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 .
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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 6/3/2024, where claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12,001,641 (hereinafter the ‘641 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 1 of the instant application and the ‘641 Patent are disclosing method for identifying incident situation based on detecting abnormal condition, obtaining and integrating life safety system data and on-site information to generate incident situation information, and displaying such information on an electronic display. Claim 1 of the instant application is broader in scope than the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent. Therefore, the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 2 and 3 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 1 of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claims 4 and 11 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 3 and 10 respectively of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘641 Patent.
Claims 5 and 6 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 4 of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claims 7 and 8 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 5 of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claims 9 and 10 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 9 of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 16 of the ‘641 Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim 12 of the instant application and claims 13 and 16 the ‘641 Patent are disclosing system for identifying incident situation based on detecting abnormal condition, obtaining and integrating life safety system data and on-site information to generate incident situation information. Claim 12 of the instant application includes the additional limitation of the on-site information identifies one or more emergency response team members based upon the personnel information and the incident situation. However, the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20240339026 (Kelly) teaches such limitation. The ‘641 Patent and Kelly are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having the ‘641 Patent and Kelly before them to modify the emergency response system of the ‘641 Patent to incorporate the function of identifying one or more emergency response team members as taught by Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Kelly (¶ [0066]-[0068]), because the function of identifying one or more emergency response team members does not depend on the emergency response system. That is the function of identifying one or more emergency response team members performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to help identify distribution of resources in an abnormal event as suggested by Kelly (¶ [0066]). For the above reason(s), the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 13 and 16 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 13 of the ‘641 Patent as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application is also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claim 14 of the ‘641 Patent as the claim of the instant application discloses substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of the ‘641 Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 17 of the instant application and claim 18 of the ‘641 Patent are disclosing non-transitory machine readable medium including instructions when executed, identify incident situation based on detecting abnormal condition, obtain and integrate life safety system data and on-site information to generate incident situation information, and display such information on an electronic display. Claim 17 of the instant application is broader in scope than the corresponding claim of the ‘641 Patent. Therefore, the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelly, (US 20240339026 A1) (hereinafter Kelly).
Referring to claim 1, Kelly teaches a method, comprising:
identifying an incident situation based upon a sensor detecting an abnormal condition (¶ [0276], fig. 10B, “At step S110, data relating to the presence or risk of fire (“fire data”) is obtained”);
obtaining life safety system data (¶ [0276], “Supplementary data may be obtained from one or more additional sensors, for example sensors configured to detect the presence of smoke, carbon monoxide, other toxic gases, airflow, oxygen, RFID tags.”) and on-site information in response to identifying the incident situation (¶ [0265], fig. 10A, “At step S101, the Responsible Authority for the building will prepare alert, evacuation and privacy policies based on different fire hazard classifications and on certain key metrics of a fire hazard”. ¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants”);
integrating the life safety system data and the on-site information to generate incident situation information (¶ [0279], fig. 10B, “At step S112, the processing unit incorporates the tools, resources and data of step S111 with the fire data and occupant data of step S110 to create a current-state model and probabilistic model (collectively, the “Fire Models”) of the likely development of the fire and the location and likely behaviour of the occupants; furthermore, the central processor calculates the optimal escape route for the occupants, taking the output of the Fire Models into account.”); and
displaying the incident situation information through an electronic display (¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants (such a policy may also include a range of pre-determined firefighting interventions which the central processor may then be instructed to incorporate into the Fire Models); secondly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the privacy policy of step S108 to determine the extent and scope of what information may be displayed on remote or other user devices for the duration of the emergency.” ¶ [0283], fig. 10B, “For the purposes of step S114, the Fire Models are most likely to be displayed on a remote device (such as a laptop, tablet or smart phone)”.)
Referring to claim 2, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the life safety system data comprises querying one or more life safety systems to obtain the life safety system data (¶ [0041], “The method may further comprise receiving supplementary data from one or more of: a smoke sensor; a gas sensor; a carbon monoxide sensor; a toxic gas sensor which detects the typical gaseous by-products of cellulosic and hydrocarbon combustion; an oxygen sensor; an airflow sensor; a smoke density sensor; a probe inserted into a wall to measure heat transmission through a wall; a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) antenna and reader”).
Referring to claim 3, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the on-site information comprises:
querying one or more databases, comprising at least one of equipment information, chemical information, personnel information, or emergency response contingency procedures, to obtain the on-site information (¶ [0051], “the processing unit has access to a stored memory of pre-determined policies in relation to the building which define actions to be taken in response to different fire hazard scenarios and references these policies against the said current-state and probabilistic fire models, so as to determine the appropriate policy-based response.”)
Referring to claim 5, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
evaluating the incident situation information to identify a location of the incident situation and chemical information of chemicals used at the location (¶ [0048], “wherein the processing unit has access to a stored memory comprising the layout of the building and/or a stored memory comprising the construction methods and materials of the building, together with reference data on the ignition and combustion time and temperature of the building materials, and the chemical products resulting from the combustion of the building materials.”)
Referring to claim 7, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
evaluating the incident situation information to identify a location of the incident situation and equipment information of equipment used at the location (¶ [0127], “As has been described, the fire and occupant safety system of the present invention uses a plurality of thermal and carbon dioxide sensors in order to determine the location(s) of a fire hazard”. ¶ [0139], “As has been explained above, the thermal and carbon dioxide sensors of the fire and occupant safety system according to the invention are arranged in an Appliance to detect elevated temperatures or ambient carbon dioxide levels”.)
Referring to claim 8, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 7, comprising:
populating the electronic display with the equipment information of the equipment (¶ [0127], fig. 7, “Additional information could be included in the visualisation 750 relating to the fire; by way of example only…the temperature (in Kelvin)”. ¶ [0091], “direct measurement of the temperature of the inside of the compartment by one or more Appliances located in the compartment, which requires the Appliance to operate at high ambient temperature.”)
Referring to claim 9, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
evaluating the incident situation information to identify a set of emergency response team members having qualifications for performing tasks associated with an incident situation response procedure (¶ [0245], alert and evacuation policy) and task checklist to perform (¶ [0246], plotted escape routes) as a response to the incident situation (¶ [0246], “Once the alert and evacuation policy appropriate to the perceived fire risk has been identified, the appropriate information on the location and nature of the fire, the location of the occupants and the plotted escape routes will be calculated by the processing unit 500 and displayed on appropriate remote devices.” Examiner recognizes the emergency response team members as the user with the appropriate remote devices.)
Referring to claim 10, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 9, comprising: and
populating the electronic display with recommended task assignments for the set of emergency response team members (¶ [0246], “displayed on appropriate remote devices.”)
Referring to claim 11, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 9, comprising:
controlling a messaging system to transmit messages of recommended task assignments for the set of emergency response team members to communication devices of the set of emergency response team members (¶ [0246], “displayed on appropriate remote devices. This information will be constantly updated with real-time information from the fire and occupant safety devices, so will be dynamic information and the fire and rescue authorities can proceed to evacuate and fight the fire as they determine is most appropriate.”)
Referring to claim 12, Kelly teaches a system, comprising:
a sensor module that identifies an incident situation based upon receiving an indication from a sensor that an abnormal condition has been detected by the sensor (¶ [0276], fig. 10B, “At step S110, data relating to the presence or risk of fire (“fire data”) is obtained”);
a life safety system connector that obtains life safety system data (¶ [0276], “Supplementary data may be obtained from one or more additional sensors, for example sensors configured to detect the presence of smoke, carbon monoxide, other toxic gases, airflow, oxygen, RFID tags.”);
an electronic card reader system that records personnel information (¶ [0066], RFID sensors); and
a module that integrates the life safety system data and on-site information (¶ [0265], fig. 10A, “At step S101, the Responsible Authority for the building will prepare alert, evacuation and privacy policies based on different fire hazard classifications and on certain key metrics of a fire hazard”. ¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants”) to generate incident situation information (¶ [0279], fig. 10B, “At step S112, the processing unit incorporates the tools, resources and data of step S111 with the fire data and occupant data of step S110 to create a current-state model and probabilistic model (collectively, the “Fire Models”) of the likely development of the fire and the location and likely behaviour of the occupants; furthermore, the central processor calculates the optimal escape route for the occupants, taking the output of the Fire Models into account.”), wherein the on-site information identifies one or more emergency response team members based upon the personnel information and the incident situation (¶ [0067], “n some embodiments, the RFID tags may be wearable items issued to firefighters and in preferred embodiments, the RFID “tag” may be a downloaded app on a smartphone issued to and carried by firefighters.”)
Referring to claim 13, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 12, comprising:
an electronic display through which the incident situation information is displayed (¶ [0280], fig. 10B, “At step S113, the processing unit calculates an assessed “Threat Level” of the Fire Models of step S112 and takes the following two steps simultaneously; firstly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the alert and evacuation policies of step S101, so as to determine the appropriate policy response for alert and evacuation of the occupants (such a policy may also include a range of pre-determined firefighting interventions which the central processor may then be instructed to incorporate into the Fire Models); secondly, the processing unit cross-references the said Threat Level with the privacy policy of step S108 to determine the extent and scope of what information may be displayed on remote or other user devices for the duration of the emergency.” ¶ [0283], fig. 10B, “For the purposes of step S114, the Fire Models are most likely to be displayed on a remote device (such as a laptop, tablet or smart phone)”.)
Referring to claim 14, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 13, comprising:
a messaging system that transmits a message to a communication device of at least one of the one or more emergency response team members, wherein the message comprises a task assignment for the at least one of the one or more emergency response team members to perform as a response to the incident situation (¶ [0246], “displayed on appropriate remote devices. This information will be constantly updated with real-time information from the fire and occupant safety devices, so will be dynamic information and the fire and rescue authorities can proceed to evacuate and fight the fire as they determine is most appropriate.”)
Referring to claim 15, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the personnel information identifies a last known location of the one or more emergency response team members within a facility (¶ [0066], “in the case of the RFID sensors particularly, enables the detection and visual representation in the models of firefighters wearing or carrying appropriate RFID tags, which is helpful to the command centres in the event of a fire as it identifies the physical distribution of their fire-fighting resources within the building, in real-time.”)
Referring to claim 16, Kelly further teaches the system of claim 13, comprising:
a database connector that queries one or more databases, comprising at least one of equipment information, chemical information, personnel information, or emergency response contingency procedures, to obtain the on-site information (¶ [0051], “the processing unit has access to a stored memory of pre-determined policies in relation to the building which define actions to be taken in response to different fire hazard scenarios and references these policies against the said current-state and probabilistic fire models, so as to determine the appropriate policy-based response.”)
Regarding claims 17 and 18, these claims recite the non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions when executed, perform the steps of the method of claims 1 and 3 respectively; therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Referring to claim 19, Kelly further teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 17, wherein the method, when executed by a machine, causes the machine to:
populate a map, displayed through the electronic display, with a plurality of location representations (¶ [0127], fig. 7, “As shown in FIG. 7, the location of…a plurality of occupants (20) are clearly visualised throughout the building.”); and
evaluate the incident situation information to identify a location of the incident situation corresponding to one of the plurality of location representations (¶ [0127], fig. 7, “As shown in FIG. 7, the location of the fire hazard (10)…are clearly visualised throughout the building.”)
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in view of Dahm et al., (US 20200402192 A1) (hereinafter Dahm).
Referring to claim 4, Kelly further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
populating the electronic display with…imagery of a location associated with the incident situation (¶ [0026], “although thermal body heat images are constantly being recorded and analysed by the method of the present invention, such images are not to be visually represented or displayed on remote devices unless there has been a confirmed detection of fire at the building and even then, the display of such body heat images may be restricted to those compartments and storeys most under threat or in order of pre-determined rescue priority).”)
Kelly teaches the limitations above. However, Kelly does not explicitly teach the image being video surveillance imagery.
Dahm teaches displaying video surveillance imagery (¶ [0071], fig. 6, “Upon generation of the web-based interactive map 615, multiple tools to trace and edit the floor plan 605 can be added to the web-based interactive map 615. This may allow emergency responders having low data throughput bandwidth to receive the web-based interactive map 615…Furthermore, data may be digitally provided via a video feed of a camera.”)
Kelly and Dahm are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Kelly and Dahm before them to modify the intelligent fire and occupant safety system of Kelly to incorporate the function of providing video feed as taught by Dahm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Dahm (¶ [0071]-[0075]), because the function of providing video feed does not depend on the intelligent fire and occupant safety system. That is the function of providing video feed performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide an interface in an emergency that is less time and effort consuming as suggested by Dahm (¶ [0003]).
Referring to claim 6, Kelly teaches the method of claim 5. However, Kelly does not explicitly teach populating the electronic display with the chemical information of the chemicals.
Dahm teaches populating the electronic display with the chemical information of the chemicals (¶ [0048], “the emergency responder (e.g., a firefighter) can open the mobile application and access the web-based interactive map that will display information relevant to this specific emergency responder, for example…chemicals storages”. ¶ [0071], fig. 6, “The user interface 600 may further have a legend tool 625 to create a list of room names with corresponding room numbers. Multiple icons 620 indicating assets, such as…flammable chemicals”).
Kelly and Dahm are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Kelly and Dahm before them to modify the intelligent fire and occupant safety system of Kelly to incorporate the function of display information of the chemical(s) as taught by Dahm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Dahm (¶ [0048], [0071]-[0075]), because the function of display information of the chemical(s) does not depend on the intelligent fire and occupant safety system. That is the function of displaying information of the chemical(s) performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide an interface in an emergency that is less time and effort consuming as suggested by Dahm (¶ [0003]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 19 above, and in view of Masterlark, (US 20140344002 A1) (hereinafter Masterlark).
Referring to claim 20, Kelly teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 19. However, Kelly does not explicitly teach modify a display property of a location representation, of the location, within the map; and
in response to receiving user input with respect to the location representation, displaying a subset of the incident situation information related to the location.
Masterlark teaches modify a display property of a location representation, of the location, within the map (¶ [0035], fig. 2, “the menus 202, 204 may further include interface controls allowing a user to manually select a status for the room. For example, upon selecting a "smoke" or "fire" interface control, the respective room may be identified as containing smoke or fire for use in generation or modification of the event response plan.”); and
in response to receiving user input with respect to the location representation, displaying a subset of the incident situation information related to the location (¶ [0035], fig. 2, “The menus 202, 204 may further include an icon 216 that, upon selection, provides the user with a detailed checklist and/or procedures for responding to the emergency based on the status of the particular room.”)
Kelly and Masterlark are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for presenting abnormal condition (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having Kelly and Masterlark before them to modify the intelligent fire and occupant safety system of Kelly to incorporate the function of modify display property of a location as taught by Masterlark. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Masterlark (¶ [0033]-[0036]), because the function of modify display property of a location does not depend on the intelligent fire and occupant safety system. That is the function of modify display property of a location performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to provide procedures that is more relevant to the specific situation of the specific area as suggested by Masterlark (¶ [0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20230245552 (Lewis) – discloses remote monitoring and generating emergency event code.
US 20200243203 (Reddy) – discloses building alarm management system with integrated operating procedures.
US 20190172165 (Verteletskyi) – discloses building resource management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118