DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
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, 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11,495,119 B2 issued to Lim et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0006933 A1 to Dean and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,463,583 B1 issued to Manzanillo et al.
As to claim 1, Lim teaches a method of initiating an existing workflow at a workflow server based on an artificial event notification (Workflow Server 102) comprising:
receiving, from a source external (a plurality of video cameras/Camera 142/163) to a security ecosystem (Video surveillance system 140/Access Control System 160), an artificial event notification, the artificial event notification related to an incident (loitering event) (“…Workflow server 102 is preferably a server running Motorola Solution's Command Central™ software suite comprising the Orchestrate™ platform. Workflow server 102 is configured to receive workflows created by workstation 101 and implement the workflows. Particularly, the workflows are implemented by analyzing events detected by network and systems 130-160 and executing appropriate triggers. For example, assume a user creates a workflow on workstation 101 that has a trigger comprising surveillance system 140 detecting a loitering event, and has an action comprising notifying radios within public-safety network 130. When this workflow is uploaded to workflow server 102, workflow server 102 will notify the radios of any loitering event detected by surveillance system 140…Public-safety network 130 is configured to detect various triggers and report the detected triggers to workflow server 102. Public-safety network 130 is also configured to receive action commands from workflow server 102 and execute the actions. In one embodiment of the present invention, public-safety network 130 comprises includes typical radio-access network (RAN) elements such as base stations, base station controllers (BSCs), routers, switches, and the like, arranged, connected, and programmed to provide wireless service to user equipment, report detected events, and execute actions received from workflow server 102…Video surveillance system 140 is configured to detect various triggers and report the detected triggers to workflow server 102. Public-safety network 130 is also configured to receive action commands from workflow server 102 and execute the actions. In one embodiment of the present invention, video surveillance system 140 comprises a plurality of video cameras that may be configured to automatically change their field of views over time. Video surveillance system 140 is configured with a recognition engine/video analysis engine (VAE) that comprises a software engine that analyzes any video captured by the cameras. Using the VAE, the video surveillance system 140 is capable of “watching” video to detect any triggers and report the detected triggers to workflow server 102. In a similar manner, video surveillance system 140 is configured to execute action commands received from workflow server 102. In one embodiment of the present invention, video surveillance system 140 comprises an Avigilon™ Control Center (ACC) server having Motorola Solution's Access Control Management (ACM)™ software suite…” Col. 2 Ln. 65-67, Col. 3 Ln. 1-42); and
mapping the artificial event notification (triggering event) to a currently existing workflow within the workflow server, the currently existing workflow associated with an internal trigger (Workflow Server 102) (“…In a similar manner information about public-safety officers may be provided to workflow server 102. This information originates from devices 112 providing information to radios 137, which forwards the information to RAN 135 and ultimately to workflow server 102 via core network 132 and gateway 133. For example, a gun-draw sensor 112 may send an indication to workflow server 102 that a gun has been drawn. This may serve as a “trigger” for workflow server 102 to initiate a particular “action”, for example, notifying surrounding officers (for example on a particular talkgroup) by having their radios 137 provide an alarm indicating the triggering event. Thus, workflow server 102 may provide instructions to any device 112 or radio 137 by sending an “action” to devices 112 in response to a trigger being received…” Col. Ln. 60-67).
Lim is silent with reference to initiating the currently existing workflow based on the artificial event notification without receiving the internal trigger and
wherein the source external to the security ecosystem is not under the control of the security ecosystem.
Dean teaches initiating the currently existing workflow (limit area access or provide advanced warning to security administrators/First Responders) based on the artificial event notification without receiving the internal trigger (Tip-Line System 120) (“…The tip-line system 120 can be configured to provide advanced warning and identification potentially dangerous people in a community (e.g., school, workplace, house of worship, construction site, sporting event, music concert, etc.) in order to protect people within the area, according to some embodiments. The tip-line system 120 may be configured to receive tip data that indicates suspicious activity and/or suspicious people from the IoT devices 104, external data sources 130, and/or the user devices 124, according to some embodiments. In various implementations, once the tip-line system 120 receives tip data indicating one or more suspicious people, the tip-line system 120 may automatically generate a detailed report of each of the one or more suspicious people, according to some embodiments. The tip-line system 120 can generate the detailed report by accessing an occupant information system database (e.g., student database, employee database, sex offender registry, federal government database, etc.) that includes files for each occupant within the area, according to some embodiments. In some implementations, the tip-line system 120 may generate report indicating life-changing events of the suspicious people (e.g., academic performance, truancy, parents' divorce, court records, health records, death of a loved one, or disciplinary actions, etc.), according to some embodiments. The report data may be used to create a potential threat score, or threat matrix, estimating the severity of the situation, according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, threat scores or threat matrices may be used to create a prioritized list of suspicious people. These lists may be used in conjunction with the identification system 118 to limit area access or provide advanced warning to security administrators (e.g., administrator of the area and/or area management), according to some embodiments…Referring now to FIG. 11, an illustration of the user interface in the fourth step 1100 of a medical interface 704 customized workflow, according to some embodiments. The user is prompted with the question “Is it Life Threatening?” 1106. The user can then select yes 1102, or no 1104, to answer the question 1106. The user may also have the option to go back to the previous step by selecting back 1108. This question may be important as people such as nurses, principles, and student resource officers receive the information in real time. If the user selects that the medical emergency is life threatening, the information can be sent directly to first responders (e.g., an automated call to 911 or other emergency network). In various implementations, the information may be routed via the network 128 to first responders in real time without any individual calling or communicating with the first responders. In some implementations, information may be aggregated from a plurality of individuals such that the first responders may receive information from more than one individual (e.g., to prevent false positive emergencies, to prevent false negatives emergencies, etc.) such that first responders can make a determination if the emergency is real, and not a hoax or the result of an individual incorrectly entering information…” paragraphs 0069/0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim with the teaching of Dean because the teaching of Dean would improve the system of Lim by providing a technique for controlling access to restricted areas or calling first responders.
Manzanillo teaches wherein the source external (Plurality of Devices 111-114/IoT Network 110) to the security ecosystem is not under the control of the security ecosystem (Telephone Network 120/Host System 122) (“…FIG. 1 illustrates a communication environment 100 which enables devices 111-114 and a PSAP 124 to communicate according to example embodiments. Referring to FIG. 1, a plurality of devices 111-114 may be disposed within a similar geographic area. In this example, the devices 111-114 are disposed within a communication network 110 that communicate via the Internet. As a non-limiting example, the devices 111-114 may be imaging sensors (cameras), smoke detectors, IoT sensors, carbon monoxide sensors, and the like. In some embodiments, the devices 111-114 may be different types of sensors or have multiple sensor capabilities. The devices 111-114 may transmit data to a host system 122. In this example, the host system 122 may be a gateway, a router, a server, a workstation, or the like, within a telephone network 120. As another example, the host system 122 may be a self-standing server, workstation, device, etc. The host system 122 may include a network interface for communicating with the plurality of devices 111-114 over the Internet…The host system 122 may also include a telephone interface capable of transmitting communications via a circuit-switched telephone network, a mobile telephone network/channel such as the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), code-division multiple access (CDMA), time-division multiple access (TDMA), and the like. Accordingly, the host system 122 may transmit text message (e.g., via GSM, CDMA, TDMA, etc.) to other devices such as a PSAP 124. Meanwhile, the PSAP 124 may include dispatch capabilities for dispatching emergency services (policy, fire, ambulance, etc.)…In this example, the host system 122 can be a communication bridge between the plurality of devices 111-114 in the IoT network 110 and the PSAP 124 in the telephone network 120. According to various embodiments, the host system 122 may receive data packets or messages indicating an event has occurred and that are transmitted from the plurality of devices 111-114 via the Internet. Here, the host system 122 may convert the event data into a format that can be transmitted via the telephone network 120. For example, the host system 122 may convert the sensor data into a text message or even a phone call which can be routed through the telephone network 120 from the host system 122 to the PSAP 124 (call center)…Although not shown in FIG. 1, the telephone network 120 may include many different PSAPs 124 which are available for receiving alerts from the plurality of devices 111-114. In this example, the sensor data transmitted to the host system 122 may include geographical information of the plurality of devices 111-114 such as a physical address, geographic coordinates, etc. In response, the host system 122 may access a file which maps geographic data to PSAPs to identify which PSAP is the nearest PSAP by geography…” Col. 5 Ln. 35-67, Col. 6 Ln. 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim and Dean with the teaching of Manzanillo because the teaching of Manzanillo would improve the system of Lim and Dean by providing a technique for connecting unlimited number of internet of things remotely a network.
As to claims 8 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above, expect for a processor, a memory and a non-transitory processor readable medium.
Lim teaches a processor, a memory and a non-transitory processor readable medium (Database 202/301).
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11495119 B2 issued to Lim et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0006933 A1 to Dean and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,463,583 B1 issued to Manzanillo et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0132597 A1 Rodgers.
As to claim 2, Lim as modified by Dean and Manzanillo teaches the method of claim 1 however it is silent with reference to determining if the artificial event notification is actionable prior to initiating the currently existing workflow; and logging the artificial event notification as non-actionable based on the determination.
Rodgers teaches to determining if the artificial event notification is actionable prior to initiating the currently existing workflow (“…Method 1000 includes an act 1002 of detecting occurrence of a patient related event for the patient. For example, event detection module 951 can detect the occurrence of event 961 for patient 922 (from the combined input of sensors 907). Method 1000 includes an act 1003 of determining that the detected event is an actionable event based on the patient risk profile. For example, event detection module 952 can determine that event 961 is actionable based on profile 914. Profile manager 953 can create alarm levels 934 and send alarm levels 934 to event detection module 952. Alarm levels 934 can include one or more combinations of values for inputs 907 that indicate an actionable event based on profile 914. When one or more monitored values satisfy an alarm level, an actionable event is detected…Method 1000 includes an act 1004 of sending an alarm to an appropriate healthcare provider. For example, computer system 951 can send an alarm 931, including event 961, to computer system 906 to indicate the occurrence of event 961 to healthcare provider 904. Method 1000 also includes an act 1006 of receiving an alarm indicating an actionable event has occurred for the patient. For example, computer system 906 can receive alarm 931 indicating that event 961 (an actionable event) has occurred for patient 922. Thus, computer system 906 is notified that an alarm was generated in response to input from sensors 907 monitoring the occurrence of event 961 for patient 922 in accordance with profile 914…” paragraphs 0133/0134); and
logging the artificial event notification as non-actionable based on the determination (“…Profile 914 can be a recursively refined profile indicating actionable (and non-actionable) events for patient 922 in accordance with previously collected data relating to patient 922. Alternatively, when no patient data has previously been collected for patient 912 at a particular facility, profile 914 can indicate actionable (and non-actionable) events based on historical patient data…” paragraph 0132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo with the teaching of Rodgers because the teaching of Rodgers would improve the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo by providing a technique for determining actionable and non-actionable events and processing them accordingly.
As to claims 9 and 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11495119 B2 issued to Lim et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0006933 A1 to Dean and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,463,583 B1 issued to Manzanillo et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20180341806 A1 to Chavez et al.
As to claim 3, Lim as modified by Dean and Manzanillo teaches the method of claim 1 however it is silent reference to registering the workflow server with the source external to the security ecosystem, the registration including types and parameters of incidents for which the workflow server is interested in receiving artificial event notifications.
Chavez teaches to registering the workflow server with the source external to the security ecosystem, the registration including types and parameters of incidents for which the workflow server is interested in receiving artificial event notifications (Step 802/registration request) (“…FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of a process for registration of workflows 420 on different workflow servers 130 on a computer network 110. The process starts in step 800. The workflow server 130A sends, in step 802, a registration request to the workflow registration service 226 to register a workflow service. The registration request may comprise information that allows the image processor 122 to send a workflow 420 to the workflow server 130A. The registration request of step 802 may also comprise information (e.g., how to format the data) that allows the image processor 122 to send the data for the workflow 420 of steps 524/606. For example, the registration information may comprise a URL of the workflow server 130A and a format for other information. The registration service 226 receives the registration request in step 804. The registration service 226 stores the registration information in step 806…The workflow server 130N sends a registration request for a workflow 420 in step 808 to the registration service 226. The registration service 226 receives, in step 810, the registration request of step 808. The registration service 226 stores the registration information in step 812. The process ends in step 814…The process of FIG. 8 only describes registration of two workflows 420. However, any number of workflows 420 may be registered. For example, the registration messages of steps 802/808 may register multiple workflows 420 in the same message. Alternatively, additional workflow servers 130 may register workflows 420…The types of workflows 420 that may be registered may comprise any number of different types of workflows 420. For example, the registered workflows 420 of FIG. 8 may comprise a plumbing service, an inventory ordering service for a factory, an emergency service (e.g., police, fire, etc.), a tow truck service, a repair manual service, a restaurant location service, a road repair service, a traffic light repair service, a web search service, and/or the like…” paragraphs 0083-0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system Lim, Dean and Manzanillo with the teaching of Chavez because the teaching of Chavez would improve the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo by providing a technique for registering interest in a particular event(s) and being notified when the event(s) occurs.
As to claim 4, Lim as modified by Dean teaches the teaches the method of claim 3 however it is silent with reference to wherein the parameters include at least one of a location of the incident, a time of incident occurrence, and an incident type.
Chevez teaches wherein the parameters include at least one of a location of the incident, a time of incident occurrence, and an incident type (For example, the registered workflows 420 of FIG. 8 may comprise a plumbing service, an inventory ordering service for a factory, an emergency service (e.g., police, fire, etc.), a tow truck service, a repair manual service, a restaurant location service, a road repair service, a traffic light repair service, a web search service, and/or the like…”) (“…FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of a process for registration of workflows 420 on different workflow servers 130 on a computer network 110. The process starts in step 800. The workflow server 130A sends, in step 802, a registration request to the workflow registration service 226 to register a workflow service. The registration request may comprise information that allows the image processor 122 to send a workflow 420 to the workflow server 130A. The registration request of step 802 may also comprise information (e.g., how to format the data) that allows the image processor 122 to send the data for the workflow 420 of steps 524/606. For example, the registration information may comprise a URL of the workflow server 130A and a format for other information. The registration service 226 receives the registration request in step 804. The registration service 226 stores the registration information in step 806…The workflow server 130N sends a registration request for a workflow 420 in step 808 to the registration service 226. The registration service 226 receives, in step 810, the registration request of step 808. The registration service 226 stores the registration information in step 812. The process ends in step 814…The process of FIG. 8 only describes registration of two workflows 420. However, any number of workflows 420 may be registered. For example, the registration messages of steps 802/808 may register multiple workflows 420 in the same message. Alternatively, additional workflow servers 130 may register workflows 420…The types of workflows 420 that may be registered may comprise any number of different types of workflows 420. For example, the registered workflows 420 of FIG. 8 may comprise a plumbing service, an inventory ordering service for a factory, an emergency service (e.g., police, fire, etc.), a tow truck service, a repair manual service, a restaurant location service, a road repair service, a traffic light repair service, a web search service, and/or the like…” paragraphs 0083-0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo with the teaching of Chavez because the teaching of Chavez would improve the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo by providing a technique for registering interest in a particular event(s) and being notified when the event(s) occurs.
As to claims 10 and 17, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
As to claims 11 and 18, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11495119 B2 issued to Lim et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0006933 A1 to Dean and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,463,583 B1 issued to Manzanillo et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230089720 A1 to Whitaker et al.
As to claim 5, Lim as modified by Dean and Manzanillo teaches the method of claim 1 however it is silent with reference to receiving, from the source external to the security ecosystem, a query including an event type;
determining an event type relevance of the event type; and
responding to the query with the event type relevance, wherein the source external to the security ecosystem uses the event type relevance to determine if the artificial event notification is sent to the workflow server.
Whitaker teaches receiving, from the source external to the security ecosystem, a query including an event type (intruder/ the camera (110) detects the entrance of the person, an alarm is triggered and the video stream (505) is viewed at the call center (113));
determining an event type relevance of the event type (confidence score); and
responding to the query with the event type relevance, wherein the source external to the security ecosystem uses the event type relevance to determine if the artificial event notification is sent to the workflow server (alarm handling workflow (205)) (“…In an embodiment, a person depicted in the video stream (505) may be classified as an intruder. By way of example and not limitation, when the camera (110) detects the entrance of the person, an alarm is triggered and the video stream (505) is viewed at the call center (113). The facial recognition module (501) is unable to match the person to any photographs (507) of authorized persons, and flags the person as a potential intruder. The operator may then contact the user (103) to ask whether anybody is authorized to be in the home, and may have a brief discussion to try to identify the intruder, such as by describing the person and what he or she is doing. This may help to eliminate simple mistakes, such as where the user (103) forgot that a neighbor was coming over to borrow something. If the result of the verification step is that the user (103) does not know who the person is, the operator may then flag the person as an intruder and escalate the emergency to the PSAP (115) for an emergency response in the nature of a trespass…In such a situation, the video stream (505) data of the intruder has also been effectively classified, providing training data for the facial recognition module (501). The video data (505) may be added to the training or source data (503) and the person depicted may be classified as an intruder with respect to the user's (103) residence. In the future, this information can be used to identify this person as a potential intruder in other residences. For example, suppose a second user (103) also has a camera (110) in his or her residence, and the same intruder breaks into the second user's (103) home. When the video feed (505) for the second user (103) is received at the call center, the face of the intruder may be detected in the video feed (505) and matched to the prior video data (505) of the same person from the first alarm, in which instance the detected person was categorized as an intruder…This prior categorization may be used to automatically categorize the same person depicted in the second video feed (505) as an intruder based on the prior categorization. In this manner, regardless of whether the two users (103) know each other, or even use the same camera (110) or home security system company, the second user (103) can benefit from the knowledge gained from the first user (103). If the second user (103) likewise confirms that the person in question is an intruder, this information can again be provided back to the training data (503), and the confidence score associated with categorizing the detected person as an intruder may be increased…In an embodiment, this confidence score may be used to determine whether the alarm handling workflow (205) should be altered or shortened, such as by skipping the confirmation step and proceeding directly to categorize the intruder as a trespasser and notify the PSAP (115). In such an embodiment, the operator may still contact the user (103) for safety purposes, such as to warn the user not to come home, but the notification to the PSAP (115) may happen regardless to dispatch a first responder (117) as soon as possible without the intervening delay of the confirmation step. Additionally, automatic notifications can be sent to other nearby users (103) to warn them of an on-going break-in nearby and remind them to lock their doors and windows and be vigilant…In a still further embodiment, the dates, times, and locations associated with detection of such an intruder may be used as behavioral forensic data to predict the next intrusion or probable location of the intruder. For example, if the break-ins tend to take place in a same general area around the same time, law enforcement may be informed, and dispatch additional patrols. Also, users (103) whose residences are in the area may be notified and reminded to lock their doors and windows and be vigilant…” paragraphs 0071-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo with the teaching of Whitaker because the teaching of Whitaker would improve the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo by providing a technique for scoring or ranking security events to determine the appropriate response.
As to claim 6, Lim as modified by Dean teaches the method of claim 5 wherein determining the event type relevance further includes:
determining workflows in the workflow server that are compatible with the event type (In an embodiment, this confidence score may be used to determine whether the alarm handling workflow (205) should be altered or shortened, such as by skipping the confirmation step and proceeding directly to categorize the intruder as a trespasser and notify the PSAP (115));
ranking the determined workflows (In an embodiment, this confidence score may be used to determine whether the alarm handling workflow (205) should be altered or shortened, such as by skipping the confirmation step and proceeding directly to categorize the intruder as a trespasser and notify the PSAP (115)); and
analyzing the determined workflows based on acceptable time delay and location of the event type (“…In a still further embodiment, the dates, times, and locations associated with detection of such an intruder may be used as behavioral forensic data to predict the next intrusion or probable location of the intruder. For example, if the break-ins tend to take place in a same general area around the same time, law enforcement may be informed, and dispatch additional patrols. Also, users (103) whose residences are in the area may be notified and reminded to lock their doors and windows and be vigilant…” paragraph 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo with the teaching of Whitaker because the teaching of Whitaker would improve the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo by providing a technique for scoring or ranking security events to determine the appropriate response.
As to claims 12 and 19, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
As to claims 13 and 20, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 11495119 B2 issued to Lim et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0006933 A1 to Dean and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,463,583 B1 issued to Manzanillo et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0081559 A1 to Graton et al.
As to claim 7, Lim as modified by Dean and Manzanillo teaches the method of claim 1 however it is silent with reference to wherein the workflow server receives the artificial event notification based on a physical proximity of the workflow server to the source external to the security ecosystem.
Graton teaches wherein the workflow server receives the artificial event notification based on a physical proximity of the workflow server to the source external to the security ecosystem (“…Using a rule creation workflow similar to that described in FIGS. 20A through 20I, a rule can be created wherein the events “hit and run” and “EMS response” are with an “OR” operator such that the detecting of either event in proximity to a “hospital” or “school” within “Utah” would satisfy the event rule….” paragraph 0550).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo with the teaching of Graton because the teaching of Graton would improve the system of Lim, Dean and Manzanillo by providing a technique for responding the events based on the closest solution location.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relied on additional reference not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Note, the Examiner is withdrawing the 101 rejection.
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 CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights