DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/6/2023 and 4/15/2025 has been acknowledged.
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are pending.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12, 16-17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 1/14/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/14/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, since the Office is relying the same prior arts and their combinations, the Office will address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks “Applicant submits that Laine in view of Gannon cannot teach or suggest at least the following limitations recited in Claim 1: "receiving a time-dependent map of a patch of a dynamic surface over which a second altitudinal system is traversing, wherein the time dependent map is captured by a first altitudinal system having a known location with respect to the dynamic surface and comprises a time-dependent topographical map of an area of the dynamic surface corresponding to a flightpath of the second altitudinal system" and" receiving a terrain map of a first set of terrain features of the patch of the dynamic surface, wherein the terrain map is captured by the second altitudinal system having an approximate location with respect to the dynamic surface, wherein the first set of terrain features comprises a plurality of terrain features of the dynamic surface directly beneath the second altitudinal system” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior arts still render the claimed subject matter obvious and have mapped out the amendments below, with more detailed mapping for clarity and to move prosecution forward. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks “Laine does not disclose "receiving a time-dependent map of a patch of a dynamic surface over which a second attitudinal system is traversing, wherein the time-dependent map is captured by a first attitudinal system having a known location with respect to the dynamic surface and comprises a time-dependent topographical map of an area of the dynamic surface corresponding to a flightpath of the second attitudinal system" and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior arts still render the claimed subject matter obvious and have mapped out the amendments below, with more detailed mapping for clarity and to move prosecution forward. More specifically, Laine discloses “receiving a time-dependent map of a patch of a dynamic surface over which a second altitudinal system is traversing” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 and 0080 with Figures 20-23 (the ocean topography prediction model 2210 is loaded with recent ocean topography information and, optionally, weather predictions and other information 2217, on which the prediction model 2210 may base its predictions. The predictions are made for the then-current time and date, i.e., the time and date on which a sensor 2225 observed the surface of the earth 2220. Optionally, the model 2210 may be periodically or occasionally updated, as indicated at 2218, with more recent ocean topography information, such as from OSTM, more recent weather or other atmospheric information and/or forecasts, particularly current and predicted wind information, more recent ocean surface temperature information, etc.) and (The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM) on the Jason satellites uses precision ocean altimetry to measure distances between the satellite and the ocean surface. These very accurate observations of local variations in ocean surface height, known as ocean topography, provide information about global ocean level, speed and direction of ocean currents and heat stored in the ocean. Collected data has shown that change dynamics of large "gyres" are relatively slow, measured in weeks or months. We have discovered that surface height dynamics can be modeled and automatically predicted using techniques similar to automatic weather prediction. Thus, recent ocean topographic data may be used to generate a model that automatically predicts ocean topography over a subsequent time period, such as days, weeks or months)];
“wherein the time-dependent map is captured by a first altitudinal system having a known location with respect to the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0050, 0063-0076 and 0080 with Figures 20-23 (the ocean topography prediction model 2210 is loaded with recent ocean topography information and, optionally, weather predictions and other information 2217, on which the prediction model 2210 may base its predictions. The predictions are made for the then-current time and date, i.e., the time and date on which a sensor 2225 observed the surface of the earth 2220. Optionally, the model 2210 may be periodically or occasionally updated, as indicated at 2218, with more recent ocean topography information, such as from OSTM, more recent weather or other atmospheric information and/or forecasts, particularly current and predicted wind information, more recent ocean surface temperature information, etc.) and (The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM) on the Jason satellites uses precision ocean altimetry to measure distances between the satellite and the ocean surface. These very accurate observations of local variations in ocean surface height, known as ocean topography, provide information about global ocean level, speed and direction of ocean currents and heat stored in the ocean. Collected data has shown that change dynamics of large "gyres" are relatively slow, measured in weeks or months. We have discovered that surface height dynamics can be modeled and automatically predicted using techniques similar to automatic weather prediction. Thus, recent ocean topographic data may be used to generate a model that automatically predicts ocean topography over a subsequent time period, such as days, weeks or months)];
“and comprises a time-dependent topographical map of an area of the dynamic surface corresponding to a flightpath of the second altitudinal system” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0050, 0063-0076, 0080 with Figures 20-23 (successive, time spaced-apart geographic locations may be ascertained, and these locations may be compared to a list of desired locations along a predetermined path)].
As can be understood by the mapping and Laine’s own disclosure, Laine discloses that a map is received of a time dependent dynamic surface that was created based on a first altitudinal systems data. Laine clearly discloses that spacecraft (OSTM) scans the surface of the Earth and update data for model predictions of dynamic surface contour. This is the time dependent map from a first altitudinal system where the second altitudinal system is flying is exactly what the claims require. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks “Laine does not disclose “receiving a terrain map of a first set of terrain features of the patch of the dynamic surface, wherein the terrain map is captured by the second altitudinal system having an approximate location with respect to the dynamic surface, wherein the first set of terrain features comprises a plurality of terrain features of the dynamic surface directly beneath the second attitudinal system” and the Office again, respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior arts still render the claimed subject matter obvious and have mapped out the amendments below, with more detailed mapping for clarity and to move prosecution forward. More specifically, Laine discloses ““receiving a terrain map of a first set of terrain features of the patch of the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (The sensor 2225 is configured to detect a contour of a portion of the surface of the earth 2220. The sensor 2225 may be a radar, a radio altimeter, a 3-dimensional imaging camera, such as a stereo camera, a laser rangefinder, a LIDAR, a 3-dimensional surface synthesizer (such as a synthesizer that utilizes a structure-from-motion (SfM) technique), or the like. The sensor 2225 may be mounted to an aircraft, a spacecraft, a lighter-than-air craft (such as a suitable helium-filled balloon), a mast of a watercraft, or another object. A contour matching engine 2230 is coupled to the sensor 2225 and to the database 2205 and/or to the prediction model 2210. The contour matching engine 2230 is configured to automatically match the detected contour from the sensor 2225 to a contour in the database 2205 or to a contour predicted by the prediction model 2210)];
“wherein the terrain map is captured by the second altitudinal system having an approximate location with respect to the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (The sensor 2225 is configured to detect a contour of a portion of the surface of the earth 2220. The sensor 2225 may be a radar, a radio altimeter, a 3-dimensional imaging camera, such as a stereo camera, a laser rangefinder, a LIDAR, a 3-dimensional surface synthesizer (such as a synthesizer that utilizes a structure-from-motion (SfM) technique), or the like. The sensor 2225 may be mounted to an aircraft, a spacecraft, a lighter-than-air craft (such as a suitable helium-filled balloon), a mast of a watercraft, or another object)];
“wherein the first set of terrain features comprises a plurality of terrain features of the dynamic surface directly beneath the second altitudinal system” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (A contour matching engine 2230 is coupled to the sensor 2225 and to the database 2205 and/or to the prediction model 2210. The contour matching engine 2230 is configured to automatically match the detected contour from the sensor 2225 to a contour in the database 2205 or to a contour predicted by the prediction model 2210. The contour matching engine 2230 finds a best or good match between the detected contour and a contour in the database 2205 or predicted by the prediction model 2210. A best or good match may be a match within a predefined tolerance. The contour matching engine 2230 automatically provides a geographic location 2235 of the detected contour)]”.
As can be understood by the mapping and Laine’s own disclosure, Laine discloses that a sensor on the aircraft along a predicted patch of Earth under the aircraft gathers data for comparison with the predicted model. This model comparison, when within a tolerance, gives a location of the aircraft over the dynamic surface, right over the contours, exactly what as claims require. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Laine et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0268050) in view of Gannon et al. (United States Patent Publication 2008/0278515).
With respect to Claim 9: While Laine discloses “A computing system, comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the storage media, the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to” [Laine, Claim 17];
“receiving a time-dependent map of a patch of a dynamic surface over which a second altitudinal system is traversing” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 and 0080 with Figures 20-23 (the ocean topography prediction model 2210 is loaded with recent ocean topography information and, optionally, weather predictions and other information 2217, on which the prediction model 2210 may base its predictions. The predictions are made for the then-current time and date, i.e., the time and date on which a sensor 2225 observed the surface of the earth 2220. Optionally, the model 2210 may be periodically or occasionally updated, as indicated at 2218, with more recent ocean topography information, such as from OSTM, more recent weather or other atmospheric information and/or forecasts, particularly current and predicted wind information, more recent ocean surface temperature information, etc.) and (The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM) on the Jason satellites uses precision ocean altimetry to measure distances between the satellite and the ocean surface. These very accurate observations of local variations in ocean surface height, known as ocean topography, provide information about global ocean level, speed and direction of ocean currents and heat stored in the ocean. Collected data has shown that change dynamics of large "gyres" are relatively slow, measured in weeks or months. We have discovered that surface height dynamics can be modeled and automatically predicted using techniques similar to automatic weather prediction. Thus, recent ocean topographic data may be used to generate a model that automatically predicts ocean topography over a subsequent time period, such as days, weeks or months)];
“wherein the time-dependent map is captured by a first altitudinal system having a known location with respect to the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0050, 0063-0076 and 0080 with Figures 20-23 (the ocean topography prediction model 2210 is loaded with recent ocean topography information and, optionally, weather predictions and other information 2217, on which the prediction model 2210 may base its predictions. The predictions are made for the then-current time and date, i.e., the time and date on which a sensor 2225 observed the surface of the earth 2220. Optionally, the model 2210 may be periodically or occasionally updated, as indicated at 2218, with more recent ocean topography information, such as from OSTM, more recent weather or other atmospheric information and/or forecasts, particularly current and predicted wind information, more recent ocean surface temperature information, etc.) and (The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM) on the Jason satellites uses precision ocean altimetry to measure distances between the satellite and the ocean surface. These very accurate observations of local variations in ocean surface height, known as ocean topography, provide information about global ocean level, speed and direction of ocean currents and heat stored in the ocean. Collected data has shown that change dynamics of large "gyres" are relatively slow, measured in weeks or months. We have discovered that surface height dynamics can be modeled and automatically predicted using techniques similar to automatic weather prediction. Thus, recent ocean topographic data may be used to generate a model that automatically predicts ocean topography over a subsequent time period, such as days, weeks or months)];
“and comprises a time-dependent topographical map of an area of the dynamic surface corresponding to a flightpath of the second altitudinal system” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0050, 0063-0076, 0080 with Figures 20-23 (successive, time spaced-apart geographic locations may be ascertained, and these locations may be compared to a list of desired locations along a predetermined path)];
“receiving a terrain map of a first set of terrain features of the patch of the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (The sensor 2225 is configured to detect a contour of a portion of the surface of the earth 2220. The sensor 2225 may be a radar, a radio altimeter, a 3-dimensional imaging camera, such as a stereo camera, a laser rangefinder, a LIDAR, a 3-dimensional surface synthesizer (such as a synthesizer that utilizes a structure-from-motion (SfM) technique), or the like. The sensor 2225 may be mounted to an aircraft, a spacecraft, a lighter-than-air craft (such as a suitable helium-filled balloon), a mast of a watercraft, or another object. A contour matching engine 2230 is coupled to the sensor 2225 and to the database 2205 and/or to the prediction model 2210. The contour matching engine 2230 is configured to automatically match the detected contour from the sensor 2225 to a contour in the database 2205 or to a contour predicted by the prediction model 2210)];
“wherein the terrain map is captured by the second altitudinal system having an approximate location with respect to the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (The sensor 2225 is configured to detect a contour of a portion of the surface of the earth 2220. The sensor 2225 may be a radar, a radio altimeter, a 3-dimensional imaging camera, such as a stereo camera, a laser rangefinder, a LIDAR, a 3-dimensional surface synthesizer (such as a synthesizer that utilizes a structure-from-motion (SfM) technique), or the like. The sensor 2225 may be mounted to an aircraft, a spacecraft, a lighter-than-air craft (such as a suitable helium-filled balloon), a mast of a watercraft, or another object)];
“wherein the first set of terrain features comprises a plurality of terrain features of the dynamic surface directly beneath the second altitudinal system” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (A contour matching engine 2230 is coupled to the sensor 2225 and to the database 2205 and/or to the prediction model 2210. The contour matching engine 2230 is configured to automatically match the detected contour from the sensor 2225 to a contour in the database 2205 or to a contour predicted by the prediction model 2210. The contour matching engine 2230 finds a best or good match between the detected contour and a contour in the database 2205 or predicted by the prediction model 2210. A best or good match may be a match within a predefined tolerance. The contour matching engine 2230 automatically provides a geographic location 2235 of the detected contour)];
“compare the first set of terrain features to a second set of terrain features stored in a database associated with the system” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23 (finds a best or good match between the detected contour and a contour in the database 2205 or predicted by the prediction model 2210. A best or good match may be a match within a predefined tolerance)];
“identify, based on the comparison of the first set of terrain features and the second set of terrain features, a precise location of the second altitudinal system with respect to the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0050, 0063-0076, 0080 with Figures 20-23 (finds a best or good match between the detected contour and a contour in the database 2205 or predicted by the prediction model 2210. A best or good match may be a match within a predefined tolerance)];
“and in response to identifying a location of the second altitudinal system with respect to the dynamic surface, navigating the second altitudinal system across the dynamic surface with the time-dependent map and the terrain map” [Laine, ¶ 0042-0044, 0047, 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23];
“in environments lacking navigation aids, wherein the navigation aids comprise global positioning systems (GPS), radio-frequency (RF) beacons, or inertial navigation systems (INS)” [Laine, Abstract and ¶ 0038];
Laine does not specifically state navigating rather states “ascertaining a geographic location or navigating a route over an ocean” [Laine, ¶ 0044].
Gannon, which is also system that has terrain maps teaches “navigating across the dynamic surface” [Gannon, ¶ 0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gannon into the invention of Laine to not only include data using measured data from a satellite and then sensor data to determine location based on contour matching as Laine discloses but to also use this information of location and contours for navigation purposes as taught by Gannon with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gannon into Laine to create a more robust system that navigate towards a destination based on known location based on maps. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements navigating and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 10: Laine discloses “The computing system of Claim 9, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to: prior to comparing the first set of terrain features to the second set of terrain features, store the second set of terrain features to the database, wherein the second set of terrain features comprises a plurality of terrain features of the dynamic surface captured over a period of time” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 with Figures 20-23].
With respect to Claim 12: Laine discloses “The computing system of Claim 9, wherein the terrain map is captured and measured utilizing a terrain contour matching (TERCOM) technique” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23].
With respect to Claim 13: Laine discloses “The computing system of Claim 9, wherein the instructions to identify the location of the second altitudinal system with respect to the dynamic surface further comprise instructions to: determine, based on the comparison of the first set of terrain features and the second set of terrain features, a match between the first set of terrain features and the second set of terrain features” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23];
“and in response to determining the match, identifying the location of the second altitudinal system with respect to the dynamic surface” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23].
With respect to Claim 14: Laine discloses “The computing system of Claim 13, wherein the instructions to determine the match between the first set of terrain features and the second set of terrain features further comprise instructions to determine a match between the first set of terrain features and at least a subset of the second set of terrain features” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23].
Office Note: Claim 14 is extremely broad as this is not to segregate of a second set and a subset of the second set, any set of data can be understood to read on this. What is the second set and what is a subset? Could the subset be the entire set? While the claims are broad, they are not yet indefinite, as broadness is not indefinites. However, the Office suggests adding some measurable difference or step of deriving this subset to help positively capture any known distinctness in the sets.
With respect to Claim 15: Laine discloses “The computing system of Claim 9, wherein the first altitudinal system comprises a satellite configured to capture the time-dependent map of the patch of the dynamic surface utilizing a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23];
“and wherein the second altitudinal system comprises any system configured to measure the first set of terrain features of the patch of the dynamic surface when traversing thereover or thereon” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23].
With respect to Claim 16: Laine discloses “The computing system of Claim 9, wherein the dynamic surface comprises an ocean surface, an upper surface of clouds, a lower surface of clouds, a desert surface, a beach surface, an upper surf ace of a forest, or an ice surface.” [Laine, ¶ 0063-0076 and 0080with Figures 20-23].
With respect to Claims 1-8: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 9-16. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 1-8 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 9-16. Therefore Claims 1-8 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 17-20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 9-16. The medium taught/disclosed in Claims 17-20 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 9-16. Therefore Claims 17-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c