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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of 17/903,730 filed 09/06/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-18, and 20 of Roper, JR. et al., U.S. Patent 12,358,642. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1-20 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1, 3-18, and 20 of US Patent 12,358,642, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1, 18, and 20.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“determine whether one or more commands received from a remote computing system is an authorized or unauthorized attempt to access data stored by the computing system": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically determine authorized/unauthorized information. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"generate simulated data comprising at least one of simulated navigation data or simulated status data for the command received from the remote computing system": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically create data that is not real (simulated). Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “receive navigation data from one or more sensors connected to the computing system”, “receive status data indicative of operating parameters of the computing system, the navigation data and the status data being measured data”, “send an alert to an authorized user that indicates the unauthorized attempt”, and “send, from among the measured data and the simulated data, the simulated data to the remote computing system and the measured data to the authorized user”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “processors” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Furthermore, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the communication step is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the communication module is conventional transmitter/receiver mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that this is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims: Dependent claims(s) 2-17 and 19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 and 19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 20. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shattil et al. (USPGPub 2020/0382961) in view of Mere at al. (USPGPub 2015/0073691). As per claims 1, 18, and 20, Shattil discloses a computing system comprising one or more processors, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers which, upon such execution, cause the one or more computers to perform operations, where the computing system, the method, and the non-transitory computer readable medium (see at least paragraph 0013) are configured to: receive navigation data from one or more sensors connected to the computing system (see at least paragraph 0118; wherein the system might capture and decode a UAV's raw telemetry data. This can provide not only geolocation of the UAV, but information about the UAV's controller, status of the UAV, and other information); receive status data indicative of operating parameters of the computing system, the navigation data and the status data being measured data (see at least paragraph 0118; wherein the system might capture and decode a UAV's raw telemetry data. This can provide not only geolocation of the UAV, but information about the UAV's controller, status of the UAV, and other information); determine whether one or more commands received from a remote computing system is an authorized or unauthorized attempt to access data stored by the computing system (see at least paragraph 0022; wherein the signal analyzer 114 is shown coupled to a classification database 115. A threat analyzer 132 processes inputs from the signal analyzer 114 and the optional spatial processor 122, and optionally, an input from a sensor data processor 111 coupled to a sensor apparatus, such as a sensor array 101. Outputs from the threat analyzer 132 are coupled to an electronic countermeasure system 142); in response to determining that the one or more commands is an unauthorized attempt, send an alert to an authorized user that indicates the unauthorized attempt (see at least paragraph 0122; wherein threat detection 515 can comprise analyzing sensor data and/or the signal features to determine a threat. A decision process which determines a threat might trigger an alert 515, which may comprise a threat notification that is sent to the system user(s)). Shattil does not explicitly mention generate simulated data comprising at least one of simulated navigation data or simulated status data for the command received from the remote computing system; and selectively send, from among the measured data and the simulated data, the simulated data to the remote computing system. However Mere does disclose: generate simulated data comprising at least one of simulated navigation data or simulated status data for the command received from the remote computing system (see at least paragraphs 0065-0066; wherein a simulator is used which simulates the functioning (or flight) of the aircraft, and said navigation data are applied to said simulator, thereby allowing a path to be defined which is logged as a reference path in said memory 5 via a conventional data transmission connection 13. This reference path is sufficiently consistent with the procedure that it describes that it is able to serve as reference during the preparation and the flight within this procedure. In a particular embodiment, in addition to the reference path, procedural information relating to the procedure is also logged in the on-board memory 5 via the data transmission connection 13); and selectively send, from among the measured data and the simulated data, the simulated data to the remote computing system (see at least paragraphs 0065-0066; wherein a simulator is used which simulates the functioning (or flight) of the aircraft, and said navigation data are applied to said simulator, thereby allowing a path to be defined which is logged as a reference path in said memory 5 via a conventional data transmission connection 13. This reference path is sufficiently consistent with the procedure that it describes that it is able to serve as reference during the preparation and the flight within this procedure. In a particular embodiment, in addition to the reference path, procedural information relating to the procedure is also logged in the on-board memory 5 via the data transmission connection 13) and the measured data to the authorized user (see at least paragraph 0003; wherein required navigation performance with authorization required (RNP AR) operations. These RNP AR operations are based on area navigation (RNAV) and on required navigation performance (RNP) operations. They have the distinctive feature of requiring special authorization in order to be implemented on an aircraft). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Mere with the teachings as in Shattil. The motivation for doing so would have been to
improving the integrity of the guidance based on published procedure during required navigation performance operations, in particular RNP AR operations having low values, see Mere paragraph 0010. As per claim 6, modified Shattil discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor subsequent commands received from the remote computing system; and classify a type of a cyberattack being performed by the remote computing system (see at least paragraph 0122; wherein threat detection 515 can comprise analyzing sensor data and/or the signal features to determine a threat. A decision process which determines a threat might trigger an alert 515, which may comprise a threat notification that is sent to the system user(s)). As per claim 7, modified Shattil discloses wherein classifying the type of the cyberattack being performed by the remote computing system, the one or more processors are further configured to: train, using training data, a machine learning model to detect different cyberattacks, wherein the training data comprises transmissions received during a plurality of different cyberattacks; input the subsequent commands received from the remote computing system into the trained machine learning model; and generate, from the machine learning model, data indicative of the type of the cyberattack being performed by the remote computing system (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein use machine learning and protocol manipulation, such as to detect, identify, track, and mitigate autonomous systems, such as UAVs. Signal detection can be initiated by a triggering event…see at least paragraph 0035; wherein A classification can include either or both a radio protocol classification and a device classification corresponding to the type of the remote-controlled vehicle. A threat analyzer 204 determines if a detected remote-controlled vehicle is a threat based on at least one of remote-sensing data and classification of the detected radio signals. A mitigation engine 205 is responsive to the threat analyzer 204 and configured to produce exploits based on the radio protocol classification, a device classification, and/or the signal features). As per claim 8, modified Shattil discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate, in a virtual machine, data indicative of a simulation of navigating an unmanned vehicle in response to data received from the remote computing system to generate the simulation data; and send the data received from the remote computing system to the authorized user (see at least paragraphs 0113-0114; wherein using machine learning techniques, the mitigation engine 205 can apply different protocol-based exploits against a target, monitor the effects of each exploit, and then adapt exploits as needed. In some aspects, the response being analyzed is the flight of the target. In other aspects, the target's radio behavior is analyzed by the response analyzer 206). As per claim 9, modified Shattil discloses wherein generating the data indicative of the simulation of navigating the unmanned vehicle in response to data received from the remote computing system to generate the simulation data, the one or more processors are configured to: generate data that simulates the unmanned vehicle using a digital twin of the unmanned vehicle; generate data that simulates an environment within which the unmanned vehicle exists; and generate navigational data for the digital twin of the unmanned vehicle to traverse within the generated data that simulates the environment (see at least paragraphs 0113-0114; wherein using machine learning techniques, the mitigation engine 205 can apply different protocol-based exploits against a target, monitor the effects of each exploit, and then adapt exploits as needed. In some aspects, the response being analyzed is the flight of the target. In other aspects, the target's radio behavior is analyzed by the response analyzer 206). As per claim 10, modified Shattil discloses wherein determining whether the one or more commands received from the remote computing system is the authorized or the unauthorized attempt to access the data stored by the computer system, the one or more processors are configured to determine that an unmanned vehicle that comprises the computing system is deviating from a flight plan (see at least paragraphs 0113-0114; wherein using machine learning techniques, the mitigation engine 205 can apply different protocol-based exploits against a target, monitor the effects of each exploit, and then adapt exploits as needed. In some aspects, the response being analyzed is the flight of the target. In other aspects, the target's radio behavior is analyzed by the response analyzer 206). As per claim 11, modified Shattil discloses wherein determining whether the one or more commands received from the remote computing system is the authorized or the unauthorized attempt to access the data stored by the computer system, the one or more processors are configured to determine that at least one value of the status data or the navigational data deviates from an acceptable range (see at least paragraphs 0075-0076; wherein the threat analyzer 204 can be configured to observe and evaluate a target's behavior. A target's behavior might include its navigational behavior, such as where the target flies with respect to waypoints and/or other UAVs. A target's behavior might include its radio behavior, such as how frequently it transmits, how frequently it changes channels, and/or at which points during its flight does it communicate. Other behaviors can include the target's attempts to access a radio network, if the target abides by network protocols, and/or if the target's behavior matches a known attack signature. Other types of behavior may be tracked and analyzed. The threat analyzer 204 can be configured to detect anomalous behavior of a target and then generate a notification that the target is a threat). As per claim 12, modified Shattil discloses wherein the acceptable range is user-specific and is determined based on previous navigation data or previous status data associated with a particular authorized user (see at least paragraphs 0075-0076; wherein the threat analyzer 204 can be configured to observe and evaluate a target's behavior. A target's behavior might include its navigational behavior, such as where the target flies with respect to waypoints and/or other UAVs. A target's behavior might include its radio behavior, such as how frequently it transmits, how frequently it changes channels, and/or at which points during its flight does it communicate. Other behaviors can include the target's attempts to access a radio network, if the target abides by network protocols, and/or if the target's behavior matches a known attack signature. Other types of behavior may be tracked and analyzed. The threat analyzer 204 can be configured to detect anomalous behavior of a target and then generate a notification that the target is a threat). As per claim 13, modified Shattil discloses wherein determining whether the one or more commands received from the remote computing system is the authorized or the unauthorized attempt to access the data stored by the computer system, the one or more processors are configured to attempt to identify data spoofing from at least one status sensor or at least one navigational sensor (see at least paragraphs 0113-0114; wherein using machine learning techniques, the mitigation engine 205 can apply different protocol-based exploits against a target, monitor the effects of each exploit, and then adapt exploits as needed. In some aspects, the response being analyzed is the flight of the target. In other aspects, the target's radio behavior is analyzed by the response analyzer 206). As per claim 14, modified Shattil discloses wherein determining whether the one or more commands received from the remote computing system is the authorized or the unauthorized attempt to access the data stored by the computer system, the one or more processors are configured to determine that a particular pattern of requests for navigational data or status data is indicative of a cyberattack (see at least paragraphs 0113-0114; wherein using machine learning techniques, the mitigation engine 205 can apply different protocol-based exploits against a target, monitor the effects of each exploit, and then adapt exploits as needed. In some aspects, the response being analyzed is the flight of the target. In other aspects, the target's radio behavior is analyzed by the response analyzer 206). As per claim 17, Mere discloses wherein selectively sending the simulated data to the remote computing system and the measured data to the authorized user, the one or more processors are configured to: select, from among the measured data and the simulated data, at least a portion of the simulated data for sending to the remote computing system; send, to the remote computing system, the selected simulated data including the one or both of the simulated navigation data and the simulated status data; select, from among the measured data and the simulated data, at least a portion of the measured data; and send, to the authorized user, the selected measure data (see at least paragraphs 0065-0066; wherein a simulator is used which simulates the functioning (or flight) of the aircraft, and said navigation data are applied to said simulator, thereby allowing a path to be defined which is logged as a reference path in said memory 5 via a conventional data transmission connection 13. This reference path is sufficiently consistent with the procedure that it describes that it is able to serve as reference during the preparation and the flight within this procedure. In a particular embodiment, in addition to the reference path, procedural information relating to the procedure is also logged in the on-board memory 5 via the data transmission connection 13…see at least paragraph 0003; wherein required navigation performance with authorization required (RNP AR) operations. These RNP AR operations are based on area navigation (RNAV) and on required navigation performance (RNP) operations. They have the distinctive feature of requiring special authorization in order to be implemented on an aircraft).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shattil et al. (USPGPub 2020/0382961), in view of Mere at al. (USPGPub 2015/0073691), and further in view of Gong et al. (USPGPub 2017/0004662). As per claim 15, Shattil and Mere do not explicitly mention wherein the status data comprises at least one of temperature data, a voltage output, an electrical current output, vibrational data, tachometric output, or a log of control commands. However Gong does disclose: wherein the status data comprises at least one of temperature data, a voltage output, an electrical current output, vibrational data, tachometric output, or a log of control commands (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein vehicle status data including temperature data…see at least paragraph 0008; wherein recording the operation commands). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Gong with the teachings as in Shattil and Mere. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving recordation of operation history, see Gong paragraph 0004. As per claim 16, Shattil and Mere do not explicitly mention wherein the navigational data comprises at least one of camera data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, ranging data, or global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. However Gong does disclose: wherein the navigational data comprises at least one of camera data, accelerometer data, gyroscopic data, ranging data, or global positioning system (GPS) coordinates (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein vehicle operation data recorded by a vehicle operation data recorder further comprises vehicle status data relating to one or more environmental parameters or operation processes of the vehicle. The vehicle status data relating to one or more environmental parameters may comprise one or more of a location of the vehicle, outside temperature, wind speed, and detection of precipitation. The vehicle status data relating to one or more operation processes may comprise one or more of an acceleration of the vehicle, angular acceleration of the vehicle, speed of the vehicle, position of the vehicle, location of the vehicle, altitude of the vehicle, a position of a vehicle actuator, a flap setting of an aircraft, performance of an engine, running speed of an engine, power output of an engine, a charge percentage of a battery, vehicle cabin pressure, and vehicle cabin temperature. In some embodiments, a remotely controlled vehicle further comprises a camera, and the vehicle status data further comprises one or more pictures taken by the camera of a surrounding environment of the vehicle). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Gong with the teachings as in Shattil and Mere. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving recordation of operation history, see Gong paragraph 0004.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach a storage comprising a plurality of security tiers, a first security tier of the plurality having a first level of data security and a second security tier having a second level of data security that has at least one additional security requirement relative to the first level of data security. Claims 3-5 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2013/0322634 – Provide a context-aware voice guidance method is provided that interacts with other voice services of a user device. The voice guidance does not provide audible guidance while the user is making a verbal request to any of the voice-activated services. Instead, the voice guidance transcribes its output on the screen while the verbal requests from the user are received. In some embodiments, the voice guidance only provides a short warning sound to get the user's attention while the user is speaking on a phone call or another voice-activated service is providing audible response to the user's inquires. The voice guidance in some embodiments distinguishes between music that can be ducked and spoken words, for example from an audiobook, that the user wants to pause instead of being skipped. The voice guidance ducks music but pauses spoken words of an audio book in order to provide voice guidance to the user. USPGPub 2018/0259341 – Provide a navigation system and, more particularly, to methods and systems for adaptive navigation for airborne, ground, and dismount (soldiers) applications, where the navigation system is operable in both GPS-available and GPS-denied environments, and the system performs adaptive filtering and fusion of all sensed signals, information sources, and databases that may be available on a single or multiple cooperative platforms to compute a positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights