UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/644,524
`
`07/07/2017
`
`Clayton K. Redmon
`
`REDM-POOOlUS
`
`2303
`
`Grable Mart1n Fulton PLLC
`
`2709 Dublin Road
`Plano, TX 75094
`
`NGUYEN, PHUNG HOANG JOSEPH
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2656
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/ 1 1/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`doeketing @ gehub.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/644,524
`Examiner
`PHUNG-HOANGJ NGUYEN
`
`Applicant(s)
`Redmon et al.
`Art Unit
`2656
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 5/6/19.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—32 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) fl is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`E] Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)Ej objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)C] All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OBa and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190702
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 2
`
`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
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Moore et al (US 2015/0371456) in view of Hillstrom (U82002/0002469).
`
`Claim 1, Moore teaches a mobile lawyer system comprising:
`
`at least one video camera configured for mounting inside the passenger
`
`compartment of a vehicle and capture video images of at least one passenger in the
`
`vehicle (in-car device 10 with microphone 16, speaker 18 and at least one camera
`
`20 are included in or connected to device 10, Figs. 1 and 2 and [0014-0017,
`
`[0023]);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 3
`
`a display screen configured for mounting inside the passenger compartment of a
`
`vehicle (display 22 of device 10, Figs. 1 and 2 and [0017]);
`
`a remote server and a database (data captured by camera are transceiving
`
`to/from remote server 14, [0013, 0016]),
`
`While Moore teaches “a mobile device executing a mobile application and in
`
`wireless communication with the video camera and display screen, configured, upon
`
`command from a user, to communicate with the remote server (the portable device
`
`can be a customers personal electronic device such as a mobile smartphone
`
`having its own camera and display screen; the device 10 includes an application
`
`configured to communicate with server 14; figs 1 and 2; and [0017, 0021, 0022]).
`
`Moore does not explicitly discuss “configured to store information about a
`
`plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of jurisdictions;
`
`wherein the remote server is configured to automatically and immediately
`
`determine a location of the vehicle, automatically and immediately identify a jurisdiction
`
`associated with the vehicle location, automatically and immediately identify at least one
`
`lawyer licensed in the identified jurisdiction, and automatically and immediately notify
`
`the at least one identified lawyer”.
`
`Hillstrom teaches a system where the database is configured to store information
`
`about a plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of jurisdictions (The system of the
`
`present invention will have in its database information about the attorneys,
`
`managing attorneys and practicing attorneys. Information should include
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 4
`
`personal information, name, address, how to be contacted. Other information
`
`concerning their legal background also should be inputted. The legal background
`
`should include in what states the attorney is licensed, and the type of law that
`
`they specialize in, [0018, 0034, 0098]).
`
`And furthermore, Hillstrom teaches “wherein the remote server is configured to
`
`automatically and immediately determine a location of the vehicle, automatically fl
`
`immediately identify a jurisdiction associated with the vehicle location, automatically fl
`
`immediately identify at least one lawyer licensed in the identified jurisdiction, and
`
`automatically and immediately notify one of the at least one identified lawyer located
`
`remotely”. Hillstrom’s system is “to select particularly qualified lawyers to pursue,
`
`prosecute, defend and manage legal claims on behalf of clients, [0011]... Prospective
`
`client-users may create and submit a file on-line answering questions that will enable
`
`the system of the present invention to forward the file to an appropriate Managing
`
`Lawyer licensed in an appropriate jurisdiction, [0018]
`
`Prospective clients are enabled
`
`to request to be contacted by a Managing Lawyer licensed in an appropriate state or
`
`states for consultation concerning the particular prospective client and claims, [0022]
`
`and where these particular qualified lawyers can accommodate/work on issues
`
`associated with different states or national laws to server users in disparate
`
`geographical locations, [0034].
`
`While Moore's system is capable of notifying the remote server 14 for
`
`communication with the customer service agent using terminal 24 for communication (If
`
`in-vehicle device 10 detects that vehicle 12 has broken down and is inoperable, device
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 5
`
`10 sends a signal to server 14 indicating the nature of the mechanical problem and the
`
`location of vehicle 12 as determined by GPS data, [0021-0023] and not just live voice
`
`but also live video between the passenger and the customer representative, [0024]).
`
`Moore does not explicitly spell out “notify an attorney”; and the display screen
`
`configured to automatically live-stream a video image of the remote lawyer, and the at
`
`least one video camera is configured to automatically and immediately live-stream video
`
`captured by the at least one video camera for viewing by the remote lawyer and for
`
`storage in the remote database, where the at least one mobile device being configured
`
`to enable bi-directional audio and video communication between the at least one
`
`identified lawyer and the at least one passenger”
`
`Hillstrom teaches the “recording and transmission of live video and audio data of
`
`proceeding, recording and transmission of live video and audio data of proceedings,
`
`including depositions, court hearings, trials, conferences and the like to Managing
`
`Lawyers and Clients, [0067]”
`
`Therefore , it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective
`
`filing date to incorporate the teaching of Hillstrom into the teaching of Moore to match
`
`qualified lawyers who are licensed to practice in an appropriate jurisdiction to the clients
`
`who are involved in a legal matter of said jurisdiction (Hillstrom, [0097]. The benefit of
`
`this matching will contribute to the proceedings of an event, i.e., traffic stop or court
`
`proceeding, with greater transparency within the guideline of the law and certainly to
`
`preserve the originality of the information collect.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 6
`
`Claim 5, The mobile lawyer system of claim 1, wherein the database is
`
`configured to store information about a plurality of licensed lawyers, including in
`
`which jurisdiction where each lawyer is licensed, and contact information for each
`
`lawyer (see claim 1 or Hillstrom, [0098]).
`
`Claim 7. The mobile lawyer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one identified
`
`lawyer is able to receive and view the live-streamed video data of the at least one
`
`passenger on a computing device, which is also configured to capture video images of
`
`the at least one identified lawyer and transmit them to the remote server (Please see
`
`claim 1).
`
`Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Moore in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Hatori et al (US 2015/0015706).
`
`Claim 2, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim
`
`1. Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least one video camera comprises a
`
`360-degree high—definitien video camera configured to capture video images in a
`
`plurality of directions.
`
`Hatori teaches the claimed feature as he discusses “The vehicle interior
`
`camera 70 may be constituted by a 360-degree camera (omnidirectional camera)
`
`in which instance the interior image 71 corresponds to an image taken with
`
`respect to an angular range of from 0 to 180 degrees, and the interior image 72
`
`corresponds to an image taken with respect to an angular range of from 180 to
`
`360 degrees, [0049].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 7
`
`It would have been obvious to ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to
`
`incorporate the teaching of Hatori into the teaching of Moore with a 360-degree camera
`
`in order to provide a more comprehensive and thorough view of the occupants of a
`
`vehicle during video conferencing.
`
`Examiner further notices that Hatori does not spell out the camera being the high
`
`definition one.
`
`It is however an obvious decision for the user to utilize his or her
`
`purchase capability and it would be wise for the developer to leave the choice to the
`
`user as it deems appropriate spending.
`
`Claim 8, Moore in view of Hillstrom, teaches claim 1, Moore does not further
`
`teach at least one video camera configured for mounting outside the passenger
`
`compartment of the vehicle and capture video images of at least one passenger in the
`
`vehicle and surrounding environment.
`
`Hatori teaches “three vehicle exterior cameras 40a, 40b and 400. The exterior
`
`image capturing unit may be constituted either by a single vehicle exterior camera or by
`
`a plurality of vehicle exterior cameras. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle
`
`exterior camera 40a is disposed on a rear end portion of the vehicle roof. The vehicle
`
`exterior camera 40b is disposed on a dashboard, and the vehicle exterior camera 40c is
`
`disposed on a front bumper. Each of the three vehicle exterior cameras 40a, 40b, 40c is
`
`able to image the exterior of the compartment 130 and also to generate a series of
`
`exterior images, [0034].
`
`It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to incorporate the teaching of Hatori into Moore for the purpose of providing some
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 8
`
`exterior camera for capturing the outside surrounding for greater view of conferencing
`
`communication and also for the court proceeding.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Hassan Zureikat (US 2016/0173742).
`
`Claim 3, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim
`
`1. Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least one video camera comprises a
`
`video camera mounted on a drone. Hassan discloses wherein the at least one video
`
`camera comprises a video camera mounted on a drone (a drone equipped with a
`
`camera; abstract; paragraph [0012]).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide at least one video camera comprising a video
`
`camera mounted on a drone, as taught by Hassan Zureikat, in order to provide
`
`expanded functionality by gaining the ability to record video of the immediate area
`
`surrounding a vehicle during video conferencing, especially in remote areas.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Mokashi (US 9,288,446).
`
`Claim 4, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim
`
`1. Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least video camera comprises a
`
`plurality of video cameras mounted on the vehicle configured to capture video images in
`
`a plurality of directions. Mokashi discloses wherein the at least video camera comprises
`
`a plurality of video cameras mounted on the vehicle configured to capture video images
`
`in a plurality of directions (a plurality of additional video cameras fixedly mounted to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 9
`
`mutually differing prescribed locations around an outer periphery of the vehicle in
`
`prescribed orientations providing respective video images of areas around the outer
`
`periphery of the vehicle; claim 1).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide at least video camera comprising a plurality of
`
`video cameras mounted on the vehicle configured to capture video images in a plurality
`
`of directions, as taught by Mokashi, in order to provide a plurality of
`
`different perspectives during video conferencing, so as to offer a more thorough and
`
`comprehensive view of the vehicle.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Yuen (US 2016/0140179).
`
`Claim 6, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim
`
`1. Moore does not further disclose wherein the database is configured to store
`
`encrypted data. Yuen discloses wherein the database is configured to store encrypted
`
`data (a symmetrically encrypted database; abstract; figure 1; paragraph [0032]).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide a database configured to store encrypted data,
`
`as taught by Yuen, in order to provide protection of information subject to the attorney-
`
`client privilege from unauthorized disclosure.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 10
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/19 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues (Remark: pages 8-10) that the combination of Moore and
`
`Hillstrom is improper because the Office Action relies on information solely from the
`
`applicants ‘specification... as stated by MPEP § 2142 that "impermissible hindsight
`
`must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts
`
`gleaned from the prior art" and not from only Applicants' disclosure. (emphasis added).
`
`"Nonobviousness can be shown when a person of ordinary 3 kill in the art would not
`
`have reasonably predicted the claimed invention based on the prior art, and the
`
`resulting invention would not have been expected." MPEP § 2145. Applicants believe
`
`that the Examiner has used the claims as a road map to pick and choose elements of
`
`prior art references to arrive at the combination. There is no motivation or suggestion
`
`within these references to include or implement all of the limitations in claim 1 because
`
`the need for these limitations is lacking for each of the intended goals and purposes of
`
`the prior art.
`
`While examiner can understand the position the applicant takes as MPEP § 2145
`
`states “The tendency td reedtt te "hindeight“ beeed updn eppiicent“e diesieeure is etten
`
`diiticuit to avoid due to the very nature at the examination eteceee. However,
`
`impermissibte hindsight must be avoided and the iegai eeneiusiett must be reached en
`
`the basis at the tecte gieaned ti’CiiTi the pater art”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 11
`
`MPEP § 2145 also states “the exarninet meet step backward in time and ihte the
`
`eheee wern by the hypethetieai ”eereen ei‘ erdinary skiii in the art“ when the invention
`
`was unknown and juet before it wee made. in view at ait feetnai intermatien. the
`
`examiner rntiet then make a determination whether the eieirned inventieh “as a wheie“
`
`wentd have been ebviene at that time tn that pereen. Knewiedge ei apptieant’e
`
`dieeieeare meet be put aeide in reaching this determinatéen, yet kept in mind in erder te
`
`determine the "ethereheee,“ eenduet the search and evaieete the “enhieet matter ae e
`
`whete” of the invention.
`
`With due respect to the applicant and in line with the MPEP and in response to
`
`applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon
`
`improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that anyjudgment on obviousness
`
`is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long
`
`as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the
`
`time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only
`
`from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin,
`
`443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
`
`In this specific case, Moore does not explicitly discuss “configured to store
`
`information about a plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of jurisdictions”. The
`
`rectification is provided by Hillstrom who presents a need to have a lawyer who is
`
`knowledgeable with the local law and guideline so that he or she can help a specific
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 12
`
`client who has encountered a legal matter/issue in that locality where the legal matter
`
`occurred, [0097].
`
`Clearly, Hillstrom’s teaching is based on factual evidence not assumption or any
`
`kind of knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure, rather from the fact of the
`
`prior art. Thus examiner believes that examiner has met the requirement set by the
`
`MPEP “in View at aii iaettiai information, the examiner must then make a determination
`
`whether the eiainieci invention "ae a whoie“ wotiiti have been obvious at that time to that
`
`person. Knowiedge of appiioant’s oisoiosure must be put aside in reaching this
`
`determination, yet kept in mind in order to determine the “ditterenoee,” conduct the
`
`search and eveitiate the "subject matter ae a whoie" of the invention”. As guided by the
`
`MPEP that the comhination/rnoditioatien is soundly established where there is some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves
`
`or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine,
`
`837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21
`
`USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSFi International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`In this case, please see the immediately previous
`
`paragraph.
`
`Apotioante (pages It) further argues that “Moore combined with t-tiiietrom do not
`
`teach or euggeet eii oi the oiaimeo iimitatione in oiaim t. iv‘ioore teaches a eyetem that is
`
`initiated by "an incident eignai from a vehioie“ that indicates a vehioie breakdown or
`
`coiiieion. Paras. {0013] and [0027]. Theretore, ivioere epeoiiioaiiy teaches away item a
`
`driver—initiated communication session. Aithongh Moore‘s system conveys; a GPS
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 13
`
`Eocatien of the vehicte some time during the communication session, the location
`
`information is used by a customer service agent who may then manuaiiy dispatch
`
`assistance to the vehicte‘s tocation it needed. See pate. [$0211. Theretere. Moore’s
`
`system does not “automatically and immediate-31y" communicate the location information
`
`upon receiving a command from the user”.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees and requests the applicant to consult MPEP
`
`2144.04 (Legal Precedence as Source of Supporting Rationale) on Automating a
`
`Manual Activity in view of “In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA
`
`1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding
`
`trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined
`
`“old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically
`
`actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a
`
`predetermined time has elapsed.” The court held that broadly providing an automatic or
`
`mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is
`
`not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.)”.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 14
`
`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 PHUNG-HOANG J. NGUYEN whose telephone number
`
`is (571)270-1949. The examiner can normally be reached on Reg. Sched. 6:00-3:00.
`
`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, Curtis Kuntz can be reached on 571-272—7499. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Page 15
`
`/Phung-Hoang J Nguyen/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket