DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to amendments filed 06/25/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 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.
More specifically, the teaching of the Purpura reference meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “application programming interface” which refers to a set of rules or protocols that enables software applications to communicate with each other to exchange data, which is performed by the reference. The specific protocol is not met by Purpura but Bekanich (new ground of rejection below) cures the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purpura (USPN 6,801,764) in view of Bekanich (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0155763).
Regarding claim 1 Purpura discloses a computer-implemented method for modifying communication capabilities for an emergency event (fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors and via an application programming interface, a first indication from a user device that an emergency event has begun aboard an aircraft (col. 8, lines 26-50; The activation of the emergency response apparatus 52 performs the equivalent of a "911" call to the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 as well as to the emergency response center 28 via the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22);
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first state representative of a first set of communication capabilities for at least the user device and a second state representative of a second set of communication capabilities for at least the user device such that the second set of communication capabilities allows for improved communication from the user device compared to the first set of communication capabilities (col. 8, lines 50-67; Upon receiving the "911" call from the emergency response apparatus 52, the server 32 adjusts its operating mode in response to the emergency situation. The server 32 allocates both inbound and outbound data streams between the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 and the ground station 24 when the emergency response apparatus 52 is activated, as indicated in step 74; with the first state being the state prior to emergency notification, and the second state the adjusted operating mode once the emergency is detected);
causing, by the one or more processors and in response to receiving the first indication, at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state (col. 8, lines 50-67; The allocation of the inbound and outbound data streams allows the emergency response apparatus 52 to engage in bidirectional broadband communication with the emergency response center 28 without being delayed by other users of the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22);
receiving, by the one or more processors, a second indication from the user device to transition from the second state to the first state (col. 11, lines 12-30; Once the emergency situation is over, as indicated in step 84, the crew member will terminate the broadband communication between the emergency response apparatus 52 and the emergency response center 28, as indicated in step 96; an end to the emergency causes an indication of concluding the allocation of adjusted operation and to return to normal state); and
causing, by the one or more processors and in response to receiving the second indication, at least the user device to transition from the second state to the first state (col. 11, lines 12-30; When the broadband communication is terminated, the server 32 will cease to allocate the inbound and outbound data streams between the broadband communication system 30 and the ground station 24. The operation of the broadband communication system 30 can then return to its normal or pre-emergency situation operating condition).
Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Bekanich, in the same field of endeavor related to emergency messaging, discloses the application programming interface comprising an endpoint accessible by the one or more processors via a web service protocol (paragraphs 0037-0045; the message service may rely upon a simple object access protocol (SOAP) object to communicate with services at which intended recipients are accessible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Bekanich, in order to expedite and simplify the communication of messages (Bekanich: paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 2 Purpura discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state comprises: increasing an allocation of a maximum amount of bandwidth to the user device (col. 5, lines 43-67, col. 7, lines 55-65; The expanded bandwidth capability of the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 allows the services provided by the emergency response apparatus 52 to be greatly enhanced over the existing services that are available via the air telephone lines).
Regarding claim 3 Purpura discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state comprises: modifying an allocation of a respective maximum amount of bandwidth to each device of a plurality of devices connected to an in-aircraft network including the user device (col. 9, lines 8-36; the broadband communication system 30 may have an inbound data stream of 1 MB while the outbound data stream is limited to 196K. In this situation, the allocation of the inbound data stream may be such that 25% of the inbound data stream is allocated to only be used to provide broadband, communication between the emergency response center 28 and the emergency response apparatus 52 while the remaining 75% can be used to provide data content to: other users of the broadband communication system 30. Likewise, the outbound data stream may be allocated so that 75% of the outbound data stream is allocated to only be used for broadband communication between the emergency response apparatus 52 and the emergency response center 28 while the remaining 25% can be used by the other users of the broadband communication system 30).
Regarding claim 4 Purpura discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: causing, by the one or more processors, a transition from a third state representative of a third set of communication capabilities for one or more additional devices connected to an in-aircraft network to a fourth state representative of a fourth set of communication capabilities for the one or more additional devices by limiting an amount of bandwidth allocated to the one or more additional devices, wherein the user device is also connected to the in-aircraft network (col. 9, lines 8-55; adapting the allocations to the other devices connected to the broadband system in the aircraft).
Regarding claim 8 Purpura discloses a computer system for modifying communication capabilities for an emergency event, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors (fig. 2); and
a memory storing instructions that (fig. 2), when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive, via an application programming interface, a first indication from a user device that an emergency event has begun aboard an aircraft (col. 8, lines 26-50; The activation of the emergency response apparatus 52 performs the equivalent of a "911" call to the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 as well as to the emergency response center 28 via the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22);
identify, a first state representative of a first set of communication capabilities for at least the user device and a second state representative of a second set of communication capabilities for at least the user device such that the second set of communication capabilities allows for improved communication from the user device compared to the first set of communication capabilities (col. 8, lines 50-67; Upon receiving the "911" call from the emergency response apparatus 52, the server 32 adjusts its operating mode in response to the emergency situation. The server 32 allocates both inbound and outbound data streams between the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 and the ground station 24 when the emergency response apparatus 52 is activated, as indicated in step 74; with the first state being the state prior to emergency notification, and the second state the adjusted operating mode once the emergency is detected);
cause, in response to receiving the first indication, at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state (col. 8, lines 50-67; The allocation of the inbound and outbound data streams allows the emergency response apparatus 52 to engage in bidirectional broadband communication with the emergency response center 28 without being delayed by other users of the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22);
receive a second indication from the user device to transition from the second state to the first state (col. 11, lines 12-30; Once the emergency situation is over, as indicated in step 84, the crew member will terminate the broadband communication between the emergency response apparatus 52 and the emergency response center 28, as indicated in step 96; an end to the emergency causes an indication of concluding the allocation of adjusted operation and to return to normal state); and
cause, in response to receiving the second indication, at least the user device to transition from the second state to the first state (col. 11, lines 12-30; When the broadband communication is terminated, the server 32 will cease to allocate the inbound and outbound data streams between the broadband communication system 30 and the ground station 24. The operation of the broadband communication system 30 can then return to its normal or pre-emergency situation operating condition).
Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Bekanich, in the same field of endeavor related to emergency messaging, discloses the application programming interface comprising an endpoint accessible by the one or more processors via a web service protocol (paragraphs 0037-0045; the message service may rely upon a simple object access protocol (SOAP) object to communicate with services at which intended recipients are accessible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Bekanich, in order to expedite and simplify the communication of messages (Bekanich: paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 9 Purpura discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein causing at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state comprises: increasing an allocation of a maximum amount of bandwidth to the user device (col. 5, lines 43-67, col. 7, lines 55-65; The expanded bandwidth capability of the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 allows the services provided by the emergency response apparatus 52 to be greatly enhanced over the existing services that are available via the air telephone lines).
Regarding claim 10 Purpura discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein causing at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state comprises: modifying an allocation of a respective maximum amount of bandwidth to each device of a plurality of devices connected to an in-aircraft network including the user device (col. 9, lines 8-36; the broadband communication system 30 may have an inbound data stream of 1 MB while the outbound data stream is limited to 196K. In this situation, the allocation of the inbound data stream may be such that 25% of the inbound data stream is allocated to only be used to provide broadband, communication between the emergency response center 28 and the emergency response apparatus 52 while the remaining 75% can be used to provide data content to: other users of the broadband communication system 30. Likewise, the outbound data stream may be allocated so that 75% of the outbound data stream is allocated to only be used for broadband communication between the emergency response apparatus 52 and the emergency response center 28 while the remaining 25% can be used by the other users of the broadband communication system 30).
Regarding claim 11 Purpura discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: cause a transition from a third state representative of a third set of communication capabilities for one or more additional devices connected to an in-aircraft network to a fourth state representative of a fourth set of communication capabilities for the one or more additional devices by limiting an amount of bandwidth allocated to the one or more additional devices, wherein the user device is also connected to the in-aircraft network (col. 9, lines 8-55; adapting the allocations to the other devices connected to the broadband system in the aircraft).
Regarding claim 15 Purpura discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions for modifying communication capabilities that (fig. 2), when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least:
receive, via an application programming interface, a first indication from a user device that an emergency event has begun aboard an aircraft (col. 8, lines 26-50; The activation of the emergency response apparatus 52 performs the equivalent of a "911" call to the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 as well as to the emergency response center 28 via the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22);
identify, a first state representative of a first set of communication capabilities for at least the user device and a second state representative of a second set of communication capabilities for at least the user device such that the second set of communication capabilities allows for improved communication from the user device compared to the first set of communication capabilities (col. 8, lines 50-67; Upon receiving the "911" call from the emergency response apparatus 52, the server 32 adjusts its operating mode in response to the emergency situation. The server 32 allocates both inbound and outbound data streams between the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 and the ground station 24 when the emergency response apparatus 52 is activated, as indicated in step 74; with the first state being the state prior to emergency notification, and the second state the adjusted operating mode once the emergency is detected);
cause, in response to receiving the first indication, at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state (col. 8, lines 50-67; The allocation of the inbound and outbound data streams allows the emergency response apparatus 52 to engage in bidirectional broadband communication with the emergency response center 28 without being delayed by other users of the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22);
receive a second indication from the user device to transition from the second state to the first state (col. 11, lines 12-30; Once the emergency situation is over, as indicated in step 84, the crew member will terminate the broadband communication between the emergency response apparatus 52 and the emergency response center 28, as indicated in step 96; an end to the emergency causes an indication of concluding the allocation of adjusted operation and to return to normal state); and
cause, in response to receiving the second indication, at least the user device to transition from the second state to the first state (col. 11, lines 12-30; When the broadband communication is terminated, the server 32 will cease to allocate the inbound and outbound data streams between the broadband communication system 30 and the ground station 24. The operation of the broadband communication system 30 can then return to its normal or pre-emergency situation operating condition).
Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Bekanich, in the same field of endeavor related to emergency messaging, discloses the application programming interface comprising an endpoint accessible by the one or more processors via a web service protocol (paragraphs 0037-0045; the message service may rely upon a simple object access protocol (SOAP) object to communicate with services at which intended recipients are accessible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Bekanich, in order to expedite and simplify the communication of messages (Bekanich: paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 16 Purpura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the processor- executable instructions that cause at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state include instructions to: increase an allocation of a maximum amount of bandwidth to the user device (col. 5, lines 43-67, col. 7, lines 55-65; The expanded bandwidth capability of the broadband communication system 30 onboard the mobile platform 22 allows the services provided by the emergency response apparatus 52 to be greatly enhanced over the existing services that are available via the air telephone lines).
Regarding claim 17 Purpura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the processor- executable instructions that cause at least the user device to transition from the first state to the second state include instructions to: modify an allocation of a respective maximum amount of bandwidth to each device of a plurality of devices connected to an in-aircraft network including the user device (col. 9, lines 8-36; the broadband communication system 30 may have an inbound data stream of 1 MB while the outbound data stream is limited to 196K. In this situation, the allocation of the inbound data stream may be such that 25% of the inbound data stream is allocated to only be used to provide broadband, communication between the emergency response center 28 and the emergency response apparatus 52 while the remaining 75% can be used to provide data content to: other users of the broadband communication system 30. Likewise, the outbound data stream may be allocated so that 75% of the outbound data stream is allocated to only be used for broadband communication between the emergency response apparatus 52 and the emergency response center 28 while the remaining 25% can be used by the other users of the broadband communication system 30).
Regarding claim 18 Purpura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, storing further instructions to: cause a transition from a third state representative of a third set of communication capabilities for one or more additional devices connected to an in-aircraft network to a fourth state representative of a fourth set of communication capabilities for the one or more additional devices by limiting an amount of bandwidth allocated to the one or more additional devices, wherein the user device is also connected to the in-aircraft network (col. 9, lines 8-55; adapting the allocations to the other devices connected to the broadband system in the aircraft).
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purpura in view of Bekanich and further in view of Jansson (USPN 7,895,353).
Regarding claim 5 Purpura discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses further comprising: disconnecting one or more additional devices from an in-aircraft network, wherein the user device remains connected to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein nodes/applications get rejected (or disconnected) according to available resources/budget to service the higher priority requests/messages). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 6 Purpura discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses further comprising: receiving via the one or more processors, a request from at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein requests for network connection/access are received); and causing, via the one or more processors, the at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein when resources/budget allow it, nodes/applications are allowed to access the network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 7 Purpura discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses further comprising: receiving, via the one or more processors, a request from at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein requests for network connection/access are received); and rejecting, via the one or more processors, the request from the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein when resources/budget is below a threshold and/or priority is not met, the request is rejected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 12 Purpura discloses the computer system of claim 8. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: disconnect one or more additional devices from an in-aircraft network, wherein the user device remains connected to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein nodes/applications get rejected (or disconnected) according to available resources/budget to service the higher priority requests/messages). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 13 Purpura discloses the computer system of claim 12. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: receive a request from at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein requests for network connection/access are received); and cause the at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein when resources/budget allow it, nodes/applications are allowed to access the network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 14 Purpura discloses the computer system of claim 12. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to: receive a request from at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein requests for network connection/access are received); and reject the request from the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein when resources/budget is below a threshold and/or priority is not met, the request is rejected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 19 Purpura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses storing further instructions to: disconnect one or more additional devices from an in-aircraft network, wherein the user device remains connected to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein nodes/applications get rejected (or disconnected) according to available resources/budget to service the higher priority requests/messages). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 20 Purpura discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19. Purpura fails to explicitly disclose but Jansson, in a similar field of endeavor related to bandwidth allocation for different traffic, discloses storing further instructions to: receive a request from at least one of the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein requests for network connection/access are received); and reject the request from the one or more additional devices to reconnect to the in-aircraft network (col. 4, line 41 – col. 5, line 45; col. 10, lines 5-35; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 26; wherein when resources/budget is below a threshold and/or priority is not met, the request is rejected). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Purpura with the teachings of Jansson, in order to improve network performance (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2018/0295638 to Sullivan – which discloses a multi-user network access terminal serving multiple communication devices on a vehicle via a communication link receives an indication associated with a pre-defined triggering event from a triggering device on a vehicle, identifies real-time data associated with the pre-defined triggering event for transmission via the communication link, prioritizes the real-time data relative to other data associated with the multiple communication devices for transmission via the communication link, and transmits the prioritized real-time data via the communication link. In embodiments, methods, systems, and devices are also described for data prioritization involving network controllers.
USPN 10,157,264 to Nguyen et al. – which discloses a number of secure wireless connections are established between an onboard device located on the aircraft and a remote device located remotely with respect to the aircraft, to enable communications between a device operator using the onboard device and a medical professional using the remote device. Information about a medical event that occurs onboard the aircraft is sent from the onboard device to the remote device using the number of secure wireless connections. A medical assessment of the medical event by the medical professional is received at the onboard device from the remote device over the number of secure wireless connections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/
Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights