DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument(s)/remark(s) filed on July 28, 2025, claims 1-13 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the following ground(s) of rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 6, 8-9, 11.
Certified copy of foreign application IN202311006750 filed on June 9, 2025, is acknowledged.
Per amendment of drawing 2B, drawing objection had been removed.
Per amendment of claim 9, the claim objection had been removed.
Response to Argument
Regarding applicant’s first arguments related to the analysis of Prong One of Step 2A: “ Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Applicant notes that ‘claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind.’ …” (page 11, par. 3), the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant statement. Arguments are not persuasive because applicant failed to identify the particular similarity of the cited examples from the MPEP and current claims; applicant may consider that those cited examples are specific examples. It is the examiner position that the current amended limitation is still directed to an abstract without additional element(s) that would integrate the identified judicial exception into practical application, neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception. The rejection is maintained. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to view the ground of rejection.
Regarding applicant’s second arguments related to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (page 13, par. 1 – page 15, par. 2 ), the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant’s statements. The arguments are not persuasive because applicant failed to consider the specific streamlined analysis of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B. It appears that applicant at least selects feature(s) / limitation(s) identified within Prong Two of Step 2A to make a conclusory statement that the receive step(s) / limitation(s) cannot be perform in the human mind. Applicant may consider that the receive step(s) / limitation(s) had been not analyzed under Prong One of Step 2A for abstract idea. It is the examiner position that the claimed invention, as amended, is still directed to an abstract idea without additional element that would integrate the identified judicial exception into practical application, neither amount to significant more that the judicial exception – the claimed invention does not contain a control step / mechanism. The rejection is maintained. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to view the ground of rejection.
Regarding applicant’s third arguments related to the amendment of the claims (page 21, par. 1 – page 23, par. 1), the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant statement. Arguments are not persuasive because Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management for receiving training data that include (i) a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from a sensor disposed on the at least an electric aircraft during flight (abstract, col. 9, lines 9-11; col. 14, lines 30-31 and col. 30, line 63 – col. 31, line 2) ) and (ii) a history and/or records of the plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from aircraft system / controller (col. 10, lines 1-2; col. 7, lines 32-38)), wherein an aircraft performance model output are generated using machine learning algorithm, based on the plurality of measured aircraft operation datum (col. 56, lines 37- 41) that including (i) an analytical and/or interactive visualization regarding aircraft operation and/or performance capabilities, (ii) dashboards and reports (col. 11, lines 52-57), and (iii) a performance alert (col. 12 lines 46-50) to be viewed by user(s). It is the examiner position that Moeykens still discloses the amended claim limitation. The rejection is maintained. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to view the ground of rejection and the cited prior art section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, A system, the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in memory, the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
receive a set of training data; the set of training data including one or more sets of real-time data, the set of training data further including a prior- received set of training data from at least one of an aircraft controller or one or more offboard controllers, the aircraft controller including data from at least one of one or more aircraft batteries, one or more aircraft sensors, or one or more flight management systems;
train a machine learning algorithm of an electric flight dispatch module based on the received set of training data;
receive one or more sets of real-time data, the one or more sets of real-time data including at least one of airport infrastructure data, airline information data, or battery management data; and
generate a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft using the trained machine learning algorithm of the electric flight dispatch module, the generate the set of output data for dispatching the electric aircraft comprises generating an action plan for ground crew.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a system including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes. ‘
The claim 1 recites the limitations (i) “train a machine learning algorithm of an electric flight dispatch module based on the received set of training data,” (ii) “generate a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft using the trained machine learning algorithm of the electric flight dispatch module,” and “… generating an action plan for ground crew.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that cover performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor,” “memory,” “machine learning algorithm,” “an aircraft controller” and “offboard controllers” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, the train step / limitation encompasses a user mentally learning steps using a set of training data related to aircraft parameters. The generate and generating steps / limitations encompasses the user mentally creating / scheduling aircraft dispatch based on the learning steps and generating a report plan, using pen and paper, for aircraft departure. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) receive a set of training data, …” and “receive one or more sets of real-time data …” The first receive limitation / step is recited at a high-level of generality as a general means for gathering information related to current and previous aircraft parameters – for instance, sensor, flight and other aircraft information – as training data for using in the training and generating limitations / steps which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The second receiving limitation / step is also recited at a high-level of generality as a general means for gathering information related to airport data, aircraft data or aircraft battery data in real time data also for using in the training and generating limitations / steps which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites a processor that facilitates the training and generating limitations / steps is a general recited processor that “apply” the otherwise mental steps using generic or general-purpose computer and is recited at a high level of generality to mere automate the mental steps as indicated above.
The claim generally recites a “memory” at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity by storing instruction to be executed by a generic processor component.
The claim generally recites an aircraft controller / offboard controllers, for performing insignificant extra solution activity to send / transmit training data to the processor.
The claim recites a genetic “machine learning algorithm” that apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine leaning algorithm functions.
Accordingly, even in the combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receive a set of training data …” and “receive one or more sets of real-time data …” limitations / steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the claim recites additional element that amount to significant more than the judicial exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(g), mere obtaining and applying data are deemed to be directed to insignificant extra solution activity.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The specification does not provide any indication that the processor, memory and controller(s) are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf electronic component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instruction to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The display and user input interface are recited at a high level of generality for performing insignificant extra solution activity to display and input data.
There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the additional elements “… generate one or more control signals configured to cause the display of the user interface device to display a graphic user interface including the generated set of output data” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A as general means for displaying information, which is a form of insignificantly extra solution activity that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the additional elements “… the graphical user interface includes a checklist for ground crew” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A as general means for outputting information, which is a form of insignificantly extra solution activity that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim outlines a type of received data. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claims outline type of received data. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, A method, the method comprising:
receiving a set of training data, the set of training data including one or more sets of real-time data, the set of training data further including a prior-received set of training data from at least one of an aircraft controller or one or more offboard controllers, the aircraft controller including data from at least one of one or more aircraft batteries, one or more aircraft sensors, or one or more flight management systems;
training a machine learning algorithm of an electric flight dispatch module based on the received set of training data;
receiving one or more sets of real-time data, the one or more sets of real-time data including at least one of airport infrastructure data, airline information data, or battery management data; and
generating a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft using the trained machine learning algorithm of the electric flight dispatch module, the generate the set of output data for dispatching the electric aircraft comprises generating an action plan for ground crew.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a method for generating a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes. ‘
The claim 1 recites the limitations (i) “training a machine learning algorithm of an electric flight dispatch module based on the received set of training data” and (ii) “generating a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft using the trained machine learning algorithm of the electric flight dispatch module,” and “… generating an action plan for ground crew.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that cover performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “machine learning algorithm,” “an aircraft controller” and “offboard controllers,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, the training step / limitation encompasses a user mentally learning steps using a set of training data. The generating steps / limitations encompasses the user mentally creating / scheduling aircraft dispatch based on the learning steps and generating a report plan, using pen and paper, for aircraft departure. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
Claim(s) is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the flowing additional elements: (i) receiving a set of training data, …” and “receiving one or more sets of real-time data. ...” The first receiving limitation / step is recited at a high-level of generality as a general means for gathering information related to current and previous aircraft parameters – for instance, sensor, flight and other aircraft information – as training data for using in the training and generating limitations / steps which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The second receiving limitation / step is also recited at a high-level of generality as a general means for gathering information related to airport data, aircraft data or aircraft battery data in real time data also for using in the training and generating limitations / steps which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity - per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites a genetic machine learning algorithm that apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained machine leaning algorithm functions.
The claim generally recites an aircraft controller / offboard controllers, for performing insignificant extra solution activity to send / transmit training data to the processor.
Accordingly, even in the combination, these additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No
The claim does not recite any additional element that amount to significant more that the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 9, the additional elements “… generate one or more control signals configured to cause the display of the user interface device to display a graphic user interface including the generated set of output data” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A as general means for displaying information, which is a form of insignificantly extra solution activity that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the additional elements “… the graphical user interface includes a checklist for ground crew” is evaluated in Prong 2 of 2A as general means for outputting information, which is a form of insignificantly extra solution activity that it amounts no more than mere instruction to output information. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim outlines a type of received data. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 12-13, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claims outline type of received data. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moeykens (Patent No.: US 11,417,154 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management comprising:
one or more processors (e.g., flight controller / microprocessor – col. 4, lines 21-23 and col. 66, lines 7-13) configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in memory (e.g., a memory for storing instruction to be executed by the flight controller – col. 68, lines 6-17), the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
receive a set of training data (e.g., receiving training data (e.g. col. 14, lines 30-31 and col. 30, line 63 – col. 31, line 2)), the set of training data including one or more sets of real-time data (e.g., to receive a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from a sensor disposed on the at least an electric aircraft during flight (abstract, col. 9, lines 9-11) ), the set of training data further including a prior- received set of training data from at least one of an aircraft controller (e.g., processing a history and/or records of the plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from aircraft system / controller (col. 10, lines 1-2; col. 7, lines 32-38)) at least one of e.g., a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from the sensor 104 disposed on the aircraft (col. 13, lines 46-49) ),
note: set of training data (spec. par. 68).
train a machine learning algorithm of an electric flight dispatch module based on the received set of training data (e.g., training aircraft performance model output machine-learning model based on received training data – col. 14, lines 30-36).
receive the one or more sets of real-time data, the one or more sets of real-time data including at least one of e.g., receiving a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from sensor disposed on the at least an electric aircraft, wherein said aircraft operation datum include aircraft component state data, payload data and a pilot data (col. 56, lines 10 - 18) )
generate a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft using the trained machine learning algorithm of the electric flight dispatch module (e.g., generating an aircraft performance model output, using machine learning algorithm, based on the plurality of measured aircraft operation datum – col. 56, lines 37- 41), the generate the set of output data for dispatching the electric aircraft comprises generating an action plan for ground crew (e.g., generating an aircraft performance model output including (i) an analytical and/or interactive visualization regarding aircraft operation and/or performance capabilities, (ii) dashboards and reports (col. 11, lines 52-57), and (iii) a performance alert (col. 12 lines 46-50) to be viewed by user(s) ).
Regarding claim 2, Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management further comprising: a user interface device including a display and a user input device (e.g., a user interface comprising a display and input device – col. 16, lines 61-64; col. 17, lines 4-5; and col. 17, lines 24-26 and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the set of program instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to: generate one or more control signals configured to cause the display of the user interface device to display a graphic user interface including the generated set of output data (e.g., “the user device is configured to receive the aircraft performance model output 136 and display the aircraft performance model output 136 by a graphical user interface (GUI)” – col. 16, lines 61-64 ).
Regarding claim 4, Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the graphical user interface includes a checklist for ground crew (e.g., user device 148 configured to present information related to the flight plan, flight plan schedule, a maintenance and/or repair schedule, pilot information, customer experience information, and the like – col. 17, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 5, Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the airline information data includes at least one of: a number of electric aircraft in a fleet of an airline, a range of a flight for the electric aircraft, a departure time for the electric aircraft, or an arrival time for the electric aircraft (e.g., “estimated flight duration of different flight plans or proposed flight plans according to where an electric aircraft is departing from and/or arriving to, and the like” – col.14 lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 1; therefore, Moeykens’ invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 7, Moeykens discloses a system for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the battery management data includes at least one of: e.g., capture, via sensor 104, remaining battery of the electric aircraft – col. 6, lines 18-20 and col. 4, lines 21-35),
Regarding claim 8, Moeykens discloses a method for electric aircraft fleet management comprising:
receiving a set of training data (e.g., receiving training data (e.g. col. 14, lines 30-31 and col. 30, line 63 – col. 31, line 2)), the set of training data including one or more sets of real-time data (e.g., to receive a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from a sensor disposed on the at least an electric aircraft during flight (abstract, col. 9, lines 9-11) ), the set of training data further including a prior- received set of training data from at least one of an aircraft controller (e.g., processing a history and/or records of the plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from aircraft system / controller (col. 10, lines 1-2; col. 7, lines 32-38)) at least one of e.g., a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from the sensor 104 disposed on the aircraft (col. 13, lines 46-49) ),
note: set of training data (spec. par. 68).
training a machine learning algorithm of an electric flight dispatch module based on the received set of training data (e.g., training aircraft performance model output machine-learning model based on received training data – col. 14, lines 30-36).
receiving the one or more sets of real-time data, the one or more sets of real-time data including at least one of e.g., receiving a plurality of measured aircraft operation datum from sensor disposed on the at least an electric aircraft, wherein said aircraft operation datum include aircraft component state data, payload data and a pilot data (col. 56, lines 10 - 18) )
generating a set of output data for dispatching an electric aircraft using the trained machine learning algorithm of the electric flight dispatch module (e.g., generating an aircraft performance model output, using machine learning algorithm, based on the plurality of measured aircraft operation datum – col. 56, lines 37- 41), the generate the set of output data for dispatching the electric aircraft comprises generating an action plan for ground crew (e.g., generating an aircraft performance model output including (i) an analytical and/or interactive visualization regarding aircraft operation and/or performance capabilities, (ii) dashboards and reports (col. 11, lines 52-57), and (iii) a performance alert (col. 12 lines 46-50) to be viewed by user(s) ).
Regarding claim 9, Moeykens discloses a method for electric aircraft fleet management further comprising generate one or more control signals configured to cause the display of the user interface device to display a graphic user interface including the generated set of output data (e.g., “the user device is configured to receive the aircraft performance model output 136 and display the aircraft performance model output 136 by a graphical user interface (GUI)” – col. 16, lines 61-64 ).
Regarding claim 10, Moeykens discloses a method for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the graphical user interface includes a checklist for ground crew (e.g., user device 148 configured to present information related to the flight plan, flight plan schedule, a maintenance and/or repair schedule, pilot information, customer experience information, and the like – col. 17, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 11, Moeykens discloses a method for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the airline information data includes at least one of: a number of electric aircraft in a fleet of an airline, a range of a flight for the electric aircraft, a departure time for the electric aircraft, or an arrival time for the electric aircraft (e.g., “estimated flight duration of different flight plans or proposed flight plans according to where an electric aircraft is departing from and/or arriving to, and the like” – col.14 lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 1; therefore, Moeykens’ invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 13, Moeykens discloses a method for electric aircraft fleet management wherein the battery management data includes at least one of: e.g., capture, via sensor 104, remaining battery of the electric aircraft – col. 6, lines 18-20 and col. 4, lines 21-35), .
Conclusion
Cited relevant reference:
US 11449078 B1 directed to an electric aircraft with flight trajectory planning using training data, aircraft sensor data, and machine leaning model.
US 11435761 B1 directed to flight control system for an electric vehicle to generate a flight path based on performance datum from sensor, machine leaning model and training data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/J.O.P/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656