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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12 March 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) was/were submitted on 12 March 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application, IN-202411005700, filed in Republic of India on 29 January 2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, and 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “one or more selectable icons configured to allow a user to select one of the intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff” should be “one or more selectable icons configured to allow a user to select one of the runway/taxiway intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff”;
Claim 4: “a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the intersections based on the takeoff performance data” should be “a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the runway/taxiway intersections based on the takeoff performance data”;
Claim 11: “one or more selectable icons configured to allow a user to select one of the intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff” should be “one or more selectable icons configured to allow a user to select one of the runway/taxiway intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff”;
Claim 14: “determine a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the intersections based on the takeoff performance data” should be “determine a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the runway/taxiway intersections based on the takeoff performance data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the intersection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting “different from the takeoff information of the intersection” as different from the “takeoff information of the selected intersection”, recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the intersection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting “different from the takeoff information of the intersection” as different from the “takeoff information of the selected intersection”, recited in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-8441376-B1, hereinafter “Tsai”
Regarding claim 11, and analogous claim 1, Tsai discloses A system for promoting takeoff planning of an aircraft at an airport (Tsai, col. 1, line 40: “The embodiments disclosed herein present at least one novel and non-trivial system, module, and method for presenting surface symbology indicative of takeoff distance on an aircraft display unit, where such takeoff distance symbology is referenced from the end of the runway.”), the system comprising:
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses A method for promoting takeoff planning of an aircraft at an airport (Tsai, col. 2, line 30: “In another embodiment, a method is disclosed for presenting surface symbology on an aircraft display unit.”).
a graphic user interface of a display device onboard the aircraft (Tsai, col. 2, line 11: “In another embodiment, a module is disclosed for presenting surface symbology on an aircraft display unit [i.e., a display device onboard the aircraft].”; col. 6, line 32: “In the embodiments of FIGS. 3B and 3C, graphical objects are used for depicting takeoff distance symbologies 224 and 234 are disclosed [i.e., a graphic user interface].”); and
a controller configured to, by one or more processors (Tsai, col. 4, line 43: “As embodied herein, the SG 140 [i.e., controller] could be a processor(s) used by or in conjunction with any other system of the aircraft including, but not limited to, a processor(s) associated with the navigation system 110, the FMS 120, and a display unit 150…”):
receive airport data indicative of information relating to runways and runway/taxiway intersections of the airport (Tsai, FIG. 1; col. 3, line 57: “The flight navigation database 132 may contain records which provide runway data. The flight navigation database 132 could contain navigation reference data representative of information associated with, but not limited to, airport and airport surfaces including runways and taxiways [i.e., information relating to runways and runway/taxiway intersections of the airport]. As embodied herein, the FMS 120 could employ the flight navigation database 132.”; col. 4, line 53: “The SG 140 [i.e., controller] may be programmed or configured to receive as input data representative of information obtained from various systems and/or sources including, but not limited to, the navigation system 110, the FMS 120, and/or the navigation reference data source 130 [i.e., receive airport data].”);
receive aircraft data indicative of information relating to the aircraft (Tsai, FIG. 1; col. 3, line 38: “In an embodiment of FIG. 1, the FMS 120 may perform a variety of functions performed to help the crew in the management of the flight; these functions are known to those skilled in the art. These functions could include receiving assigned runway information and providing such information to the SG 140 [i.e., receive aircraft data indicative of information relating to the aircraft] as discussed below.”);
receive environment data indicative of information relating to an environment exterior to the aircraft (Tsai, FIG. 1; col. 3, line 64: “The taxi navigation database 134, such as one described by Krenz et al in U.S. Pat. No. 7,974,773, may be used to store airport data that may be comprised of, in part, airport surfaces and airport visual aids. Airport surfaces include, but are not limited to, locations and information delineating or defining locations of runways, taxiways, and apron areas, fixed based operators (“FBOs”), terminals, and other airport facilities. Airport visual aids include, but are not limited to, airport pavement markings, runway markings, taxiway markings, holding position markings, airport signs, mandatory instruction signs, location signs, direction signs, destination signs, information signs, and runway distance remaining signs [i.e., environment data indicative of information relating to an environment exterior to the aircraft].”; col. 4, line 53: “The SG 140 [i.e., controller] may be programmed or configured to receive as input data representative of information obtained from various systems and/or sources including, but not limited to, the navigation system 110, the FMS 120, and/or the navigation reference data source 130 [i.e., receive…data].”);
display, on the graphic user interface, one or more selectable icons configured to allow a user to select one of the intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff (Tsai, FIG. 2A; col. 5, line 16: “The amount of airport surface information [i.e., one of the intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff] displayed [i.e., display, on the graphic user interface] could depend upon a range selected by the pilot [i.e., one or more selectable icons configured to allow a user to select one of the intersections of an assigned runway for takeoff], where such range could depend on the amount of information with which he or she wants to be presented.”);
display, on the graphic user interface, takeoff information associated with a selected intersection (Tsai, FIG. 3A-C; col. 5, line 17: “The amount of airport surface information displayed could depend upon a range selected by the pilot [i.e., a selected intersection], where such range could depend on the amount of information with which he or she wants to be presented.”; col. 2, line 11: “In another embodiment, a module is disclosed for presenting surface symbology on an aircraft display unit [i.e., the graphic user interface]. The module could comprise input communications and output communications interfaces and a symbology generator, where each interface facilitates the transfer of data to and from the symbology generator. After receiving flight management data and navigation reference data from applicable source(s) via the input communications interface, the symbology generator could generate symbology image data representative of an image depicting a takeoff distance symbology [i.e., display, on the graphic user interface, takeoff information] comprised of a far end and a near end, where the locations of the far and near ends are determined as described above.”);
determine takeoff performance data indicative of the aircraft taking off from the selected intersection (Tsai, col. 2, line 16: “After receiving flight management data and navigation reference data from applicable source(s) via the input communications interface [i.e., indicative of the aircraft taking off from the selected intersection], the symbology generator could generate symbology image data representative of an image depicting a takeoff distance symbology comprised of a far end and a near end, where the locations of the far and near ends are determined as described above [i.e., determine takeoff performance data].”); and
display, on the graphic user interface, the takeoff performance data (Tsai, col. 2, line 16: “After receiving flight management data and navigation reference data from applicable source(s) via the input communications interface, the symbology generator could generate symbology image data representative of an image [i.e., display, on the graphic user interface] depicting a takeoff distance symbology comprised of a far end and a near end, where the locations of the far and near ends are determined as described above [i.e., the takeoff performance data].”).
Regarding claim 13, and analogous claim 3, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to, by the one or more processors,
generate an alert automatically in response to the aircraft entering or approaching an intersection while takeoff information set in the controller is different from the takeoff information of the intersection (Tsai, col. 7, line 59: “In another example, assume that the assigned runway is RWY 25R [i.e., takeoff information set in the controller]. In FIG. 3B, the distance in between the location of the runway end 216 and a location 232-B on the runway surface 212 abeam of ownship 230-B is less than the takeoff distance [i.e., in response to the aircraft entering or approaching an intersection while takeoff information set in the controller is different from the takeoff information of the intersection]. Here, the takeoff distance symbology 224 could be configured to present a steady and/or flashing amber color [i.e., generate an alert automatically], thereby cautioning the pilot with a real-time, instant indication that ownship is not able to safely takeoff on RWY 25R from its current location. In another embodiment, an aural alert such as “CAUTION—TAKEOFF DISTANCE” could be called out in combination with or simultaneous to the presentation of the takeoff distance symbology 224.”).
Regarding claim 16, and analogous claim 6, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11,
wherein the airport data includes a length of a runway, a position of an intersection along the runway, a slope of the runway at the intersection, and an elevation of the runway at the intersection (Tsai, col. 4, line 9: “The taxi navigation database 134 could comprise an aerodrome mapping database (“AMDB”) as described in the following document published by RICA, Incorporated: RTCA DO-272A entitled “User Requirements for Aerodrome Mapping Information.” RTCA DO-272A provides for aerodrome surface mapping requirements for aeronautical uses particularly on-board aircraft. It should be noted that any standards are subject to change. Those skilled in the art appreciate that standards in the aviation industry including, but not limited to, RTCA DO-272A may be subject to change with future amendments or revisions and/or that other standards related to the subject matter may be adopted. The disclosures herein are flexible enough to include such future changes and/or adoptions of aviation standards. As embodied herein, the navigation reference data source 130 could provide runway data to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein.”).
Regarding claim 17, and analogous claim 7, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11,
wherein the aircraft data includes a weight of the aircraft, positions of flaps of the aircraft, a status of thrust reversers of the aircraft, a status of an anti-ice system of the aircraft, and a status of brakes of the aircraft (Tsai, col. 3, line 38: “In an embodiment of FIG. 1, the FMS 120 may perform a variety of functions performed to help the crew in the management of the flight; these functions are known to those skilled in the art…As embodied herein, data representative of flight management information [i.e., aircraft data includes a weight of the aircraft, positions of flaps of the aircraft, a status of thrust reversers of the aircraft, a status of an anti-ice system of the aircraft, and a status of brakes of the aircraft] may be provided by the FMS 120 to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein.”; Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, to know that flight management systems include aircraft characteristics data.).
Regarding claim 18, and analogous claim 8, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11,
wherein the environment data includes obstacles, temperature, wind conditions, and runway conditions (Tsai, col. 3, line 38: “In an embodiment of FIG. 1, the FMS 120 may perform a variety of functions performed to help the crew in the management of the flight; these functions are known to those skilled in the art…As embodied herein, data representative of flight management information [i.e., environment data includes obstacles, temperature, wind conditions, and runway conditions] may be provided by the FMS 120 to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein.”; Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, to know that flight management systems include aircraft environment data.).
Regarding claim 19, and analogous claim 9, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11,
wherein the takeoff information includes a heading of the aircraft, a remaining length of a runway from an intersection, an elevation of the runway from the intersection, and a slope of the runway from the intersection (Tsai, col. 3, line 38: “In an embodiment of FIG. 1, the FMS 120 may perform a variety of functions performed to help the crew in the management of the flight; these functions are known to those skilled in the art…As embodied herein, data representative of flight management information [i.e., takeoff information includes a heading of the aircraft] may be provided by the FMS 120 to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein.”; col. 9, line 12: “The method begins with module 302 with the receiving of flight management data from a source of such data such as the FMS 120, where such flight management data could comprise data representative of assigned runway information. The method continues with module 304 with the receiving of data navigation reference data from the navigation reference data source 130, where such data could comprise data representative of runway information associated with the assigned runway. As embodied herein, the source of flight management data and the source of navigation reference data could be comprised of the same source; that is, the FMS 120 could provide the source data for both flight management data and navigation reference data. In one embodiment, runway information associated with the assigned runway may include information corresponding to the location of the runway landing threshold point, length [i.e., the takeoff information includes…a remaining length of a runway from an intersection,], direction, displaced threshold, and/or stopway of the assigned runway.”; col. 4, line 9: “The taxi navigation database 134 could comprise an aerodrome mapping database (“AMDB”) as described in the following document published by RICA, Incorporated: RTCA DO-272A entitled “User Requirements for Aerodrome Mapping Information.” RTCA DO-272A provides for aerodrome surface mapping requirements for aeronautical uses particularly on-board aircraft...As embodied herein, the navigation reference data source 130 could provide runway data to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein [i.e., takeoff information includes…an elevation of the runway from the intersection, and a slope of the runway from the intersection].” ).
Regarding claim 20, and analogous claim 10, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11,
wherein the takeoff performance data includes V1, VR, V2, VS, VREF, required thrust settings, and required takeoff distance (Tsai, col. 3, line 38: “In an embodiment of FIG. 1, the FMS 120 [Flight Management System] may perform a variety of functions performed to help the crew in the management of the flight; these functions are known to those skilled in the art…As embodied herein, data representative of flight management information [i.e., takeoff performance data includes V1, VR, V2, VS, VREF, required thrust settings…] may be provided by the FMS 120 to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein.”; col. 3, line 38: “In an embodiment of FIG. 1, the FMS 120 may perform a variety of functions performed to help the crew in the management of the flight; these functions are known to those skilled in the art. These functions could include receiving assigned runway information and providing such information to the SG 140 as discussed below. Additionally, the FMS 120 could compute a variety of distances, but not limited to, a takeoff distance [i.e., takeoff performance data includes…and required takeoff distance] based upon one or more data provided to the FMS 120 automatically and/or through pilot input. Alternatively, the takeoff distance could be computed by the pilot and entered into the FMS 120. As embodied herein, data representative of flight management information may be provided by the FMS 120 to the SG 140 for subsequent processing as discussed herein.”).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, as applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of US-20150262493-A1, hereinafter “Jensen”.
Regarding claim 12, and analogous claim 2, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to, by the one or more processors, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
determine whether the selected intersection is a viable takeoff location; and display, on the graphic user interface, an indication of whether the selected intersection is a viable takeoff location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jensen teaches:
determine whether the selected intersection is a viable takeoff location (Jensen, para. 0007: “A method for entering a runway at an intersection [i.e., the selected intersection] is also provided and comprises receiving runway data; receiving aircraft position data and determining the identity of the runway from the runway data and the aircraft position data. The identity of the runway is compared with a representation of an assigned runway stored on the aircraft to determine that they match. A balanced field length is retrieved, and a remaining runway distance is determined from the runway data and the position data [i.e., determine whether the selected intersection is a viable takeoff location]. The remaining runway distance is displayed in a first manner if the remaining runway distance is greater that the balanced field length and in a second manner if the remaining runway distance is less than the balanced field length.”); and
display, on the graphic user interface, an indication of whether the selected intersection is a viable takeoff location (Jensen, para. 0007: “The remaining runway distance is displayed in a first manner if the remaining runway distance is greater that the balanced field length and in a second manner if the remaining runway distance is less than the balanced field length.””).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Tsai, with the concept of determining whether a selected intersection of an airfield is a viable takeoff location for an aircraft and displaying that information to the aircraft’s crew, taught by Jensen, in order to increase the safety of airfields by ensuring an aircraft will be using the correct location for takeoff (Jensen, para. 0003: “Improper identification of a runway may, in some cases, compromise safety. While an SVS is attempting to accurately portray the scene in front of an aircraft, it displays runway markings at the beginning of a runway as seen looking out the front of the aircraft. However, aircraft often perform “intersection” takeoffs (e.g. beginning a takeoff roll from a taxiway intersection some distance down the runway). In such cases, there is no indication (e.g. signage, markings, etc.) identifying the runway. Furthermore, if two runways converge to a point, a pilot may believe that he or she is on the correct runway when, in fact, the aircraft may be pointed down a different runway.”).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, as applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of US-20080103645-A1, hereinafter “DeMers”.
Regarding claim 14, and analogous claim 4, Tsai discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to, by the one or more processors:
Tsai does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
determine a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the intersections based on the takeoff performance data; and display, on the graphic user interface, an indication of the recommendation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, DeMers teaches:
determine a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the intersections based on the takeoff performance data (DeMers, para. 0015: “In general, the context sensitive navigation method and system provide for obtaining of relevant data for use at takeoff [i.e., based on the takeoff performance data], enroute, or at a destination, and interpretation of the data to infer conditions during takeoff, enroute, or at the destination. One or more viable flight plans are determined based on the conditions [i.e., determine a recommendation for a takeoff location from amongst the intersections], and the flight plans are displayed in a prioritized selectable list to give the pilot suggestions, so that the pilot can more easily interpret the data. This orders the data processing for the pilot so that the available information is more user friendly, thereby reducing the pilot's head-down time.”); and
display, on the graphic user interface, an indication of the recommendation (DeMers, para. 0015: “In general, the context sensitive navigation method and system provide for obtaining of relevant data for use at takeoff, enroute, or at a destination, and interpretation of the data to infer conditions during takeoff, enroute, or at the destination. One or more viable flight plans are determined based on the conditions, and the flight plans are displayed in a prioritized selectable list to give the pilot suggestions [i.e., display, on the graphic user interface, an indication of the recommendation], so that the pilot can more easily interpret the data. This orders the data processing for the pilot so that the available information is more user friendly, thereby reducing the pilot's head-down time.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Tsai, with the concept of determining a recommended takeoff location for an aircraft and displaying the recommendation to the crew/pilot, taught by DeMers, in order to increase the efficiency and safety of aircraft takeoff procedures (DeMers, para. 0006: “Thus, reducing the time it takes to modify flight plans would improve flight safety and efficiency.”; para. 0007: “The present invention relates to a method and system for context sensitive navigation of an aircraft. The method comprises obtaining data for use at takeoff, enroute, or at a destination, and interpreting the data to infer conditions during takeoff, enroute, or at the destination. One or more viable flight plans are determined based on the conditions during takeoff, enroute, or at the destination. The one or more viable flight plans are then presented to a pilot for optional selection. When there is more than one viable flight plan, a prioritized selectable list of flight plans is presented to the pilot.”).
Regarding claim 15, and analogous claim 5, Tsai and DeMers teach The system of claim 14, and Tsai further discloses the following:
wherein the indication of the recommendation includes a color coded icon (Tsai, col. 7, line 27: “The following examples illustrate how the appearance of the takeoff distance symbology 224 or 234 may change in relation to ownship location 112. For example, assume that the assigned runway is RWY 25R. In FIG. 3B, the distance in between the location of the runway end 216 and a location 232-A on the runway surface abeam of ownship 230-A is greater than the takeoff distance. Here, the takeoff distance symbology 224 could be configured to present a steady green color [i.e., indication of the recommendation includes a color coded icon], thereby advising the pilot with a real-time, instant indication that ownship is able to safely takeoff on RWY 25R from its current location.”).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20130271300-A1 (2013-10-17) | “Systems and methods for using flight management system (FMS) takeoff and landing (TOLD) data to determine when an alert (advisory and caution) is present. Short-runway alerts are provided on runway line-up on the ground or during approach based on FMS TOLD data. The present invention also integrates FMS TOLD data with a two(or three)-dimensional airport moving map (AMM) display to allow the AMM to display which runways can safely accommodate the aircraft given the aircraft's gross weight and takeoff performance data. Indications are provided when suitable runway length exists for an intersection departure or when suitable runway length exists for landing for any given selected runway or a runway with a land and hold short (LAHSO) clearance in affect.” Relevant to claims 1 and 11.
US-20220051578-A1 (2022-02-17) | “A system may include a display and a processor communicatively coupled to the display. The processor may be configured to: output, to the display, a synthetic vision system (SVS) taxi mode exocentric view of an aircraft while the aircraft is performing taxi operations, while the aircraft is on ground, and when the aircraft is not in a predetermined exclusion zone, the predetermined exclusion zone including portions of a runway where the aircraft is able to begin taking off; and output, to the at least one display, an SVS flight mode egocentric view from the aircraft when the aircraft is in the predetermined exclusion zone. The display may be configured to display the SVS taxi mode exocentric view until the aircraft is in the predetermined exclusion zone and display the SVS flight mode egocentric view when the aircraft is in the predetermined exclusion zone.” Relevant to claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666