Patent Application 14404977 - METHOD FOR PROVIDING PRIVACY PROTECTION IN

Title: METHOD FOR PROVIDING PRIVACY PROTECTION IN NETWORKED LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEMS

Application Information

Invention Title: METHOD FOR PROVIDING PRIVACY PROTECTION IN NETWORKED LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEMS
Application Number: 14404977
Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2014-12-02T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2014-12-02T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 726
National Sub-Class: 026000
Examiner Employee Number: 90693
Art Unit: 2433
Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.

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.

Claims filed on 04/16/2025 have been acknowledged. Claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 16 have been amended. Claim 6, 10, 21 23-24 are cancelled. Claim 1, 11 and 16 are independent claim.

Priority
The application is a section 371 national stage application of International Application No. PCT/IB2013/054586 filed on June 4, 2013, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.61/655,029, filed on June 4, 2012.

Remarks and Response
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendments on 04/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
On pages 8 of the remarks, applicant argued that Frank does not teach “providing an interface to the individual by which the individual can select various privacy settings pertaining to the data”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Frank, ¶[0019], PPC source device may include cell phone, cameras, electronic watches, electronic tags, RFID chips operable to participate in personal preference customization. Frank, ¶[0020], PPC sink device may include lighting/temperature/environment control system, audio or video system, seating control system, vehicles, electronic display with aspects suitable for personal preference customization. Frank, ¶[0030], personal preference technologies for transient environment customization generally enable a person or other entity to interact with PPC enabled devices to have an environment customized in various ways to conform to the preferences of the entity. Jim carries a PPC enabled cell phone and Jim’s office is also PPC enabled. Jim’s cell phone includes personal preference information for lighting, temperature, ergonomic setting and corresponding systems in Jim’s office are operable to support such personal preference data.
From the above teaching from Frank, it is clear that some devices are PPC source device and some are PPC sink device. The individual/user/owner is provided an interface to the source devices to select various privacy setting according to their choice. This choice is dependent on the collection of data related to the individual/user/owner. Then PPC sink device examines the personal preference data and applies any data relevant resulting in conformance to user’s preference.

On pages 8 of the remarks, applicant argued that nothing in Frank seems to relate to the collection of data related to an individual. In contrast, Frank transmits personal preference customization (PPC) to environments, devices and systems so that the environment can be customized.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The source PPC devices is programmed with personal information that are related to the collection of data from an individual. The sink PPC device applies those preferences resulting in conformance. Frank, ¶[0031], when Jim is in his office, the office lighting, the operation of his desk phone and cell phone, the wallpaper on any computers or other wallpaper-enabled devices he is using, and his chair height, are all automatically adjusted to conform to his preferences based as appropriate on the time or day and any other conditions indicated by the personal preference data stored on Jim’s cell phone.
The claim simply recites “select various privacy settings pertaining to the collection of data”. Jim is selecting temperature on source PPC device based on the time of day/year. Frank, ¶[0031], Jim prefers an office temperature of 70 degrees in the morning and a cooler 66 degrees after lunch and lower chair height setting in the morning and a taller chair height setting in the afternoon. The claim never recites that environment can not be customized by transmitting preference data. The claim only recites to select privacy setting pertaining (that is appropriate, applicable or related) to the collection of data (here collection of data is user’s preference e.g. day/night, morning/afternoon, chair’s height etc).

On pages 9 of the remarks, applicant argued that combination of Frank and Siegel fails to teach “storing the data but disabling a logging function of privacy sensitive data elements or removing privacy sensitive data from the data”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Siegel, ¶[0033], permissions specify the type of access that is granted to a client. The permission includes delete access. Delete access allows a client to delete data within the associated unit. ¶[00223], to get information regarding a user, the response to the request hinges on what permissions mean. The protocol describes getting and retrieving the permissions based on information that is stored. ¶[0024], the database holds user profile and permission information. Thus user may store privacy data in the database, but user can disable the permission to log in to any privacy information or edit them or remove them.
Moreover, Frank, ¶[0034], teaches when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded which is mapped to disabling logging to any private information.

The For the entire above reasons, examiner maintains the rejection.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112

The following is a quotation of the second paragraph 35 U.S.C. 112:
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “in which data related to the individual”. Claim 1 further recites “pertaining to the collection of the data”. It is not clear to the examiner if “data related to the individual” is same as “the data”. Thus the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “stored by a control system”. Claim 2 recites “the lighting control system”.
Claim 2-3, 8-9 recite “the data”. It is not clear to the examiner if “data related to the individual” is same as “the data”.
Claim 1 recites “privacy of an individual”. Claim 2 recites “an individual’s work space. It is not clear if both individual are same entity. Claim 7-9 recites “that individual”.
Claim 7 recites “for which data associated with”. Not sure which data.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Claim 1, 3-5, 11-16 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0155429 A1) in view of Siegel (US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0143961 A1).

Regarding Claim 1, Frank discloses a method for protecting the privacy of an individual in a space in which data related to the individual is capable of being collected and stored by a lighting control system, the method comprising (Frank, ¶[0030], personal preference technologies for transient environment customization generally enable a person or other entity to interact with PPC-enabled devices to have an environment customized in various ways to conform to the preferences of the entity):
providing an interface to the individual by which the individual can select various privacy settings pertaining to the collection of the data (Frank, ¶[0030]-¶[0031], when Jim is in his office, the office lighting, the operation of his desk phone and cell phone, the wallpaper on any computers or other wallpaper-enabled devices he is using, and his chair height, are all automatically adjusted to conform to his preferences based as appropriate on the time or day and any other conditions indicated by the personal preference data stored on Jim’s cell phone. ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies),
recording one or more selections made by the individual (Frank, ¶[0067], each such record is typically evaluated to determine if the specified preference, typically indicated via a preference ID. A lighting control system may be able to honor an ambient lighting preference but may not be able to honor a music type preference. The lighting control system may not honor an ambient lighting preference due to a failed authorization or validation attempt);
Frank does not explicitly disclose the following limitation that Siegel discloses:
wherein the privacy settings include, storing the data but disabling a logging function of privacy sensitive data elements or removing privacy sensitive data from the data (Siegel, ¶[0006], a user profile is provided to hold information regarding a user. A set of permissions is established for the user profile. The set of permissions specifies who may access the user profile and may also specify what type of access is granted. ¶[0008], the permissions are set relative to a given service provider so as to prevent access to at least one selected field and to grant access to at least one given field in the user profile to support an anonymous transaction (a transaction where the user’s identity is not revealed). ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile);
storing the data and modifying the data according to the recorded selections (Siegel, ¶[0006], a user profile is provided to hold information regarding a user. A set of permissions is established for the user profile. The set of permissions specifies who may access the user profile and may also specify what type of access is granted. ¶[0008], the permissions are set relative to a given service provider so as to prevent access to at least one selected field and to grant access to at least one given field in the user profile to support an anonymous transaction (a transaction where the user’s identity is not revealed). ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile);
Frank in view of Siegel are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing interaction with controllable networks to relate to the management and handling of preference settings for users”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Frank with the teaching in Siegel to include the idea of access control protocol for user profile management. The user profiles may contain information that is accessible by multiple service providers. The user may have control over the permissions that specify what clients have permission to access information in the user profile (Siegel, ¶[0004]).

Regarding claim 3, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the data is collected by one or more devices, wherein said non-lighting devices are selected from the group consisting of a camera, a sensor, a dimming ballast, a user interface, motorized blinds, and combinations thereof (Frank, ¶[0079], output components may include sensors).

Regarding claim 4, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the method of claim 3 wherein said sensors are selected from the group consisting of an occupancy sensor, a motion detector, a light sensor, a thermal sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and combinations thereof (Frank, ¶[0079], output components may include sensors).

Regarding claim 5, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising reporting of any collected data in accordance with the recorded selections (Frank, ¶[0071], Bob enters his office with a personal temperature preference of 70 degrees, this preference is applied to the office’s temperature control system which sets the office temperature to conform to the preference. Also Siegel, ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile).

Regarding claim 11, Frank discloses a lighting control system that provides protection of the privacy of an individual in which data is capable of being collected and stored by the lighting control system, the lighting control system comprising (Frank, ¶[0030], personal preference technologies for transient environment customization generally enable a person or other entity to interact with PPC-enabled devices to have an environment customized in various ways to conform to the preferences of the entity):
a plurality of devices for which the data related to the area can be obtained (Frank, Fig-1, abstract);
a network for communicating the data to a computer (Frank, Fig-1, abstract);
an interface to provide the individual a menu by which the individual can select various privacy settings relate to the collection of data (Frank, ¶[0030]-¶[0031], when Jim is in his office, the office lighting, the operation of his desk phone and cell phone, the wallpaper on any computers or other wallpaper-enabled devices he is using, and his chair height, are all automatically adjusted to conform to his preferences based as appropriate on the time or day and any other conditions indicated by the personal preference data stored on Jim’s cell phone. ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies).
Frank does not explicitly disclose the following limitation that Siegel discloses:
wherein the privacy settings include, disabling a logging function of privacy sensitive data elements or removing privacy sensitive data from the data (Siegel, ¶[0006], a user profile is provided to hold information regarding a user. A set of permissions is established for the user profile. The set of permissions specifies who may access the user profile and may also specify what type of access is granted. ¶[0008], the permissions are set relative to a given service provider so as to prevent access to at least one selected field and to grant access to at least one given field in the user profile to support an anonymous transaction (a transaction where the user’s identity is not revealed). ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile);
a database associated with the computer wherein the data is collected and stored, according to the individual’s selected privacy settings for the data (Siegel, ¶[0006], a user profile is provided to hold information regarding a user. A set of permissions is established for the user profile. The set of permissions specifies who may access the user profile and may also specify what type of access is granted. ¶[0008], the permissions are set relative to a given service provider so as to prevent access to at least one selected field and to grant access to at least one given field in the user profile to support an anonymous transaction (a transaction where the user’s identity is not revealed). ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile);
Frank in view of Siegel are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing interaction with controllable networks to relate to the management and handling of preference settings for users”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Frank with the teaching in Siegel to include the idea of access control protocol for user profile management. The user profiles may contain information that is accessible by multiple service providers. The user may have control over the permissions that specify what clients have permission to access information in the user profile (Siegel, ¶[0004]).

Regarding claim 12, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the lighting control system of claim 11 wherein one or more the plurality of devices are selected from of a camera, a sensor, a user interface, motorized blinds, and combinations thereof (Frank, ¶[0079], output components may include sensors).

Regarding claim 13, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the lighting control system of claim 12 wherein the sensors are selected from an occupancy sensor, a motion detector, a light sensor, a thermal sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and combinations thereof (Frank, ¶[0079], output components may include sensors).

Regarding claim 14, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the lighting control system of claim 11 wherein the computer generates collected data reports in accordance with said selections (Frank, ¶[0079], output components may include sensors. Siegel, ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile).

Regarding claim 15, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the lighting control system of claim 11 wherein the interface for providing the individual a menu is selected from a special purpose or general purpose processing system, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a palm computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart phone, and combinations thereof (Frank, ¶[0030]-¶[0031], when Jim is in his office lighting, the operation of his desk phone and cell phone, the wallpaper on any computers or other wallpaper-enabled devices he is using, and his chair height, are all automatically adjusted to conform to his preferences based as appropriate on the time or day and any other conditions indicated by the personal preference data stored on Jim’s cell phone. ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies).

Regarding claim 16, Frank discloses a computer-readable, non-transitory medium having stored therein instructions for causing at least for protecting the privacy of an individual in which data is capable of being collected and stored by a lighting control system, wherein the data comprises information related to non-lighting devices in the space, the method comprising (Frank, ¶[0030], personal preference technologies for transient environment customization generally enable a person or other entity to interact with PPC-enabled devices to have an environment customized in various ways to conform to the preferences of the entity):
providing an interface to the individual by which the individual can select various privacy settings pertaining to the data (Frank, ¶[0030]-¶[0031], when Jim is in his office, the office lighting, the operation of his desk phone and cell phone, the wallpaper on any computers or other wallpaper-enabled devices he is using, and his chair height, are all automatically adjusted to conform to his preferences based as appropriate on the time or day and any other conditions indicated by the personal preference data stored on Jim’s cell phone. ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies);
recording one or more selections made by the individual (Frank, ¶[0067], each such record is typically evaluated to determine if the specified preference, typically indicated via a preference ID. A lighting control system may be able to honor an ambient lighting preference but may not be able to honor a music type preference. The lighting control system may not honor an ambient lighting preference due to a failed authorization or validation attempt);
Frank does not explicitly disclose the following limitation that Siegel discloses:
wherein the privacy settings include, storing the data but disabling a logging function of privacy sensitive data elements or removing privacy sensitive data from the data (Siegel, ¶[0006], a user profile is provided to hold information regarding a user. A set of permissions is established for the user profile. The set of permissions specifies who may access the user profile and may also specify what type of access is granted. ¶[0008], the permissions are set relative to a given service provider so as to prevent access to at least one selected field and to grant access to at least one given field in the user profile to support an anonymous transaction (a transaction where the user’s identity is not revealed). ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile);
storing the collected and stored according to the recorded selections for the data (Siegel, ¶[0006], a user profile is provided to hold information regarding a user. A set of permissions is established for the user profile. The set of permissions specifies who may access the user profile and may also specify what type of access is granted. ¶[0008], the permissions are set relative to a given service provider so as to prevent access to at least one selected field and to grant access to at least one given field in the user profile to support an anonymous transaction (a transaction where the user’s identity is not revealed). ¶[0032], Fig-5, a user profile includes a name field, an address field and a phone number field. Permissions are stored for the user profile. The permissions for the user profile include a user ID that specifies a unique identifier for the user associated with the user profile).
Frank in view of Siegel are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing interaction with controllable networks to relate to the management and handling of preference settings for users”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Frank with the teaching in Siegel to include the idea of access control protocol for user profile management. The user profiles may contain information that is accessible by multiple service providers. The user may have control over the permissions that specify what clients have permission to access information in the user profile (Siegel, ¶[0004]).

Regarding claim 22, Frank in view of Siegel discloses the method of claim 1, further including providing, by the lighting control system, the collected data in the space to an operational management system for analysis, with or without identity information of the individual associated to the collected data based on the recorded selection (Frank, ¶[0067], each such record is typically evaluated to determine if the specified preference, typically indicated via a preference ID. A lighting control system may be able to honor an ambient lighting preference but may not be able to honor a music type preference. The lighting control system may not honor an ambient lighting preference due to a failed authorization or validation attempt).

Claim 2 and 7-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0155429 A1) in view of Siegel (US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0143961 A1) and further in view of Lee (US Patent Publication No. US 2003/0227439 A1).

Regarding claim 2, Frank in view of Siegel does not disclose the following limitation that Lee discloses:
the method of claim 1 wherein the lighting control system is a Hybrid Integrated Lighting and Daylight Control system and the data relates to an individual's work space (Lee, ¶[0021], Rooms R1 and R2 have cameras, heating units, speakers lights. ¶[0023], lines may be input to a separate lighting controller that provides the appropriate dimming control signals to L1 and L2).
Frank in view of Siegel and Lee are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing interaction with controllable lighting networks”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Frank with the teaching in Siegel and Lee to include the idea of preferred level of interactivity with controllable lighting network to exercise the control of network’s reaction to user’s preference to achieve better efficiency of the existing system.

Regarding claim 7, Frank in view of Siegel and Lee discloses the method of claim 3 wherein the privacy settings comprise an option, whereby the individual can specify one or more categories for which data associated with the individual’s work space is incapable of being linked to the individual’s work space and the method further including the step of removing the individual’s identify information from the devices collection of data for that individual (Frank, ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies).

Regarding claim 8, Frank in view of Siegel and Lee discloses the method of claim 2 wherein the privacy settings comprise an option, whereby the individual can limit what purposes the is permitted to be used and the method further including the step of restricting use of the data for that individual to predetermined uses (Frank, ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies).

Regarding claim 9, Frank in view of Siegel and Lee discloses the method of claim 2 wherein the privacy settings comprise an option, whereby the individual can specify one or more data element categories for which data associated with the individual’s work space is permitted and the method further including the step of allowing use of the data from the devices collection of data for that individual to predetermined uses (Frank, ¶[0034],when Jim returns the rental car, all of Jim’s PPC settings are automatically discarded. ¶[0072]- ¶[0073], restoring default settings once a preference no longer applies).

Claim 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0155429 A1) in view of Siegel (US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0143961 A1) and in further view of Verfuerth (US Patent Publication No. US 2012/0040606 A1).

Regarding claim 17, Frank in view of Siegel does not disclose the following limitation that Verfuerth teaches:
the method of claim 1 wherein the lighting control system relates to an outdoor lighting facility (Verfuerth, abstract, outdoor lighting fixture includes a first ballast for controllably providing power to at least a lamp for illuminating an outdoor area).
Frank in view of Siegel and Verfuerth are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing interaction with controllable lighting networks”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Frank with the teaching in Siegel and Verfuerth to include the idea of preferred level of interactivity with controllable lighting network to exercise the control of network’s reaction to user’s preference to make the existing system more efficient.

Regarding claim 18, Frank in view of Siegel does not disclose the following limitation that Verfuerth teaches:
the method of claim 17 wherein the data relates to one or more outdoor areas in proximity to an individual's home (Verfuerth, abstract, outdoor lighting fixture includes a first ballast for controllably providing power to at least a lamp for illuminating an outdoor area).

Regarding claim 19, Frank in view of Siegel does not disclose the following limitation that Verfuerth teaches:
the method of claim 17 wherein the data relates to one or more outdoor areas in proximity to an individual's workplace (Verfuerth, abstract, outdoor lighting fixture includes a first ballast for controllably providing power to at least a lamp for illuminating an outdoor area).
Regarding claim 20, Frank in view of Siegel does not disclose the following limitation that Verfuerth teaches:
the system of claim 11 wherein one or more of the plurality of devices is located within outside lighting units (Verfuerth, abstract, outdoor lighting fixture includes a first ballast for controllably providing power to at least a lamp for illuminating an outdoor area).

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIKA NIPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8923. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7:30 - 5:00). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFRY PWU can be reached on 571-272-6798. 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.

/WASIKA NIPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433