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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 14, 2026 has been entered.
REMARKS
On pages 10-12, Applicant’s argument that Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1) in view of Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2) and Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1) as a whole does not disclose the new limitation of “identify, responsive to a comparison of a location of a predetermined geofence extending beyond an exterior boundary of a building with an estimated location of the threat beyond the exterior boundary of the building and based on the location data, that the threat of the active shooter affects a risk score of the building.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Noland discloses identify, responsive to a comparison of a location…of a building with an estimated location of the threat…based on the location data, that the threat of the active shooter affects a risk score of the building (page 6, lines 25-30, e.g. A rule based pattern matching engine analyzes the gunshot event process to look at the nominal values to determine a high confidence score, page 9, lines 44-48, e.g. Broadcast alerts may comprise, but are not limited to, email alerts transmitted (e.g., SMTP) in accord with a pre-defined database, an RSS Alert (relaying information through a RSS feeds, such as signage, twitter, Facebook, etc) and column 45, lines 17-35, e.g. system gateway 110 can calculate or estimate if there are one or two shooters by logical processes and procedures (e.g., relating time and sensor data to location and time of gunshots, which may include sensor position as well, as multiple sensors could pick up the same event, particularly with overlapping coverage). At some point, the system gateway 110 sends an “Event Over” message to all threat sensing devices 10 instructing them to “reset” and store the gunshot data just collected in local archive memory, in addition to storage of the same data on the servers. (Local archiving may be necessary for possible future forensics or legal proceedings that may require an audit of all data from the source)). Kovac discloses a location of a predetermined geofence extending beyond an exterior of a building ([0150], e.g. software analyzes the information received or collected using predefined and automated search algorithms and initiates actions based on established parameters and rules. For example, the system may be configured so that a BWC integrated into the system activates when an officer drives or passes within 50 meters of a geo fence, or other boundary as defined by a system administrator, such as when the officer is responding to a call for service at a location which has been identified with a Geofence. Upon arrival at the location, the office may draw his/her handcuffs, initiating the saving of metadata such as date/time stamps, with the metadata potentially integrated into the video together with a live notification of the event (arrival at a location) transmitted to the RTCC. Alternately, the system may automatically identify the officer's BWC and/or device once he/she enters the Geofenced area of the call for service. For example, if the officer is responding to a house during a call for service, the system may cause the officer's BWC to be turned on when he/she is 100 meters from the location). Therefore, Nolan as modified describes the argued limitations. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1) in view of Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2) and Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1) as applied to claims 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 41 is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1) in view of Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2), Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1), and Singla et al. (Singla hereafter, US 2016/0212165 A1) as applied to claims 23-25, 29, 32-34, and 40 is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1) in view of Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2), Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1), and Shen et al. (Shen hereafter, US 9,571,510 B1) as applied to claims 27 and 36 is maintained.
PENDING MATTERS
Claims 1-20 and 42 are cancelled.
Claims 21-41, filed December 22, 2025, are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1) in view of Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2) and Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1).
Claim 21, Brosnan discloses a building system, comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a plurality of messages including data of posts on a social media platform (Abstract, e.g. information system provides for receiving, verifying, analyzing, and monitoring data streams from various news feeds, web services and social media posts to alert and coordinate security services of possible terrorist events, major crimes, active shooters, public protests and other developing incidents);
evaluate the plurality of messages to determine that at least one message of the plurality of messages identifies a threat of an active shooter (Abstract, e.g. information system provides for receiving, verifying, analyzing, and monitoring data streams from various news feeds, web services and social media posts to alert and coordinate security services of possible terrorist events, major crimes, active shooters, public protests and other developing incidents) and includes location data (page 2, [0015], e.g. Analysts use the information system to reference and pin point the physical location for an event alert to determine the physical proximity to any clients. The physical location is noted and added to the event profile within the information system. The analysts also use the information system to determine the affect of any particular event alert on a given client based on the nature of the event and its physical proximity to that client, which is also noted in the event profile).
update, responsive to identifying the threat, the risk score of the building based on the threat (page 2, [0015], e.g. the analyst will use information system 10 to continue to monitor the situation and send updated alert notices until the incident is finished. Once the incident is complete, the analyst triggers information system 10 to create an after-action report logging all alerts, actions and communications associated with the event).
However, Brosnan does not disclose identify, responsive to a comparison of a location of a predetermined geofence extending beyond an exterior boundary of a building with an estimated location of the threat beyond the exterior boundary of the building and based on the location data, that the threat of the active shooter affects a risk score of the building.
Noland discloses identify, responsive to a comparison of a location…of a building with an estimated location of the threat…based on the location data, that the threat of the active shooter affects a risk score of the building (page 6, lines 25-30, e.g. A rule based pattern matching engine analyzes the gunshot event process to look at the nominal values to determine a high confidence score, page 9, lines 44-48, e.g. Broadcast alerts may comprise, but are not limited to, email alerts transmitted (e.g., SMTP) in accord with a pre-defined database, an RSS Alert (relaying information through a RSS feeds, such as signage, twitter, Facebook, etc) and column 45, lines 17-35, e.g. system gateway 110 can calculate or estimate if there are one or two shooters by logical processes and procedures (e.g., relating time and sensor data to location and time of gunshots, which may include sensor position as well, as multiple sensors could pick up the same event, particularly with overlapping coverage). At some point, the system gateway 110 sends an “Event Over” message to all threat sensing devices 10 instructing them to “reset” and store the gunshot data just collected in local archive memory, in addition to storage of the same data on the servers. (Local archiving may be necessary for possible future forensics or legal proceedings that may require an audit of all data from the source)).
Noland discloses an invention for improving communications with responders arriving to the school or targeted location (column 19, lines 8-9). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Noland to improve the communications of the system of Brosnan. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of Brosnan with the improve communications of Noland. The benefit would be for improving communications with responders arriving to the school or targeted location.
However, Nolan as modified does not describe a location of a predetermined geofence extending beyond an exterior boundary of a building with an estimated location of the threat beyond the exterior boundary of the building. Kovac discloses a location of a predetermined geofence extending beyond an exterior of a building ([0150], e.g. software analyzes the information received or collected using predefined and automated search algorithms and initiates actions based on established parameters and rules. For example, the system may be configured so that a BWC integrated into the system activates when an officer drives or passes within 50 meters of a geo fence, or other boundary as defined by a system administrator, such as when the officer is responding to a call for service at a location which has been identified with a Geofence. Upon arrival at the location, the office may draw his/her handcuffs, initiating the saving of metadata such as date/time stamps, with the metadata potentially integrated into the video together with a live notification of the event (arrival at a location) transmitted to the RTCC. Alternately, the system may automatically identify the officer's BWC and/or device once he/she enters the Geofenced area of the call for service. For example, if the officer is responding to a house during a call for service, the system may cause the officer's BWC to be turned on when he/she is 100 meters from the location).
Kovac disclose an invention with the ability to provide intelligence to line level personnel in real time can tremendously improve officer safety and reduce the officer and detective man-hours required to solve a crime ([0188]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Kovac to improve the system of Nolan as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use geofencing of Kovac with the system of Nolan as modified. The benefit would be to provide intelligence to line level personnel in real time can tremendously improve officer safety and reduce the officer and detective man-hours required to solve a crime.
Claim 22, Brosnan as modified discloses the instructions cause the one or more processors to: identify the location of the building responsive to identifying the threat of the active shooter (Brosman, page 1, [0004], e.g. receives, monitors, analyzes and verifies data streams…coordinate security services of possible terrorist events, major crimes, active shooters, public protests and other developing incidents, and page 2, [0015], e.g. pin point the physical location for an event alert to determine the physical proximity to any clients), Receive a video data stream of the location of the building (Brosnan, page 2, [0016], e.g. The GPX Platforms also allows security personnel and first responders in the field to use smart devices to upload geo-tagged photographs, videos and data about a security event that is integrated and disseminated to other security personnel and first responders); and Cause a user interface to display the video data stream of the location of the building (Brosnan, page 2, [0017], e.g. on-sight reconnaissance vehicles 50 are generally specially equipped vehicles with multiple high resolution video cameras, audio recording equipment and telecommunication and broadcast equipment that can quickly process and send live audio/video feeds to command facility 20 or directly to the smart devices of select security assets using multiple redundant communication platforms).
Claim 26, Brosnan as modified discloses the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
cause a plurality of user interfaces displayed on a plurality of user devices to include an element, wherein the element includes an indication of the threat of the active shooter (Brosnan, Figure 3, e.g. Active Shooter Alert demo);
receive an interaction with the element from one user device of the plurality of user devices; retrieve information describing a user associated with the one user device of the plurality of user devices (Brosnan, page 3, [0029], e.g. If the appropriate event response to a given Event Alert is to inform and or provide action instructions to affected clients and their security personnel, the human analysts trigger or information system 10 automatically assigned based on predetermined criteria, a response level and response actions to the Event Profile, generate a Security Alert Notice and transmit the Security Alert Notice 182 to the affected clients, security personnel and first responders as identified in the Event Profile (Step 180)); update the element of the plurality of user interfaces to include the information describing the user (Brosnan, page 3, [0029], e.g. information system 10 continuously updates and informs all users about relevant developments for a given event or threat with limited information lag); and cause the plurality of user interfaces to display the updated element (Figure 3).
Claim 28, Brosnan as modified discloses the instructions cause the one or more processors to: cause a user interface displayed on a user device to include an element, wherein the element includes information describing the building; wherein the information includes at least one of: a location of the building (Brosnan, page 2, [0015], e.g. Analysts use the information system to reference and pin point the physical location for an event alert to determine the physical proximity to any clients. The physical location is noted and added to the event profile within the information system. The analysts also use the information system to determine the affect of any particular event alert on a given client based on the nature of the event and its physical proximity to that client, which is also noted in the event profile); an identifier of the building; or a list of threats affecting the risk score of the building.
Claim 41, Brosnan as modified discloses determine that a geofence of the building at least partially overlaps a geofence of the threat at the location (Kovac, [0166], e.g. all crimes within a particular area or Geofence, and/or cross-indexed with the number of high risk actions (i.e. arrest, use of force) taken by individual officers. Reports can also be generated based on the types of actions taken by officers and the corresponding arrest statistics, or conversely, the type of crime committed with corresponding officer actions. These crime overlays can be integrated with calls for service in real time in order to more accurately predict crime rates within certain geographical areas, predict officer behavior based on historical patterns, and identify potential training issues based on a comparison of the crime and officer response); and
identify, responsive to the determination that the geofence of the building at least partially overlaps the geofence of the threat at the location, that the threat of the active shooter affects the risk score of the building based on the at least one message of the plurality of messages (Nolan, page 6, lines 25-30, e.g. A rule based pattern matching engine analyzes the gunshot event process to look at the nominal values to determine a high confidence score, page 9, lines 44-48, e.g. Broadcast alerts may comprise, but are not limited to, email alerts transmitted (e.g., SMTP) in accord with a pre-defined database, an RSS Alert (relaying information through a RSS feeds, such as signage, twitter, Facebook, etc) and column 45, lines 17-35, e.g. system gateway 110 can calculate or estimate if there are one or two shooters by logical processes and procedures (e.g., relating time and sensor data to location and time of gunshots, which may include sensor position as well, as multiple sensors could pick up the same event, particularly with overlapping coverage). At some point, the system gateway 110 sends an “Event Over” message to all threat sensing devices 10 instructing them to “reset” and store the gunshot data just collected in local archive memory, in addition to storage of the same data on the servers. (Local archiving may be necessary for possible future forensics or legal proceedings that may require an audit of all data from the source)).
Claims 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, and 39, Brosnan as modified discloses a method and a risk system for implementing the above cited building system. Claims 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, and 39 are rejected for the same rationale and citations above.
Claim(s) 23-25, 29, 32-34, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1) in view of Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2) and Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1), as applied to claims 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 41 above, in further view of Singla et al. (Singla hereafter, US 2016/0212165 A1).
Claim 23, Brosnan as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation of identify a second threat that affects the risk score of the building; generate a second risk score of the building based on the second threat responsive to identifying the second threat; and cause a user interface to display the second risk score of the building, an indication of a threat category of the second threat, the risk score of the building, and a category of the risk score.
Singla discloses identify a second threat that affects the risk score of the building (Singla, page 2, [0023], e.g. a second top level threat score can be determined for a second entity based on a second subset of the calculated threat scores. In the building example, the top level threat score may be associated with a second building, a site including buildings, a country of sites, etc.); generate a second risk score of the building based on the second threat responsive to identifying the second threat (Singla, page 2, [0023], e.g. the calculated threat scores of the subset from the listener, the first top level threat score can be updated based on the update information); and cause a user interface to display the second risk score of the building, an indication of a threat category of the second threat, the risk score of the building, and a category of the risk score (Singla, Figure 6, and page 5, [0054], e.g. the dashboard can show threat levels of entities 602a-602f. In certain examples, the threat levels could be shown by different colors like green (healthy), yellow (warning) and red (alarming). The user can be able to customize the threat levels by selecting a range of score for each threat level. The arrows next to the speedometer 604 can show the trend or the direction 606 of the threat score whether it went up or down or stayed the same. Additionally or alternatively, two arrows can be placed on the speedometer 604, one showing the current threat score and the other one is grayed out showing the previous threat score).
Singla discloses an improvement that provides a quick understanding of the security threat risk (page 1, [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Singla to improve the method of Brosnan as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use of Brosnan as modified with the threat scoring of Singla. The benefit would be to provide a quick understanding of the security threat risk.
Claim 24, Brosnan as modified discloses identify, based on data of the plurality of messages, a threat (Brosnan, Abstract, e.g. information system provides for receiving, verifying, analyzing, and monitoring data streams from various news feeds, web services and social media posts to alert and coordinate security services of possible terrorist events, major crimes, active shooters, public protests and other developing incidents). However, Brosnan as modified does not disclose identify…a second threat; determine a status of the second threat; and update the risk score of the building based on the second threat responsive to determining that the status of the second threat is active. Singla discloses identify…a second threat; determine a status of the second threat; and update the risk score of the building based on the second threat responsive to determining that the status of the second threat is active.
Singla discloses identify (Singla, page 1, [0009], e.g. data can be analyzed to identify an attack on the network or a networked device and determine which user or machine is responsible)…a second threat (Singla, page 2, [0023], e.g. a second top level threat score can be determined for a second entity based on a second subset of the calculated threat scores); determine a status of the second threat (Singla, page 3, [0033], e.g. active lists); and update the risk score of the building based on the second threat responsive to determining that the status of the second threat is active (Singla, page 3, [0033], e.g. active lists, page 4, [0041], e.g. the device can receive an update notification of one or more of the calculated threat scores from a listener. The listener can receive updates to the calculated threat scores of other management devices).
Singla discloses an improvement that provides a quick understanding of the security threat risk (page 1, [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Singla to improve the method of Brosnan as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use of Brosnan as modified with the threat scoring of Singla. The benefit would be to provide a quick understanding of the security threat risk.
Claim 25, Brosnan as modified discloses identify, based on data of the plurality of messages, a threat of the active shooter (Brosnan, Abstract, e.g. information system provides for receiving, verifying, analyzing, and monitoring data streams from various news feeds, web services and social media posts to alert and coordinate security services of possible terrorist events, major crimes, active shooters, public protests and other developing incidents). However, Brosnan as modified does not disclose identify that the second threat is correlated to the threat and increases a severity of the threat; and update the risk score of the building based on a determination that the second threat is correlated to the threat. Singla discloses identify that the second threat is correlated to the threat and increases a severity of the threat (Singla, page 2, [0018], e.g. a data monitor can correlate events into enhanced information. For example, data monitors can take information from security events and correlation and provide additional information, for example, hourly counts, event graphs (link analysis visualization), geographic event graphs, hierarchy maps, information about the last “N” events, the last state, a partial match of one or more rules, statistics, event and session reconciliation, system and system attribute monitors, asset category counts); and update the risk score of the building based on a determination that the second threat is correlated to the threat (page 2, [0019], e.g. When a threat score for an entity is updated, the information can be sent to the listener 104 via the communication module 122).
Singla discloses an improvement that provides a quick understanding of the security threat risk (page 1, [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Singla to improve the method of Brosnan as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use of Brosnan as modified with the threat scoring of Singla. The benefit would be to provide a quick understanding of the security threat risk.
Claim 29, Brosnan as modified discloses the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
estimate the location of the threat of the active shooter (Brosnan, page 1, [0004], e.g. receives, monitors, analyzes and verifies data streams from various news feeds, web services and social media posts to alert and coordinate security services of possible terrorist events, major crimes, active shooters, and page 2, [0015], e.g. Analysts use the information system to reference and pin point the physical location for an event alert to determine the physical proximity to any clients);
identify the location of the building (Brosnan, page 2, [0015], e.g. Analysts use the information system to reference and pin point the physical location for an event alert to determine the physical proximity to any clients);
determine a distance between the estimated threat of the active shooter and the location of the building (Brosnan, page 2, [0015], e.g. pin point the physical location for an event alert to determine the physical proximity (distance) to any clients).
However, Brosnan as modified does not disclose generate the risk score based on the distance between the estimated threat…and at least one of the building. Singla disclose generate the risk score based on the distance between the threat…and at least one of the building (Singla, page 2, [0023], e.g. In the building example, the top level threat score may be associated with a second building, a site including buildings, a country of sites, etc. Presentation of a first user interface element of the first top level threat score and a second user interface element of the second top level threat score can be presented. Additional top level scores can also be presented. In some examples, the top level score is a score that is based on at least one lower level score. When update information is received about one of the calculated threat scores of the subset from the listener, the first top level threat score can be updated based on the update information).
Singla discloses an improvement that provides a quick understanding of the security threat risk (page 1, [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Singla to improve the method of Brosnan as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use of Brosnan as modified with the threat scoring of Singla. The benefit would be to provide a quick understanding of the security threat risk.
Claims 32-34, and 40, Brosnan as modified discloses a method and a risk system for implementing the above cited building system. Claims 32-34, 36, and 40 are rejected for the same rationale and citations above.
Claim(s) 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan (Pub No. US 2018/0315283 A1), Noland et al. (Noland hereafter, US 9,886,833 B2), and Kovac, K. (US 20160286156 A1), as applied to claims 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 41 above, in further view of Shen et al. (Shen hereafter, US 9,571,510 B1).
Claim 27, Brosnan as modified discloses the threat of the active shooter as discussed above. However, Brosnan does not disclose a second thread of a second active shooter. It is noted that the second active shooter has been interpreted as a duplication of the first active shooter. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Further, Brosnan as modified does not disclose the plurality of messages are generated by a first data source; wherein the instructions causes the one or more processors to: receive a second message from a second data source different than the first data source, the second message describing a second threat; determine that the threat and the second threat describe a common event; and group the threat and the second threat responsive to a determination that the threat and the second threat describe the common event. Shen discloses disclose the plurality of messages are generated by a first data source (column 10, lines 47-49, e.g. One group of several single-dimensional clusters may be related by a shared network address from which the attacks originated); wherein the instructions causes the one or more processors to: receive a second message from a second data source different than the first data source, the second message describing a second threat of an active shooter (column 10, lines 49-53, e.g. A subset of those single-dimensional clusters may also be related to a second group of single-dimensional clusters by a shared network address to which the attacks were apparently directed); determine that the threat and the second threat describe a common event; and group the threat and the second threat responsive to a determination that the threat and the second threat describe the common event (column 10, lines 57-62, e.g. relationships between the separate groups of single-dimensional security clusters may indicate that a single threat source is responsible for all the attacks even though few security-event data records in the first single-dimensional security cluster have features in common with security-event records in the third security cluster).
Shen identifies and addresses a need for improved systems and methods for identifying security threat sources responsible for security events (column 1, lines 34-36). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by to improve the method of Brosnan as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use of Brosnan as modified with the identifying security threats of Shen. The benefit would be to address a need for improved systems and methods for identifying security threat sources responsible for security events.
Claims 36, Brosnan as modified discloses a method and a risk system for implementing the above cited building system. Claims 36 are rejected for the same rationale and citations above.
CONCLUSION
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.
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.
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.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
2/7/2026