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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendments filed 15 July 2026:
Claims 1,5,11 and 13 are amended
Claims 1-3,5-14,15-20 are pending
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-3,5-14,15-20 recite subject matter that is free of prior art. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of:
Claim 1 describe(s) an emergency response system operable to provide medical information related to emergency communications, comprising: memory storing instructions; and one or more processors operable to execute the instructions to cause the one or more processors to: provide an emergency management application to computing devices of a plurality of emergency communications centers (ECCs); receive, at an emergency response data platform (ERDP), a first notification of a first initiated emergency communication from a first mobile device about a first emergency, wherein the first notification of the first initiated emergency communication includes a first location of the first mobile device and a first telephone number associated with the first mobile device; automatically query one or more third-party servers for medical information associated with a first user of the first mobile device; receive the medical information from the one or more third-party servers; receive, at the ERDP, a second notification of a second initiated emergency communication from a second mobile device about a second emergency, wherein the second notification of the second initiated emergency communication includes a second location of the second mobile device and a second telephone number associated with the second mobile device; determine that a first ECC of the plurality of ECCs is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the first location by identifying a geofence associated with the first ECC and determining that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC, and, responsive to determining that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the first location, automatically routing information about the first emergency to a first computing device of the first ECC; associating the first location with an ECC account identifier associated with the first ECC; determining that a first computing device of the first ECC is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active websocket connection with the ERDP; and automatically pushing information about the first emergency including at least some of the medical information to the first computing device via the active websocket connection based on the subscription and the determination that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC; determine that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the second location and, responsive to determining that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the second location, automatically pushing information about the second emergency to the first computing device via the active websocket connection based on the subscription; generate and display in a graphical user interface of the emergency management application of the first computing device of the first ECC, a jurisdictional awareness view, the jurisdictional awareness view comprising an interactive map indicating a plurality of locations associated with a plurality of initiated emergency communications within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, the plurality of locations including the first location and the second location; generate and display in the graphical user interface an emergency profile containing information about the first user comprising the at least some of the medical information, wherein the at least some of the medical information is automatically populated into the emergency profile along with one or more sources of the medical information such that medical information from different sources, if received, is displayed within the emergency profile together along with its respective source; and display, in the graphical user interface, the first telephone number and the second telephone number in a list of a plurality of telephone numbers that have been used to request assistance from the first ECC within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, wherein the emergency profile with the medical information is displayed with the first telephone number to support emergency response for the first user at the first location.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and are therefore, also subject matter free of prior art.
Claim 11 describe(s) an emergency response method for providing medical information related to emergency communications, the method performed at least in part by one or more processors operable to execute instructions from a memory, comprising: providing, via the one or more processors, an emergency management application to computing devices of a plurality of emergency communications centers (ECCs); receiving, via the one or more processors at an emergency response data platform (ERDP) a first notification of a first initiated emergency communication between from a first mobile about a first emergency, wherein the first notification of the first initiated emergency communication includes a first location of the first mobile device and a first telephone number associated with the first mobile device; automatically querying, via the one or more processors, one or more third-party servers for medical information associated with a first user of the first mobile device; receiving, via the one or more processors, the medical information from the one or more third-party servers; receiving, via the one or more processors at the ERDP, a second notification of a second initiated emergency communication from a second mobile device about a second emergency, wherein the second notification of the second initiated emergency communication includes a second location of the second mobile device and a second telephone number associated with the second mobile device; determining, via the one or more processors, that a first ECC of the plurality of ECCs is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the first location by identifying a geofence associated with the first ECC and determining that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC, and, responsive to determining that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the first location: associating the first location with an ECC account identifier associated with the first ECC; determining that a first computing device of the first ECC is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active websocket connection with the ERDP; and automatically pushing information about the first emergency including at least some of the medical information to the first computing device via the active websocket connection based on the subscription and the determination that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC; determining, via the one or more processors, that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the second location and, responsive to determining that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the second location, automatically pushing information about the second emergency to the first computing device via the active websocket connection based on the subscription; generating and displaying, via the one or more processors, in a graphical user interface of the emergency management application of the first computing device of the first ECC, a jurisdictional awareness view, the jurisdictional awareness view comprising an interactive map indicating a plurality of locations associated with a plurality of initiated emergency communications within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, the plurality of locations including the first location and the second location; generating and displaying, via the one or more processors, in the graphical user interface an emergency profile containing information about the first user comprising at least some of the medical information, wherein the at least some of the medical information is automatically populated into the emergency profile along with one or more sources of the medical information such that medical information from different sources, if received, is displayed within the emergency profile together along with its respective source; and displaying, via the one or more processors, in the graphical user interface the first telephone number and the second telephone number in a list of a plurality of telephone numbers that have been used to request assistance from the first ECC within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, wherein the emergency profile with the medical information is displayed with the first telephone number to support emergency response for the first user at the first location, the method further comprising: viewing the graphical user interface of the emergency management application of the first computing device, including the emergency profile, the at least some of the medical information, the jurisdictional awareness view, the first location, and the first telephone number, and initiating an appropriate emergency response to the first emergency based on the first location, the emergency profile, and the at least some of the medical information.
Claims 12-20 depend on claim 11 and are therefore, also subject matter free of prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3,5-14,15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system and method, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of:
Claims 1 and 11 (Claim 1 being representative)
provide an emergency management application to computing devices of a plurality of emergency communications centers (ECCs);
receive a first notification of a first initiated emergency communication from a first mobile device about a first emergency, wherein the first notification of the first initiated emergency communication includes a first location of the first mobile device and a first telephone number;
automatically query one or more third-party servers for medical information associated with a first user;
receive the medical information;
receive a second notification of a second initiated emergency communication about a second emergency, wherein the second notification of the second initiated emergency communication includes a second location and a second telephone number;
determine that a first ECC of the plurality of ECCs is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the first location by identifying a geofence associated with the first ECC and determining that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC, and, responsive to determining that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the first location, automatically routing information about the first emergency to the first ECC;
associating the first location with an ECC account identifier associated with the first ECC; determining that a first computing device of the first ECC is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active […] connection;
and automatically pushing information about the first emergency including at least some of the medical information via the active […] connection based on the subscription and the determination that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC;
determine that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the second location and, responsive to determining that the first ECC is assigned geographical jurisdiction for a region that includes the second location, automatically pushing information about the second emergency via the active […] connection based on the subscription;
generate and display of the first ECC, a jurisdictional awareness view, the jurisdictional awareness view comprising an interactive map indicating a plurality of locations associated with a plurality of initiated emergency communications within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, the plurality of locations including the first location and the second location;
generate and display an emergency profile containing information about the first user comprising the at least some of the medical information, wherein the at least some of the medical information is automatically populated into the emergency profile along with one or more sources of the medical information such that medical information from different sources, if received, is displayed within the emergency profile together along with its respective source;
and display the first telephone number and the second telephone number in a list of a plurality of telephone numbers that have been used to request assistance from the first ECC within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, wherein the emergency profile with the medical information is displayed with the first telephone number to as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to dispatch the proper response to an emergency, in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “providing, receiving, querying, determining, generating and displaying” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of an emergency response system comprising memory and processors that implements the identified abstract idea. The emergency response system comprising memory and processors is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional elements of an emergency management application, first and second mobile devices, websockets, third-party severs, a graphical user interface, computing devices and emergency response data platform. The emergency management application, first and second mobile devices, third-party servers, a graphical user interface, computing devices and emergency response data platform merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an emergency response system comprising memory and processors to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an emergency management application, first and second mobile devices, websockets, third-party servers, a graphical user interface, computing devices and emergency response data platform was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-10,12-13,15-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2,12 merely describe(s) querying the servers, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3,13 merely describe(s) data included in the notification, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5,15 merely describe(s) data being displayed, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6,16 merely describe(s) querying and selecting databases, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6, 16 also includes the additional element of “source database” which is analyzed the same as the “graphical user interface” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7,17 merely describe(s) the machine learning algorithm, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7, 17 also includes the additional element of “a trained machine learning algorithm”. The Claims describes the training as being performed by decision trees. The training of the ML is considered to be part of the abstract idea because they fall under data manipulations that humans perform and thus are part of the rules or instructions encompassing the abstract idea. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has described machine learning to encompass simplistic mathematical models such as linear and logistic regression (see Spec. Para. 00126) and thus the machine learning is interpreted to be part of the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8,18 merely describe(s) geofencing, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 9, 19 merely describe(s) displaying data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10, 20 merely describe(s) summarizing text, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10,20 also includes the additional element of “a natural language processing algorithm” which is analyzed the same as the “emergency management application” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented in the 19 pages of arguments, however, any argument(s) inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-3,5-14,15-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The claims do not recite social activities, teaching, or following rules or instructions to manage personal behavior or relations. Instead, claim 1 recites a specific emergency-response data architecture implemented by an emergency response data platform (ERDP), ECC computing devices, mobile devices, third-party servers, an emergency management application, and a graphical user interface. The claim is directed to receiving emergency notifications from mobile devices, automatically querying third-party servers for medical information associated with a user of a mobile device, determining ECC jurisdiction by identifying a geofence associated with an ECC and determining that the mobile-device location falls within the geofence, associating the location with an ECC account identifier, determining that an ECC computing device is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active websocket connection with the ERDP, and automatically pushing emergency information including medical information to the ECC computing device via the active websocket connection based on the subscription and geofence determination.
These are not steps that organize human activity. Rather, the claim recites a specific computer-networked process for selectively delivering emergency data through an ERDP to a particular ECC computing device using geofence-based jurisdiction determination, account-based subscription, and an active websocket connection.
The claimed subject matter therefore does not merely organize human activity or present information in the abstract. Instead, claim 1 recites a specific technical architecture for controlling how emergency information is routed, pushed, and displayed within computerized emergency response systems. In particular, the claim recites that the ERDP determine ECC jurisdiction using a geofence, associate the first location with an ECC account identifier, determine that a first computing device of the first ECC is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active websocket connection with the ERDP, and automatically push information about the first emergency to the first computing device via the active websocket connection based on both the subscription and the determination that the first location falls within the geofence associated with the first ECC. These limitations define a particular technological procedure for automatically delivering jurisdiction-relevant emergency information through a networked emergency response platform, not a mental process or method of organizing human activity.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These steps represent a list of instructions for a person to follow. Furthermore, the claims recite displaying data to emergency response which is humans interacting with a computer. The websockets were evaluated as additional elements and were determined to generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., computers have a particular communication protocol.
Step 2A, Prong 2 does not consider whether the claimed subject matter involves well-understood, routine, or conventional activity when evaluating whether the claims improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field … Thus, the examiner must consider whether the claim is directed to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without considering whether the claimed subject matter involves well-understood, routine, or conventional activity.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully agrees with the statement regarding prong 2A2, but disagrees with Applicants asserted result. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Further, MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).” As such, it is only the additional elements identified by the Examiner to not be part of the abstract idea that are analyzed to determine whether they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field of the invention.
In that regard, the additional elements of the claims do not provide significantly more based on this inquiry. Taking these in turn, whether the additional elements of the claim provide an improvement was analyzed/addressed in the 2A2 analysis no improvement was present because no technical problem is tied to the computer or technological environment. Nor is there a physical improvement to the computer. The technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general-purpose computer performing generic computer functions [see Spec. Para. 0011]) is recited at a high level of generality and has been found by the courts to be insufficient to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Alice Corp.).
Finally, none of the additional elements of the claim were found to represent extra-solution activity and thus no well-understood, routine, conventional analysis is required. MPEP 2106.07(a) states “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” This was not asserted. As such, when viewed either individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Here, claim 1 recites a particular technical implementation for improving emergency communication and data management systems. The claim does not generically state that emergency information is provided to an ECC. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific architecture in which an ERDP receives emergency notifications, obtains medical information from third-party servers, identifies a geofence associated with a first ECC, determines that the first mobile-device location falls within that geofence, associates the first location with an ECC account identifier associated with the first ECC, determines that a first computing device of the first ECC is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active websocket connection with the ERDP, and automatically pushes emergency information including medical information to the first computing device via the active websocket connection based on the subscription and the geofence determination
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is merely data gathering and data processing. The computer is not performing actions outside of its normal function.
These limitations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they define a particular computer-networked mechanism for selectively delivering emergency data to a subscribed ECC computing device without requiring the ECC computing device to initiate a separate query for the emergency data because the emergency information is automatically pushed through the active websocket connection. The ERDP does not merely collect and display information. Instead, the ERDP uses geofence-based jurisdiction determination, ECC account association, subscription status, and an active websocket connection to automatically push jurisdiction-relevant emergency information to a subscribed ECC computing device. This improves the operation of emergency communication systems by enabling relevant emergency information, including retrieved medical information, to be delivered quickly and automatically to the ECC computing device associated with the correct jurisdiction.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This merely recites data gathering and data processing. Furthermore, there is no technical problem tied to the computer or technological environment cited. Therefore, no practical application is found. Finally, Applicant is not claiming the entire field of emergency communication systems. Applicant is claiming a computer. Thus, the entire field of emergency communication systems cannot be improved.
Thus, the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting an emergency response data delivery architecture.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how this is a practical application, because the claims do not meet any of the tests for a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04). At best the claims recite a computer that receives, processes, and outputs data. This does not provide a practical application by any measure in MPEP 2106.04.
This is analogous to the eligible claim in Example 42 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which involves a network-based patient management method that improves how patient information is shared in real time.
Regarding (f), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 42 provides a technical solution to a technical problem in that provides could not receive updated patient data because of the system(s) utilized. The examiner cannot find, nor has the Applicant pointed to, any technical problem caused by the computer or technological environment cited. Therefore, no practical application is found based on this test.
Applicant's specification supports the improvements explained above. The application explains that conventional emergency communication systems often rely on audio calls with narrow functionality, which can create an information gap when a caller cannot verbalize important information relevant to the emergency. (See paragraph [0002] of the application.) The claimed system addresses this technological problem by using the ERDP, mobile devices, third-party servers, ECC computing devices, geofences, websocket connections, subscriptions, and an emergency management application to automatically obtain, route, push, and display relevant emergency information to the correct recipient. The claim reflects that improvement by reciting the geofence-based jurisdiction determination, ECC account identifier association, active websocket subscription, automatic push delivery, jurisdictional awareness view, and automatically populated emergency profile containing medical information and source information.
Instead, the Office Action oversimplifies claim 1 by reading the above additional elements in isolation without considering the specific manner in which the claimed components interact to achieve the stated technological improvement
Regarding (g), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of this cites a technical problem tied to the computer or technological field. The phone or computer is performing functions it normally performs. Further, the Examiner considered all the additional elements both individually and in combination as described in the basis or rejection. The Applicant has no stated why the particular combination provides significantly more.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of claim 1 include, at least, an emergency response data platform (ERDP), computing devices of a plurality of ECCs, first and second mobile devices, a third-party server, an emergency management application, a geofence associated with the first ECC, an ECC account identifier associated with the first ECC, an active websocket connection between the ERDP and the first computing device, a subscription of the first computing device to the ECC account identifier, automatic push delivery via the active websocket connection, a jurisdictional awareness view comprising an interactive map of multiple initiated emergency communications within the assigned geographical jurisdiction of the first ECC, an automatically populated emergency profile containing medical information and source information, and a list of telephone numbers used to request assistance from the first ECC within the assigned geographical jurisdiction.
These additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are not merely generic computer components used to implement an abstract idea. Instead, the claim recites a particular arrangement of computer-networked components that cooperate in a specific way to improve emergency communication and data management.
Here, the ordered combination of the additional elements noted above provides a specific architecture for automatically delivering jurisdiction-relevant emergency information to a subscribed ECC computing device during an emergency. In particular, claim 1 recites geofence-based jurisdiction determination, association of an emergency location with an ECC account identifier, determination that an ECC computing device is subscribed to the ECC account identifier and maintains an active websocket connection with the ERDP, and automatic push delivery of emergency information to that ECC computing device via the active websocket connection. When considered in combination with the emergency profile containing sourced medical information and the jurisdictional awareness view, these features recite a non-generic arrangement of components that provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea
Regarding (h), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data is received from or outputted to these items represents the abstraction. The locations that the data is received from or outputted to are the additional elements. Even when considered in combination, there is nothing in the ordered combination of additional elements that provides significantly more, nor has the Applicant pointed to any reason why the ordered combination of additional elements provides significantly more. The additional elements are generic computing devices that transmit and receive data in a particular manner (websocket); however, as a person having skill in the art would recognize, there is nothing about this that is non-conventional.
Thus, claim 1 recites a specific way to improve computer-aided emergency response systems. The claim improves how emergency information is obtained, delivered, filtered by jurisdiction, pushed to ECC computing devices, and displayed to emergency personnel. These improvements are rooted in computer networking and emergency communication technology, including geofence-based jurisdiction determination, ECC account identifier association, active websocket subscriptions, automatic push delivery, and technical presentation of emergency information in a graphical user interface. The claim therefore recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Regarding (i), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvements cited are not a physical improvement to the computer as there is no physical improvement claimed. Nor is there improvement to another technology because the claim merely generates and displays data.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-3,5-14,15-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and withdraws the prior art rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Piett et al (US Publication No. 8516122) discloses a method for providing user data to an emergency service provider
Ryan et al (US Publication No. 20170099579) discloses a method and system for tracking and communicating with responders in the event of an emergency situation.
Eisner et al (US Publication No. 20180206100) discloses a method and system for locating a network device in an emergency situation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272 - 6773. 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights