a global flight information object already exists for the particular flight , the data in the local flight information object corresponding to the received flight message are imported into the pre-existing flight information object . The pre-existing global flight information object may contain a queue of old messages or parts of old messages and the new flight message is added to that queue . The pre-existing global flight information object may also contain elements of a current and/or intended flight trajectory (not yet updated to reflect new flight messages). The newly imported data and the pre-existing old data comprising elements of flight trajectories are then amalgamated (operation 18 in FIG. 1) to f orm an updated current and/or intended flight trajectory , which is also stored in the global flight information object. Then a signal is sent or a flag is set to indicate whether the resulting global flight information object is new or updated (operation 20)… [col.6 ln.40] system security interface options are identified for input validity (operation 32) and access authentication (operation 34), as are required for any networked system, and would be part of a federated/distributed security scheme for all functions/subsystems/devices of the system employing the flight amalgamation processor . If the input is invalid or access is not authorized , the flight amalgamation processor 24 selects a rejection option (not shown in FIG. 2A)… If the flight information object 26 is valid and authentic , then the flight amalgamation processor 24 initiates a process for amalgamating flight information . First, the flight amalgamation processor 24 sends one or more queries to whichever processor or computer is managing flight information objects or the data is sent to the flight amalgamation processor 24. These queries seek flight information contained in a global flight information object associated with a particular aircraft flight of interest . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include selecting a queue of the plurality of queues based on the identification of the plurality of client communications systems; and storing the record in the selected queue of the plurality of different queues with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Bailey , for the benefit of increasing computational capabilities by allowing the system to process one or more queues of incoming data. Additionally or alternatively, regarding the limitation ; “…a plurality ”, as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04, in re Harza, the court upheld that even though the reference did not disclose a plurality of parts, the mere duplication of parts which achieve essentially the same function has been recognized as an obvious mechanical expedient and therefore has no patentable weight or significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As such, while Bailey discloses a queue, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the queue of the system could be duplicated in that another queue for processing distributed flight data . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, Hotra US-8689224-B2, and Beveridge US-9891953-B2 , as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wagner US-20170286143-A1 . 6. (Currently amended) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, the method further comprising: determining the distributed flight data has been successfully processed; and removing the plurality of records identifying the distributed flight data to be processed from the plurality of queues based on determining the distributed flight data has been successfully processed . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; Wagner US-20170286143-A1 discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for “… determining the data has been successfully processed; and removing the record identifying the data to be processed from the queue based on determining the data has been successfully processed ” (Wagner [0063-68] For example, the data inspector 172 (or multiple instances of the data inspector 172) may read data items from a data source 160 continuously, while enqueuing those data items in the in-process cache 176. At the same time, the call generator 174 (or multiple instances of the call generator 176) may operate to dequeue data items from the in-process cache 176 and submit a task call corresponding to the data item to the on-demand code execution environment 110. The data inspector 172 and call generator 174 may continue to operate in this manner until no unread data items are seen at the data source 160, at which point the user interface 171 may report to a user computing device 102 that processing of the data source 160 is complete (e.g., along with results of the processing, as stored in the results cache 178).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include determining the data has been successfully processed; and removing the record identifying the data to be processed from the queue based on determining the data has been successfully processed, with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Wagner , as it would yield provide a method for removing data once it has been processed, enabling a queue of incoming data to be processed during operations. Ensuring once data has been utilized, new incoming data can be incorporated into system processing, enabling updated data information. Additionally or alternatively, regarding the limitation ; “…a plurality ”, as discussed in MPEP § 2144.04, in re Harza, the court upheld that even though the reference did not disclose a plurality of parts, the mere duplication of parts which achieve essentially the same function has been recognized as an obvious mechanical expedient and therefore has no patentable weight or significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As such, while Bailey discloses a queue, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the queue of the system could be duplicated in that another queue for processing distributed flight data . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, Hotra US-8689224-B2, and Beveridge US-9891953-B2 , as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wagner US-20170286143-A1 and Hally US-20210248007-A1 . 7. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, the method further comprising: determining a portion of the distributed flight data has not been successfully processed; responsive to determining the portion of the distributed flight data has not been successfully processed, determining a retry count associated with a record of the plurality of records identifying the portion of the distributed flight data has not met a predetermined retry count limit; and increasing the retry count associated with the record identifying the portion of the distributed flight data based on determining the retry count associated with the record identifying the portion of the distributed flight data has not met the predetermined retry count limit . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; Wagner (US-20170286143-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for responsive to determining the distributed flight data has not been successfully processed ([0063-68] The call generator 174 may further interact with the on-demand code execution environment 110 to determine the results of a call corresponding to a data item , and to record that result in the results cache 178. In some instances, the call generator 174 may be configured to determine when a call to the on-demand code execution environment 110 fails with respect to a data item, and either resubmit the call , return that data item to the in-process cache 176, or record an error in the results cache 178 with respect to the data item.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of to include determining data has not been successfully processed with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Wagner, as it would yield a system configured to recognize and determine when information or data does not operate accordingly to predetermined behaviors or expectations, allowing a system to address and identify possible malfunctions. Regarding the limitation ; Hally (US-20210248007-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for responsive to determining the data has not met a predetermined retry count limit; and increasing the retry count associated with the record based on determining the retry count associated with the record has not met the predetermined retry count limit ([0017] the request manager determines whether a retry count has reached a predetermined maximum value as indicated in step 220. For example, and without limitation, the retry maximum value may be set to two, three, or four retries. If the retry count has not reached the maximum value, then the API call is retried as indicated by looping back to step 202. If the retry count has reached the maximum value, then a “server busy” error message is sent to the REST API client 200 and the API call is removed from the buffer as indicated in step 224 .). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include responsive to determining the data has not met a predetermined retry count limit; and increasing the retry count associated with the record based on determining the retry count associated with the record has not met the predetermined retry count limit, as taught by Hally , as it would yield a system configured to address malfunctions by continuing to retry operations until a predetermined limit of attempts is made, allowing a system to address malfunctions for a period of time before recognizing that the malfunction may not be solvable, saving on computational power and time. 8. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, the method further comprising: determining a portion of the distributed flight data has not been successfully processed; responsive to determining the portion of the flight data has not been successfully processed, determining a retry count associated with a record of the plurality of records identifying the portion of the distributed flight data has met a predetermined retry count limit; and removing the record identifying the portion of the distributed flight data based on determining the retry count associated with the record identifying the portion of the distributed flight data has met the predetermined retry count limit . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; Wagner (US-20170286143-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for responsive to determining the distributed flight data has not been successfully processed ([0063-68] The call generator 174 may further interact with the on-demand code execution environment 110 to determine the results of a call corresponding to a data item , and to record that result in the results cache 178. In some instances, the call generator 174 may be configured to determine when a call to the on-demand code execution environment 110 fails with respect to a data item , and either resubmit the call , return that data item to the in-process cache 176, or record an error in the results cache 178 with respect to the data item.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include determining data has not been successfully processed with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Wagner , as it would yield a system configured to recognize and determine when information or data does not operate accordingly to predetermined behaviors or expectations, allowing a system to address and identify possible malfunctions. Regarding the limitation ; Hally (US-20210248007-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for responsive to determining the data has not been successfully processed, determining a retry count associated with the record identifying the data has met a predetermined retry count limit; and removing the record based on determining the retry count associated with the record has met the predetermined retry count limit ([0017] the request manager determines whether a retry count has reached a predetermined maximum value as indicated in step 220. For example, and without limitation, the retry maximum value may be set to two, three, or four retries . If the retry count has not reached the maximum value , then the API call is retried as indicated by looping back to step 202. If the retry count has reached the maximum value , then a “server busy” error message is sent to the REST API client 200 and the API call is removed from the buffer as indicated in step 224.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include responsive to determining the data has not been successfully processed, determining a retry count associated with the record identifying the data has met a predetermined retry count limit; and removing the record based on determining the retry count associated with the record has met the predetermined retry count limit, as taught by Hally , as it would yield a system configured to address malfunctions by continuing to retry operations until a predetermined limit of attempts is made, allowing a system to address malfunctions for a period of time before recognizing that the malfunction may not be solvable, saving on computational power and time . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, Hotra US-8689224-B2, and Beveridge US-9891953-B2 , as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bhattacharjee (US-12118009-B2) . 9. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 1, wherein processing the distributed flight data identified in the plurality of records using the plurality of VEs comprises selecting the plurality of VEs to process the distributed flight data based on an amount of computing resources required to process the distributed flight data . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; “…in the plurality of records”, the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim(s) 1 and 4 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim(s) 1 and 4. Regarding the limitation ; “…the plurality of VEs”, the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 1. Regarding the limitation ; “…data based on an amount of computing resources required to process”, Bhattacharjee (US-12118009-B2) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for an amount of computing resources required to process data ([col.243 ln.51] In some embodiments, the system 16 can dynamically allocate different amounts of resources during query execution . For example, if the system 16 receives a higher priority query and determines that there are insufficient execution or compute resources to execute the higher priority query using a first priority level , the system 16 can begin executing the higher priority query using a second priority level that is lower than the first level or uses fewer execution or compute resources . If the system 16 determines that additional resources will be received during the execution of the query such that it can provide the first priority level, the system 16 can add those execution or compute resources during the execution of the query . The system can similarly dynamically allocate different amounts of execution or compute resources during query execution for queries of different sizes or to more efficiently manage a scheduling queue , etc. For example, the system 16 can allocate additional resources to one query during execution to finish it in less time so as to free up execution or compute resources for more or larger queries that follow.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include an amount of computing resources required to process data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Bhattacharjee , as it would yield a system configured to utilize processing power by allocating memory and operational resources toward data handling according to operational needs, increasing efficiency by managing processing resources optimally. 10. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 9, wherein selecting the plurality of VEs to process the distributed flight data comprises receiving, from a user interface of the computing system, a selection of the plurality of VEs to process the distributed flight data . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; “…a plurality of virtualized environments (VE)”, the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 1 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, Hotra US-8689224-B2, and Beveridge US-9891953-B2 , as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Verwaest WO-2011157854-A1 . 16. (Previously presented) Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1 discloses The method of Claim 14, wherein operating the task scheduler to allocate the one or more containerized applications of the plurality of containerized applications in the to process the distributed flight data based on the total number of the plurality of containerized applications of the VE, the number of containerized applications currently running in the VE, the number of records to process in the queue, and the total number of containerized applications that have stopped running in the VE comprises: determining there are no containerized applications in the VE available to allocate to process the distributed flight data based on the total number of containerized applications of the VE being equal to the number of containerized applications currently running in the VE; operating the task scheduler to pause allocation of the one or more containerized applications in the VE for a pre-determined period of time based on determining there are no containerized applications in the VE available to allocate to process the distributed flight data; and operating the task scheduler to retry allocating of the one or more containerized applications in the VE to process the distributed flight data after the pre-determined period of time . (Sampigethaya [FIG.1-2, 4]) Regarding the limitation ; the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 14 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 14. Regarding the remaining limitation ; “determining there are no containerized applications in the VE available to allocate to process the distributed flight data identified in the record of the queue based on the total number of containerized applications of the VE being equal to the number of containerized applications currently running in the VE; operating the task scheduler to pause allocation of the one or more containerized applications in the VE …; “, The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection, the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling would be motivated to try a finite number of combinations in order to meet design needs, including pausing allocating ( pause allocation ) computational resources, to include containerized applications, are no containerized applications in the VE available to allocate . With a finite number of alternatives; pausing, or continuing allocation of resources , it would be obvious to experiment with different functional relationships between operating applications in order to identify which relationship better suits design needs regarding processing data within a queue during operations. Without any undue experimentation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success upon this modification. For more information, please see MPEP 2143; " The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham ." Regarding the remaining limitation ; “…operating the task scheduler to pause allocation of the one or more containerized applications in the VE for a pre-determined period of time based on determining there are no containerized applications in the VE available to allocate to process the distributed flight data…and operating the task scheduler to retry allocating of the one or more containerized applications in the VE to process the distributed flight data after the pre-determined period of time”, Verwaest (WO-2011157854-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for ([Abstract] transmitting a packet , said method comprising the steps of setting (S2) a lifetime value to a packet to transmit and, while the packet lifetime has not expired (S5) and the packet transmission fails: retransmitting (S3) the packet up to a retry limit , and suspending (S6) transmitting said packet during a pause time before transmitting the packet up to a retry limit . The method prevents pollution of the network by decreasing the number of attempted retransmissions.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include pausing allocation for a predetermined period of time and further to retry allocation after the predetermined amount of time with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Verwaest , as it would yield a method which prevents pollution of the network by decreasing the number of attempted retransmissions [Abstract] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampigethaya US-9310477-B1, Panergo US-10848939-B1, Hotra US-8689224-B2, and Beveridge US-9891953-B2 in view of Viele US-9932108-B1 . 19. (Currently amended) Regarding the limitations of claim 19 ; the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1 and therefore is are rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 1. Regarding the remaining limitation ; “… a second interface ”, Viele (US-9932108-B1) discloses in a similar field of endeavor, a consideration for a second interface ([col.5 ln.32] second communication interface (304); communication interface 1-3 (302, 304, 306) [FIG.3]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to adapt the modified system of Sampigethaya to include a second interface, as taught by Viele , as it would yield an alternative/additional interface for communicating, receiving, and transmitting data, enabling a system to utilize dedicated communication systems for data transmission and providing an additional interface within a system for the benefits of increasing computational capabilities and configuring the system to provide one or more access points for processing incoming data. 21. (Previously presented) Regarding the limitations of claim 21 ; the limitation is similar to those discussed in the rejection of the method of claim 1 and therefore is are rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations please see in re claim 1 . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. 07-100 The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30. 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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. /M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 11 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 12 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 13 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 14 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 15 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 16 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 17 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 18 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 19 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 20 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 21 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 22 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 23 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 24 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 25 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 26 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 27 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 28 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 29 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 30 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 31 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 32 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 33 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 34 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 35 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 36 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 37 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 38 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 39 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 17/502,709 Page 40 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights