DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 08/28/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1 and 16 were amended, and claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
First, on pages 7-8 of their remarks, the Applicant argues against the interpretation of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), writing that “the term ‘monitoring module’ is not a generic placeholder and would readily be understood by one skilled in the art to refer to an input device that is used to read and analyze particular communications and translate those communications into identifiable data, messages, and routines, etc. used by other connected devices, as outlined in paragraphs [0018] and [0019]” (Remarks, p. 8).
However, the Examiner would like to respectfully point out that even the Applicant’s arguments on this point does not recite any structure to show that the interpretation of the claimed “monitoring module” under 112(f) is improper. Rather, both the Applicant’s description of “an input device that is used to read and analyze particular communications” and the expanded description of the monitoring module in paragraphs 0018-0019 of the specification are functional descriptions that do not recite any structure beyond generic “audio or signal processors”. In the Examiner’s view, the Applicant has not presented evidence of “sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions” of the claimed “monitoring module”; thus, the interpretation of Claims 1, 11, and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) remains proper.
Next, on pages 8-9 of their remarks, the Applicant argues against the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Proctor et al., writing that Proctor does not teach “adjust[ing] a messaging feature of the at least one channel” such as “a membership of the user identity to the at least one channel and a priority level for the at least one channel”, writing that “Proctor discloses prioritizing responses, NOT channels”, and “Proctor does not discuss adjusting membership at all” (Remarks, p. 9).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis because the claim limitation stipulating “a priority level for the at least one channel” could, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the priority of a user on the channel as well as the priority of the channel itself. In other words, the priority level of a user in the channel is still applicable “for the channel”, even if it does not extend to the channel as a whole. On this point, the Applicant’s specification discusses elevating the priority of both individual channels as well as of “communications” affiliated with “the communication devices 12” in Fig. 3 (e.g. Specification, 0019, 0045-0046, 0048, 0058-0059, etc.). In other words, the specification describes elevating priority both for an entire channel as well as an individual user on the channel. Furthermore, in the context of Claim 1 – which only requires “one or more channels” – elevating the priority of an entire channel would not make sense when only a single channel exists. Therefore, both the Applicant’s specification and the other limitations of Claim 1 appear to support the Examiner’s reading of the “priority for a channel” as potentially denoting the priority of an individual user on the channel, meaning the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Proctor is properly maintained.
Later, on page 9, the Applicant argues against the rejection of Claim 11 based on Proctor, writing that “[t]he Examiner has taken an unrealistic and inaccurate view of the teachings of Proctor” because “the teachings of Proctor that the ‘AI server can automatically remove itself’ if it is ‘unable to determine a response to a search query’ is NOT ‘control circuitry communicatively coupled with the monitoring module and configured to ... determine a modification for the common channel based on classification of the interaction” (Remarks, p. 3).
However, the Examiner answers that on the contrary, Proctor anticipates each facet of the contested claim limitation. Paragraph 0072 of Proctor, cited in the pending rejection, describes “one or more generic specialized processors” for “implement[ing] ... all of the functions of the method” which corresponds to the claimed “control circuitry communicatively coupled to the monitoring module”, and Proctor specifies elsewhere in reference to Fig. 2 that “the artificial intelligence (AI) server 240 is incorporated into the communication system 200 for responding to queries from one or more of the half-duplex radios 210 which have been formed into a talkgroup 220” (Proctor, 0026). Furthermore, the AI server “remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039) corresponds to “determin[ing] a modification for the common channel” because the removal of the AI server clearly modifies the talkgroup (i.e. the “common channel”). And lastly, the AI server’s inability to “determine a response to a search query” (Proctor, 0039) corresponds to “classification of the interaction” because the AI server’s inability to respond results from an indefinite classification of the query. Thus, Proctor anticipates each element of the contested claim limitation, meaning the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Proctor is properly maintained.
Finally, on Pages 9-10, the Applicant writes that “contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the AI server ‘remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup’ does not correspond to ‘control circuitry communicatively coupled with the monitoring module and configured to ... adjust the membership of the common channel in response to the modification,’ as set forth in claim 11” (Remarks, p. 9-10).
However, the Examiner answers that this argument is unpersuasive because Proctor’s disclosure of the AI server “automatically remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” if it “is unable to determine a response to a search query” (Proctor, 0039) qualifies as “adjust[ing] the membership of the common channel in response to the modification” since the AI server terminating its own channel membership clearly falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the contested limitation. (The mapping of Proctor’s disclosure to specific elements of this claim is addressed in detail in the response to the previous argument). Thus, Proctor again anticipates each aspect of the contested limitation, meaning the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Proctor is properly maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 11 remain interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) along with their dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not describe “classify[ing] [an] interaction based on participation of the at least one user identity in the session” wherein “the participation includes a number of revocations of the participant by the administrator during the session”. Although prior art like Wu et al., cited in the previous Office Action, does provide more detail about an administrator’s authority to kick users from a communication channel, this description does not include logging the participation time for each user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Proctor et al. (US 2018/0184257 A1, hereinafter “Proctor”).
As to Claims 1 and 16:
Proctor describes a method for a server running an artificial intelligence algorithm to manage the bandwidth and response timing for a push-to-talk server
Specifically, Proctor teaches:
A system for managing turn-based audio communications
Fig. 2 in Proctor shows an example communication system.
Here, “AI Server 240” corresponds to “a system for managing audio-based communications”.
A user identity assignable to a communication device of a plurality of communication devices
Proctor describes “determining a priority for sending a response from the AI server 240 [in Fig. 2]” “based on context factors, such as radio user identity” and “rank of other members of the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0062).
Here, “radio user identity” corresponds to “a user identity assignable”.
The communication device configured to communicate the turn-based audio communications on at least one channel
Fig. 2 in Proctor describes, in part, “half-duplex radios” that “communicate (transmit mode) using a push-to-talk (PTT) button over a communications channel” (Proctor, 0024).
A monitoring module that monitors at least one communication attribute of the at least one channel
In describing Fig. 5, which depicts a method for “control[ling] timing and prioritization of response from AI server to PTT radio device”, Proctor states that “[p]rioritizing of the radio query” which “may also be based on context factors” (Proctor, 0062). Elsewhere, Proctor also teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, the “AI server 240” maps to “a monitoring module”,
“context factors” map to “at least one communication attribute”, and
“the talkgroup” maps to “the at least one channel”.
Control circuitry communicatively coupled with the monitoring module and configured
Proctor teaches that “some embodiments may be comprised of one or more generic or specialized processors” controlled by “both software and firmware” (Proctor, 0072). Proctor also teaches that “the artificial intelligence (AI) server 240 is incorporated into the communication system 200 for responding to queries from one or more of the half-duplex radios 210 which have been formed into a talkgroup 220” (Proctor, 0026).
Here, a “processor” is analogous to the claimed “control circuitry”, and
The AI server’s ability to “respond[] to queries” maps to “coupled with the monitoring module and configured”.
Determine a modification for the at least one channel based on the at least one communication attribute
In describing Fig. 5, which depicts a method for “control[ling] timing and prioritization of response from AI server to PTT radio device”, Proctor states that “[p]rioritizing of the radio query” which “may also be based on context factors” (Proctor, 0062). Elsewhere, Proctor also teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, “prioritization of the radio query” and “the AI server ... remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” map to “determin[ing] a modification for the at least one channel based on the at least one communication attribute”.
Adjust a messaging feature of the at least one channel in response to the modification, the messaging feature including at least one of a membership of the user identity to the at least one channel and a priority level for the at least one channel
In describing the method for adjusting PTT radio properties outlined in Fig. 5, Proctor teaches that “[t]he method 500 can be further enhanced if desired by applying priority” such as “[p]rioritizing of a radio query and its’ [sic] subsequent response” (Proctor, 0062). Elsewhere, Proctor also teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a seqrch query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, “prioritization of the radio query” and “the AI server ... remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” map to “adjust[ing] a messaging feature of the at least one channel in response to the modification”,
“the AI server ... remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” maps to “a membership of the user identity to the at least one channel”, and
“prioritization of the radio query” maps to “a priority level for the at least one channel” because the priority of a user on the channel affects the channel as a whole.
Claim 16 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 2 and 12:
Proctor teaches:
The control circuitry is configured to execute a machine learning algorithm to determine the modification for the at least one channel
The control device in Proctor is an “AI server” (Proctor, 0063).
Claim 12 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 2.
As to Claim 3 and 17:
Proctor teaches:
The user identity includes at least one of a name and an occupation
Proctor describes using a “radio user identity” such as “a Fire Chief, a Police Officer, a Detective”, etc. (Proctor, 0062).
Here, the jobs such as “Fire Chief”, “Police Officer”, and “Detective” correspond to both “a name” and “an occupation”.
Claim 17 introduces the same new limitation as Claim 3 in addition to requiring “assigning a user identity to a communication device” which is taught in Proctor, 0062, as explained in the mapping for Claim 1.
As to Claim 4 and 18:
Proctor teaches:
The user identity is a role, wherein the role is one of an administrator and a participant on the at least one channel
Proctor describes “context factors” related to “radio user identity” such as the “rank of requestor” and “rank of other members of the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0062).
Here, “rank” corresponds to the claimed “role” as “one of an administrator and a participant on the at least one channel”.
Claim 18 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 4.
As to Claim 5:
Proctor teaches:
The at least one channel includes at least two channels each having the membership, the membership including the administrator and the participant
Proctor specifies that “the AI server 240 intelligently interacts with the floor controller 250 to provide responses to queries sent out by one or more radios from the one or more talkgroups” (Proctor, 0032). To reiterate, Proctor describes the “radio user identity” and “rank” of channel members elsewhere (Proctor, 0062).
Here, multiple “talkgroups” correspond to “at least two channels”.
As to Claims 6 and 19:
Proctor teaches:
A wireless network communicatively coupling the communication device with the monitoring module, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to assign the communication device to the at least one channel via the wireless network
Proctor describes the “communication system 200” in Fig. 2 as “a broadband system having PTT capability” (Proctor, 0025). Proctor also specifies that “the talkgroup 220 [in Fig. 2] may be assigned when any user in the group wishes to converse”, adding, “[a] vacant radio channel is found automatically by the system 200 and the conversation takes place on that channel” (Proctor, 0027).
Here, “communication system 200” corresponds to “a wireless network communicatively coupling the communication device with the monitoring module”, and
“the talkgroup ... assigned” for a “user” corresponds to “assign the communication device to the at least one channel”.
Claim 19 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 6.
As to Claim 11:
Proctor teaches:
A system for managing turn-based audio communications for use with at least one communication device configured to communicate on at least one channel
Fig. 2 in Proctor shows an example communication system.
Here, “AI Server 240” corresponds to “a system for managing audio-based communications”,
any device in the “Half Duplex Talk Group” corresponds to “at least one communication device”, and
a “Talk Group” corresponds to “at least one channel”.
At least one user identity assignable to said at least one communication device
Proctor describes “determining a priority for sending a response from the AI server 240 [in Fig. 2]” “based on context factors, such as radio user identity” and “rank of other members of the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0062).
Here, “radio user identity” corresponds to “at least one user identity assignable”.
The at least one user identity has membership on a common channel of said at least one channel
Proctor describes “determining a priority for sending a response from the AI server 240 [in Fig. 2]” “based on context factors, such as radio user identity” and “rank of other members of the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0062).
Here, “the talkgroup” corresponds to “a common channel”, and
a user’s “rank” in “the talkgroup” indicates that it has “membership on a common channel”.
A monitoring module that monitors at least one communication attribute of the at least one channel
In describing Fig. 5, which depicts a method for “control[ling] timing and prioritization of response from AI server to PTT radio device”, Proctor states that “[p]rioritizing of the radio query” which “may also be based on context factors” (Proctor, 0062). Elsewhere, Proctor also teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, the “AI server 240” maps to “a monitoring module”,
“context factors” map to “at least one communication attribute”, and
“the talkgroup” maps to “the at least one channel”.
Control circuitry communicatively coupled with the monitoring module and configured
Proctor teaches that “some embodiments may be comprised of one or more generic or specialized processors” controlled by “both software and firmware” (Proctor, 0072). Proctor also teaches that “the artificial intelligence (AI) server 240 is incorporated into the communication system 200 for responding to queries from one or more of the half-duplex radios 210 which have been formed into a talkgroup 220” (Proctor, 0026).
Here, a “processor” is analogous to the claimed “control circuitry”, and
The AI server’s ability to “respond[] to queries” maps to “coupled with the monitoring module and configured”.
Detect interaction within the membership in a session on the common channel
In describing Fig. 5, which depicts a method for “control[ling] timing and prioritization of response from AI server to PTT radio device”, Proctor states that “[p]rioritizing of the radio query” which “may also be based on context factors” (Proctor, 0062). Elsewhere, Proctor also teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, the “AI server” processing the “search query” maps to “detect interaction within the membership” because the AI server must detect a query to process it, and
“the talkgroup” maps to “the common channel”.
Classify the interaction based on participation of the at least one user identity in the session
Proctor teaches that an “AI server” may “adjust a response wait time ... based on a confidence level that [a] verbal query was intended for the AI server or for members of the talkgroup” and that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0063, 0039). Proctor also adds that “[t]he method 500 [in Fig. 5] can be further enhanced if desired by applying priority” such as “[p]rioritizing of a radio query and its’ [sic] subsequent response” (Proctor, 0062).
Fig. 5 in Proctor also depicts a method for “control[ling] timing and prioritization of response from AI server to PTT radio device”.
Here, determining whether the “verbal query was intended for the AI server or for members of the talkgroup” corresponds to “classify[ing] the interaction based on participation”.
Determine a modification for the common channel based on classification of the interaction
Proctor teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039). Proctor also adds that “[t]he method 500 [in Fig. 5] can be further enhanced if desired by applying priority” such as “[p]rioritizing of a radio query and its’ [sic] subsequent response” (Proctor, 0062).
Here, the server “remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” corresponds to “determin[ing] a modification for the common channel”, and
being “unable to determine a response to the search query” corresponds to “classification of the interaction”.
Adjust the membership of the common channel in response to the modification
Proctor teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, the AI server “remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” corresponds to “adjust[ing] the membership of the common channel”.
As to Claim 13:
Proctor teaches:
The modification is a termination of the membership of the at least one user identity
Proctor teaches that “if the AI server 240 is unable to determine a response to a search query after a predetermined time, the AI server can automatically remove itself from the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0039).
Here, the AI server “remov[ing] itself from the talkgroup” maps to “the modification is a termination of the membership of the at least one user identity”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 2018/0184257 A1) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 2008/0159128 A1, hereinafter “Shaffer”).
As to Claim 7:
Proctor does not explicitly disclose:
The at least one channel includes a first channel having a first radio frequency setting and a second channel having a second radio frequency setting different than the first radio frequency setting
However, Shaffer does describe a method to combat network congestion by organizing voice communications into different channels and virtual talk groups.
Specifically, Shaffer teaches:
The at least one channel includes a first channel having a first radio frequency setting and a second channel having a second radio frequency setting different than the first radio frequency setting
Shaffer describes “multiple talk groups” that each have distinct “radio sources from different frequencies” (Shaffer, 0046).
Here, the “multiple talk groups” correspond to “a first channel” and “a second channel”, and
“different frequencies” correspond to “a first radio frequency setting” and “a second radio frequency setting different than the first radio frequency setting”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AI server disclosed in Proctor to monitor the multiple talk groups with distinct communication frequencies described in Shaffer. Proctor already describes the AI server monitoring multiple talk groups and only lacks an explicit statement that different talk groups correspond to multiple frequencies, but Shaffer does present this missing teaching.
As to Claim 8:
Proctor does not explicitly disclose:
The at least one channel includes a first channel having first internet protocol settings and a second channel having second internet protocol settings different than the first internet protocol settings
However, Shaffer does teach:
The at least one channel includes a first channel having first internet protocol settings and a second channel having second internet protocol settings different than the first internet protocol settings
Shaffer describes a “VTG [virtual talk group]” that “comprise[s] an address, such as an IP address” and is “combination unicast and multicast”, meaning certain channels will have different unicast IP addresses.
Here, the different “unicast” IP addresses correspond to “a first channel having first internet protocol settings” and “a second channel having second internet protocol settings different than the first internet protocol settings”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AI server disclosed in Proctor to monitor the multiple talk groups with distinct communication frequencies described in Shaffer. Proctor already describes the AI server monitoring multiple talk groups and only lacks an explicit statement that different talk groups correspond to different IP addresses, but Shaffer does present this missing teaching.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 2018/0184257 A1) in view of Higgins et al. (US 2022/0210033 A1, hereinafter “Higgins”).
As to Claim 9:
Proctor teaches:
A server incorporating at least a portion of the control circuitry, the server including ... at least one machine learning model trained to determine the modification
The control device in Proctor is an “AI server” (Proctor, 0063).
Proctor does not explicitly disclose:
An artificial intelligence engine configured to generate at least one machine learning model trained
However, Higgins does describe using machine learning to continuously refine a chatbot.
Specifically, Higgins teaches:
An artificial intelligence engine configured to generate at least one machine learning model trained
Higgins describes chatbots that categorize voice inputs based on scores “with an adjustment based on history data with similar input data”, and Higgins adds that “[t]he adjustment can be a machine learning driven adjustment based on history data that uses feedback to shift the score” (Higgins, 0141). Higgins also states that the “real-time feedback” is for “both bot training and bot use” (Higgins, 0030).
Here, “a machine learning driven adjustment” corresponds to “generate at least one machine learning model trained”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Higgins’ practice of retraining a machine learning model using feedback into Proctor’s method for monitoring voice channels using AI. Dynamically incorporating feedback can improve the models’ accuracy.
As to Claims 10 and 20:
Proctor teaches:
The adjustment to the messaging feature
Proctor teaches that the AI server may “adjust a response wait time ... based on a confidence level that the verbal query was intended for the AI server or for members of the talkgroup” (Proctor, 0063).
Proctor does not explicitly disclose:
Receive a feedback signal in response to the adjustment ... and process the feedback signal in the at least one machine learning model
However, Higgins does teach:
Receive a feedback signal in response to the ... messaging feature and process the feedback signal in the at least one machine learning model
Higgins describes chatbots that “output normalized scores” for the “relevance” of a “voice input” to various categories (Higgins, 0141). Higgins also describes a “machine learning driven adjustment based on history data that uses feedback to shift the score” (Higgins, 0141) and states the “real-time feedback” is for “both bot training and bot use” (Higgins, 0030).
Here, “us[ing] feedback to shift the score” in the context of “bot training” corresponds to “process[ing] the feedback signal in the at least one machine learning model”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Higgins’ practice of retraining a machine learning model using feedback into Proctor’s method for monitoring voice channels using AI. Dynamically incorporating feedback can improve the models’ accuracy.
Claim 20 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 10.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor (US 2018/0184257 A1) in view of Atwal et al. (US 2022/0247678 A1, hereinafter “Atwal”).
As to Claim 14:
Proctor does not explicitly disclose:
The participation includes a time of use by the at least one user identity on the common channel
However, Atwal does describe a satellite network that tracks the history of its user data.
Specifically, Atwal teaches:
The participation includes a time of use by the at least one user identity on the common channel
Atwal describes storing data including “history of the user, connection, duration, and volume” for “voice, text, and data” communications (Atwal, 0206).
Here, “duration” for a “user” corresponds to “a time of use by the at least one user identity”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Atwal’s practice of recording the durations of calls into Proctor’s method for using AI to monitor a push to talk group. The call duration and other historical statistics can help the AI make better decisions about how to regulate the PTT group.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kerger et al. (US 2013/0109426 A1) describes a method for an administrator to monitor a push-to-talk group and set priorities for different user identities on the channel (paragraphs 0062-0063).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
